4 ms·

Bombers require unpressurized bomb bays. The B-52 is built completely unlike any Boeing airliner. The fuselage is significantly different than an airliner and t

Bombers require unpressurized bomb bays. The B-52 is built completely unlike any Boeing airliner. The fuselage is significantly different than an airliner and the structural changes would not be trivial to implement. They also need to have control surfaces designed to take off with a full load and land empty. Airliners don't have to take that into consideration.

jojobas 1y ago
B-52 was designed in the 40's. Much has changed since and a lot of things that had to be figured out by costly experimentation are much easier and completely calculated. Sure the resulting plane would not be optimized in a lot of aspects but they could do it.
- distances 1y ago
  Russia can't currently design and produce a new tank. I very much doubt they could create a new bomber model that would actually work.
  - tim333 1y ago
    Bombers in the traditional sense of dropping bombs over a target seem almost a thing of a past these days due to missile defences. Russia has been using them as a platform to launch missiles from from a distance.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      Moscow has also been making extensive use of glide bombs and is introducing a new glide bomb that can glide farther.
      - greedo 1y ago
        And those are almost exclusively launched by SU-27 derivatives, not strategic bombers like the TU-22m, TU-160 or TU-95.
greedo 1y ago
The P8-Poseiden is based on the Boeing 737. It can carry missiles like the AGM84 Harpoon externally, and also has an internal bomb bay for torpedoes and mines. Converting a modern airliner design to a cruise missile carrier would be a trivial exercise for most industrial societies. Russia would struggle though...
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  The Poseidon is a maritime patrol aircraft, and Harpoons are significantly smaller (1600 pounds) than even modern JASSMs (2600 pounds) or Kh-15 (2600 pounds), let alone much more capable cruise missiles and weapons like the Russian Kinzhal (9500 pounds) or the Indian Brahmos (6600 pounds). >Converting a modern airliner design to a cruise missile carrier would be a trivial exercise for most industrial societies. This wasn't even true when Boeing themselves presented turning 747s into cruise missile carriers. Instead, the US has put pallets of missiles into cargo aircraft, which is a much simpler option, though most countries have very few cargo airplanes! Absolutely nothing about modern airliners translates to strategic bombers, this is true even if you just treat them as missile trucks. Indeed, the soviets went the other direction, building the Tu-104 airliner out of the Tu-16 bomber, and it was pretty bad. The differences and optimizations of the two platforms have only diverged even more since then.
  - greedo 1y ago
    The Poseidon can carry the LRASM, which is a longer ranged version of the JASSM-ER, weighing in at over 2700lbs. True, it's designed as a stealthy anti-ship missile, but a land attack variant would be easy to manage. And the P-8 can carry four LRASM, so carrying capacity isn't an issue (though mount point capacity would be eventually.) Most strategic bombers today are just cruise missile carriers; TU-95, TU-160, B-52, none of these are expected to be penetrating air defenses. The only bombers that are going to venture into an IAD are all stealth. Everything else will just die (and stealth bombers will too, just in lesser numbers). https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea-air-space-2023/2023/04/first-view-of-lrasm-missile-aboard-a-us-navy-p-8a-poseidon/ https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea-air-space-2023/2023...
tzs 1y ago
Instead of modifying the plane to support an unpressurized bomb bay in a pressurized plan could they not pressurize the plane at all, and provide the crew with breathing equipment? > They also need to have control surfaces designed to take off with a full load and land empty. Airliners don't have to take that into consideration. Is it the take off or the landing that would be the problem? If the take off could they use JATO?
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Just so we're clear... the idea here is to take an aircraft: 1) whose structural characteristics were calculated with it pressurized at altitude, and instead fly it unpressurized 2) whose control surfaces were designed for a passenger/cargo load, and instead takeoff at max weight and land at minimum weight, with weight concentrated in bombs 3) with rocket assisted takeoff ? Sure. Sounds great. Will probably, mostly work.
  - tzs 1y ago
    Those structural characteristic calculations for flying pressurized are to calculate whether or not the structure can withstand the massive forces from the pressure differential between the pressurized volumes (cabin and cargo hold) and the outside atmosphere. If you were to fly it unpressurized there would be no such massive forces because there would be no pressure differential. The structural requirements would be the same as they are for when the plane flies unpressurized at low altitudes.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      Wouldn't a pressurized cabin be more rigid than an unpressurized one? Since you're tensioning everything internally?
      - tzs 1y ago
        Probably. Airliners are pressurized to around 0.8 atm when at cruising altitude. The atmospheric pressure around 0.26 atm, so there is a pressure difference of around 0.54 atm. That will cause a considerable outward force on the cabin which would result in a lot of tension. If you didn't pressurize the cabin than the cabin would be at around 0.26 atm, which is the same as the outside air, and so there would not be that large outward force, and so much less tension. But the plane should be fine with that, because that's also the situation in the plane at low altitude.

jojobas 1y ago

B-52 was designed in the 40's. Much has changed since and a lot of things that had to be figured out by costly experimentation are much easier and completely calculated. Sure the resulting plane would not be optimized in a lot of aspects but they could do it.

distances 1y ago
Russia can't currently design and produce a new tank. I very much doubt they could create a new bomber model that would actually work.
- tim333 1y ago
  Bombers in the traditional sense of dropping bombs over a target seem almost a thing of a past these days due to missile defences. Russia has been using them as a platform to launch missiles from from a distance.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    Moscow has also been making extensive use of glide bombs and is introducing a new glide bomb that can glide farther.
    - greedo 1y ago
      And those are almost exclusively launched by SU-27 derivatives, not strategic bombers like the TU-22m, TU-160 or TU-95.

greedo 1y ago

The P8-Poseiden is based on the Boeing 737. It can carry missiles like the AGM84 Harpoon externally, and also has an internal bomb bay for torpedoes and mines. Converting a modern airliner design to a cruise missile carrier would be a trivial exercise for most industrial societies. Russia would struggle though...

mrguyorama 1y ago
The Poseidon is a maritime patrol aircraft, and Harpoons are significantly smaller (1600 pounds) than even modern JASSMs (2600 pounds) or Kh-15 (2600 pounds), let alone much more capable cruise missiles and weapons like the Russian Kinzhal (9500 pounds) or the Indian Brahmos (6600 pounds). >Converting a modern airliner design to a cruise missile carrier would be a trivial exercise for most industrial societies. This wasn't even true when Boeing themselves presented turning 747s into cruise missile carriers. Instead, the US has put pallets of missiles into cargo aircraft, which is a much simpler option, though most countries have very few cargo airplanes! Absolutely nothing about modern airliners translates to strategic bombers, this is true even if you just treat them as missile trucks. Indeed, the soviets went the other direction, building the Tu-104 airliner out of the Tu-16 bomber, and it was pretty bad. The differences and optimizations of the two platforms have only diverged even more since then.
- greedo 1y ago
  The Poseidon can carry the LRASM, which is a longer ranged version of the JASSM-ER, weighing in at over 2700lbs. True, it's designed as a stealthy anti-ship missile, but a land attack variant would be easy to manage. And the P-8 can carry four LRASM, so carrying capacity isn't an issue (though mount point capacity would be eventually.) Most strategic bombers today are just cruise missile carriers; TU-95, TU-160, B-52, none of these are expected to be penetrating air defenses. The only bombers that are going to venture into an IAD are all stealth. Everything else will just die (and stealth bombers will too, just in lesser numbers). https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea-air-space-2023/2023/04/first-view-of-lrasm-missile-aboard-a-us-navy-p-8a-poseidon/ https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea-air-space-2023/2023...

tzs 1y ago

Instead of modifying the plane to support an unpressurized bomb bay in a pressurized plan could they not pressurize the plane at all, and provide the crew with breathing equipment? > They also need to have control surfaces designed to take off with a full load and land empty. Airliners don't have to take that into consideration. Is it the take off or the landing that would be the problem? If the take off could they use JATO?

ethbr1 1y ago
Just so we're clear... the idea here is to take an aircraft: 1) whose structural characteristics were calculated with it pressurized at altitude, and instead fly it unpressurized 2) whose control surfaces were designed for a passenger/cargo load, and instead takeoff at max weight and land at minimum weight, with weight concentrated in bombs 3) with rocket assisted takeoff ? Sure. Sounds great. Will probably, mostly work.
- tzs 1y ago
  Those structural characteristic calculations for flying pressurized are to calculate whether or not the structure can withstand the massive forces from the pressure differential between the pressurized volumes (cabin and cargo hold) and the outside atmosphere. If you were to fly it unpressurized there would be no such massive forces because there would be no pressure differential. The structural requirements would be the same as they are for when the plane flies unpressurized at low altitudes.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    Wouldn't a pressurized cabin be more rigid than an unpressurized one? Since you're tensioning everything internally?
    - tzs 1y ago
      Probably. Airliners are pressurized to around 0.8 atm when at cruising altitude. The atmospheric pressure around 0.26 atm, so there is a pressure difference of around 0.54 atm. That will cause a considerable outward force on the cabin which would result in a lot of tension. If you didn't pressurize the cabin than the cabin would be at around 0.26 atm, which is the same as the outside air, and so there would not be that large outward force, and so much less tension. But the plane should be fine with that, because that's also the situation in the plane at low altitude.