Read the forum code of contact
By: - 23rd October 2014 at 23:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
make it a cargo a/c and i'm with you,
but UAV is much cheaper still, thats why everyone that isnt building them, are asking for them instead
By: - 24th October 2014 at 02:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem with A330 is inability to target on the wing without substantial and time critical help from outside sources. Knowing where the IS technical was 20 minutes ago does you no good. In another thread, mrmalaya posted this Youtube of a B-1 over Kobani, using its Sniper pod to plink IS technicals. An A330 could not do that, especially since the B-1 could be using ESM and radar SAR maps to cue the Sniper pod. Bombers are expensive because they carry a lot of avionics.
Bombers are useful because they can be based far away and don't use up all the nearby airbase ramp space. The down side is tremendous logistics resources required to operate a bomber. A single bomber can carry two days worth of bomb dump production of JDAMs.
By: - 24th October 2014 at 08:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem with A330 is inability to target on the wing without substantial and time critical help from outside sources
Oh don't be so one-dimensional.
If anyone was seriously considering modifying the floor beams, the frames and longerons to accomodate a bomb bay they are sure as hell going to add avionics as appropriate.
The question is - "would it actually work out cheaper?" - the answer being "probably not" (given you are going to have to have at least some pukka bombers in your force anyway).
A better tool for anti insurgency operations would be a high altitude airship, (think HAA/HALE-D) with a large number of (SDBesque) munitions that could be released on demand from the ground then lased to target as appropriate. Unlimited endurance (only needing to come down for replenishment) and air support as immediate as the travel time from airship to ground.
By: - 24th October 2014 at 08:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Someone at the MOD is already way ahead of you:
Sort of....
By: - 24th October 2014 at 09:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A better tool for anti insurgency operations would be a high altitude airship, (think HAA/HALE-D) with a large number of (SDBesque) munitions that could be released on demand from the ground then lased to target as appropriate. Unlimited endurance (only needing to come down for replenishment) and air support as immediate as the travel time from airship to ground.
The downside being that they are a sitting duck
By: - 24th October 2014 at 10:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
See 0:45.
By: - 24th October 2014 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The downside being that they are a sitting duck
At 70k ft?
By: - 24th October 2014 at 12:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
how would you make out the difference between an umbrella and an AK-47 at 70k ft ?
By: - 24th October 2014 at 12:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surely the 70000ft bit applies to the airship rather than the sensors necessarily?
By: - 24th October 2014 at 15:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Getting back to the original question, actually yes a "bomberized" biz jet, cargo aricraft or airliner could have worked just fine for much of the action in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course the proper armament, sensors and a bit of self protection would need to be fitted, but an airliner derived aircraft could give good loiter and transit capabilities. Permissive environment is the key. For much of the time the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been in a permissive environment. The air-to-air threat was neutralized in the first few days, and much of the anti-air missiles soon thereafter. MANPADs still a threat. So in this type of environment a "poor man's bomber" of a bombed up airliner/cargo/bizjet with proper sensors could likely operate just fine at medium altitudes. The proper sensors/targeting pods are expensive, but have been intergrated onto older airframes (B-1, B-52, A-10, Harrier etc), so it can be done.
The armed KC-130J is a perfect example. The US Marine Corps C-130's are normally trash haulers, but can now carry hellfires to good effect- in the right threat environment.
So the B-2, B-52 and B-1 found themsleves acting as bomb trucks for carrying lots of precision weapons on long sorties. Much of their high tech capabilty was not needed (such as Stealth in the B-2, low altitude penetration, etc) for the environment. Perhaps overkill for the mission, but you fight with what you have.
The problem is if the threat changes, the poor mans bomber could quickly find it's self vulnerable. Few want to build a "bomber" that can only operate in a low threat enviroement- perhaps if we knew the war was going to go on for such a long time.....
By: - 24th October 2014 at 15:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I for one would be thrilled to see the UK pour more of its diminishing resources into imperial policing projects like a modified A330 at the expense of real combat platforms. It would represent a further step* along the road to complete dependence on the United States.
* The existing cost of the UK's imperial burden can be seen in the fact that the RN has 19 surface combatants while Japan operates 44 on a lower defence budget. TANSTAAFL.
By: - 24th October 2014 at 16:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
how would you make out the difference between an umbrella and an AK-47 at 70k ft ?
The targets are acquired and the weapons guided entirely from the ground.
By: - 24th October 2014 at 19:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is the answer to the original question, if there were a number of them available would P8's not make a good bomb carrying and appropriately dispensing platform and if it could perform the task appropriately would its total mission costs be lower than that of a B1B, B52 or B2B?
I would say yes, the P-8 (with the right targeting pod and comms gear to talk to ground troops- not sure what it has) would be a great example of a lower tech "bomber" in a permissive environment, and once in full service would likely have lower "mission costs" than the real bombers, especially in terms of fuel burn and maintainence hours per flight hour. The B-1 and B-2 in particular have high maintenence hours. The P-8 does have a larger crew so personell costs are higher (could leave some of the sensor operators at home- not too many submarines in the 'stan). Might even be willing to base them closer to the theatre, further reducing costs. Bombers tend to operate from only select bases- some quite a distance away. P-8 may be less offence to a host nation for basing- just a benign MPA....
By: - 24th October 2014 at 19:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't forget transit time.
The B1 is good for CAS because of its unique capabilities (payload, crew, time on station and... speed). TIC dictate the need to be reactive.
The C130 fulfill another need: loitering. Basically the C130 is an area support item for a defensive posture or a planed action (I guess). You won't send a C130 150mi away to support troops ambushed and under fire. You call a fast jet (and then subsequent support).
Regarding the B330, man have to understand that that kind of plane are not built to do aggressive maneuver repeatedly or fly low for extensive period. Basically, you'd have to redesign it from scratch. Of course at the end it won't cost as much as a 6th generation Stealth Bomber but don't expect tremendous saving doing so. This is what Boeing have gone through with the P8 and the KC46*.
*If Airbus had been serious about its reply to the RFP, the overall price would have been much closer to what the USAF will ultimately pay.
By: - 24th October 2014 at 19:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the scenario the air forces face recently, the whole idea is about not having to do agressive manouvers anyway. nor is it supposed to fly low.
there's no air threat, and no air defenses to speak of as soon as you fly above 10-15 000 ft... a modified A330 would loiter at high altitudes, say 30+ kft where it can stay all day long
for places where battles take place like we have had for some time in syria or irak, you know where the battle unfolds, and you'd send a big heavy aircraft full of small bombs to loiter above the battlefield. when troops on the ground see a target, they'd point it out and the bomber drops required ordnance that's guided by the guys on the ground. The time of reaction would be the time needed for the ordnance to fall to the ground (and you could eventualy even help it by adding a booster, to reduce the delay)
By: - 24th October 2014 at 19:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I for one would be thrilled to see the UK pour more of its diminishing resources into imperial policing projects like a modified A330 at the expense of real combat platforms. It would represent a further step* along the road to complete dependence on the United States.* The existing cost of the UK's imperial burden can be seen in the fact that the RN has 19 surface combatants while Japan operates 44 on a lower defence budget. TANSTAAFL.
Please can a MOD delete this. I'm sick of seeing Rii's racist drivel.
Thanks :)
By: - 25th October 2014 at 06:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You just answered why it is not nor would any one with military experience even think about it.
The problem is if the threat changes, the poor mans bomber could quickly find it's self vulnerable. Few want to build a "bomber" that can only operate in a low threat enviroement- perhaps if we knew the war was going to go on for such a long time.....
By: - 25th October 2014 at 14:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Please can a MOD delete this. I'm sick of seeing Rii's racist drivel.Thanks :)
Well the better solution to your problem would be to learn how to read.
Nic
Posts: 421
By: F35b - 23rd October 2014 at 22:38
I've been trying to find out what the average use the b-1 and b-52 contribute to conflicts current and past 10 years and what their priorities are. Is it the range and loiter time that is the biggest advantage, are they dropping 20 bombs a mission etc.
thinking if it's range and Loiter time a cheaper airline conversion or similar cheap development with the necessary ecm integrated. If the future is large UCAV's then heavy bombers (not including stealth bombers) become not needed. When looking at Iraq and IS battle it seems nearly all partners can deploy is fighter sized aircraft requiring lots of influght refuelling during long mission. It must be cheaper to have an a330 with modification for bomb bay. Thoughts anyone?