What if the B was turned into an "F-52" "F-2".

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

rowbeartoe

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2016, 06:30

Unread post19 Mar 2020, 04:47

Hi everyone.

With a lot of talk of dog fighting becoming a thing of the past I was curious on the thought of our Bombers becoming fighters vs "real" fighters?

4th gen fight- What if a B-52 was modified to fire AA missiles with a radar that can exceed fighters vs other 4th gen fighters such as the F-15/16/18 or any of the non stealth fighters from other countries?

5th gen fight- What if our B-2 stealth bomber was modified to fire AA missiles with a radar that can exceed fighters vs other stealth Jets such as the F-22 or F-35 or any of the "stealth" fighters from other countries?

I bring this up because I think it seems that low speed dog fighting (in terms of agility) now favors other countries for the most part vs F-35 and perhaps even the F-22 (some of those vector fighters from Russia can really be impressive). Now before it gets brought up- I'm making this assumption that a lightly loaded Russian fighter can out fly our fighters in a low speed fight. I'm well aware that armed fully fueled fighters still might favor our jets- but for the sake of this conversation- lets focus on the topic of our B Jets being turned into F Jets.

Thank you.
Offline
User avatar

rowbeartoe

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2016, 06:30

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 18:46

I'm imagining a B-52 with 100 Air to Air missiles being launched non stop at 25 Su-27's 30 miles away. If this thought process is even practical that would require a lot less pilots. I prefer fighter jets, but it seems that with agility in fighters being less desired in favor of stealth and sensors, then why not just make aircraft larger for the role of bombing and air to air? Missiles are more agile and faster than any fighter.

Anyhow, just curious.

Thank you everyone.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4785
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 19:07

This was being discussed at length in another thread too. This is the principle behind the B-1R idea. Look that one up.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3537
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 21:32

rowbeartoe wrote:I'm imagining a B-52 with 100 Air to Air missiles being launched non stop at 25 Su-27's 30 miles away. If this thought process is even practical that would require a lot less pilots. I prefer fighter jets, but it seems that with agility in fighters being less desired in favor of stealth and sensors, then why not just make aircraft larger for the role of bombing and air to air? Missiles are more agile and faster than any fighter.

Anyhow, just curious.

Thank you everyone.

The B-52 would never get within 30 miles of Flankers, without getting shot down, before firing a single missile. It gets even worse when the target is a Su-57/J-20/31.....
As for agility not being important, you do realize that F-22s and F-35s are more agile than the jets they're replacing, right? Our jets aren't at a kinematic disadvantage vs Flankers/Fulcrums/etc....
Offline
User avatar

rowbeartoe

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2016, 06:30

Unread post20 Mar 2020, 21:39

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:This was being discussed at length in another thread too. This is the principle behind the B-1R idea. Look that one up.



Ok- great- thank you!
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 05:07

wrightwing wrote:The B-52 would never get within 30 miles of Flankers, without getting shot down, before firing a single missile.

Unless, we give it MSDM
msdn and sacm.PNG

msdn sacm.PNG
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3906
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 13:45

wrightwing wrote:
rowbeartoe wrote:I'm imagining a B-52 with 100 Air to Air missiles being launched non stop at 25 Su-27's 30 miles away. If this thought process is even practical that would require a lot less pilots. I prefer fighter jets, but it seems that with agility in fighters being less desired in favor of stealth and sensors, then why not just make aircraft larger for the role of bombing and air to air? Missiles are more agile and faster than any fighter.

Anyhow, just curious.

Thank you everyone.

The B-52 would never get within 30 miles of Flankers, without getting shot down, before firing a single missile. It gets even worse when the target is a Su-57/J-20/31.....
As for agility not being important, you do realize that F-22s and F-35s are more agile than the jets they're replacing, right? Our jets aren't at a kinematic disadvantage vs Flankers/Fulcrums/etc....


Your last point is an excellent one, and just one more good reason to keep buying F-35's (and not F-15EX's). The F-15EX may or may not be competitive BVR with most Chinese jets. Even with all the advancements I think it'll still be 50/50. The latest Chinese Flankers and J-10C's have big AESA radars, better RCS reduction measures and most importantly - the PL-15 (and some say 21) missiles. They out-range and are will reach their targets faster than AMRAAM. Only the advent of the AIM-260 is going to guarantee a longer stick, and that's still some ways off.

The F-22/35 can comfortably outclass these jets even with AMRAAM or Perigrine be that BVR, WVR or anywhere in between. Until all F-15's, 16's and 18's are carrying the AIM-260 - it's going to be too close for comfort. That's why we MUST keep buying F-35's at the fastest possible rate IMO...
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3537
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post22 Mar 2020, 07:22

eloise wrote:
Unless, we give it MSDM

I'm not sure I'd want to take those odds, no matter how much Dale Brown technology is added. Flankers would always have contempt of engagement vs a B-52, and they'd require a lot less jamming power due to the RCS differences.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post22 Mar 2020, 08:40

wrightwing wrote:I'm not sure I'd want to take those odds, no matter how much Dale Brown technology is added. Flankers would always have contempt of engagement vs a B-52, and they'd require a lot less jamming power due to the RCS differences.

But imagine you put air to air weapon on bomber with low RCS like B-1, B-21 then add DEW into the mix
11550BD2-D926-40C1-A88D-9179B2598371.jpeg
Offline

boogieman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post01 Apr 2020, 03:04

Neither B2 nor B52 have the kinematic ability to take high pK shots with AMRAAM (which would be their only available AAM for the time being) without exposing themselves to unacceptable risk. The only way you could make such an "arsenal ship" concept remotely viable would be to equip them with a much longer ranged missile (LREW?) to keep them at a distance from enemy fighters. Even then it would probably be prohibitively expensive though.

FWIW F35 and F22 have all the kinematic capabilities they need against modern Flanker variants. What the Russian airshow displays don't tell you is that the Flanker is, frankly, a ~5G limited pig until its auxiliary fuel tank is emptied (leaving ~60% fuel remaining). IIRC it also suffers from G-limits under heavy weapon loads to avoid ripping the wings off the jet(!).

Given the scarcity of AAR assets in red air inventories, this adds up to a situation where enemy Flankers are likely to be quite limited in both their time-on-station and their ability to engage in sustained aggressive maneuvering/use of reheat. Compare this to jets like the F22 and F35 that are 9G capable with a full gas tank + A2A loadout and are supported by immense AAR fleets and the WVR picture becomes quite favourable to the blue side.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post01 Apr 2020, 04:46

Supersonic bones....B-1Apf

Apparently the B-1Bs can be re-engined with afterburners back to the B-1A concept. Adding the gun that Boeing got a patent for as reported by the drive previously below. Revived arsenal ship concept = B-1A pairing fighter or B-1Apf designation.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... th-cannons
Last edited by weasel1962 on 01 Apr 2020, 05:08, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2599
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post01 Apr 2020, 05:05

When did the B-1B lose its afterburners?
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post01 Apr 2020, 05:09

"Enhanced" afterburners to achieve mach 2.2.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3537
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post01 Apr 2020, 06:44

It's not the engines that keep it from hitting M2+. It's the inlets, which were redesigned for lower observabiilty, and low altitude performance.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post01 Apr 2020, 08:01

Physics does not apply to the B-1Apf.
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests