http://warontherocks.com/2016/06/we-already-have-an-arsenal-plane-its-called-the-b-52/

From the above link:




Recently, we made an argument for an upgraded B-52J that explicitly recognized its utility as an arsenal plane. This upgrade proposal focused on recommending key component modernization so that the B-52 could assume the role of flying magazine. It also addressed the attractiveness of the B-52, largely because its airframe life is not in question for the next quarter century, even without structural modification. In execution, the arsenal plane might serve not only as a carrier for scores of weapons, but also as a battlefield network hub.




......




The B-52 has space. Not only does it have two massive external pylons, but it also has a single massive bomb bay. For the sake of visualization, the vast payload bay could accommodate a single MQ-1 Predator-sized aircraft with deployable airfoils. It has the wiring. The wing pylons have eight stations with modern fiber-optic wiring and recent modifications to the weapons bay bring a similar capability to the internal bomb bay. With limited modifications, the Arsenal B-52 offers the mass of fires desired from the concept. The aircraft is renowned as the platform of choice as a stable, easily modifiable launching platform. Existing suspension systems allow a B-52 to carry 20 long-range JASSM-ERs, 80 Small Diameter Bombs, 24 MALD-Js, and comparable numbers of similarly classed weapons. When no longer limited to the current Air Force inventory or the existing bomber paradigm, the Arsenal B-52 could bring twenty HAAWC torpedoes to the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) fight, 66 AMRAAMs to air-to-air combat, or a pair of weapons capable of reaching earth orbit. Equipped with six of the modified surface attack SM-6 missiles, the Arsenal B-52 could deliver a responsive penetrating weapon capability at substantially greater range than allowed by a launch from a surface ship.  After all, the B-52 spends its energy getting the payload to altitude, giving its missiles more energy to spend going further, faster, or both.




......




Lastly, a B-52 carrying AMRAAMs may not possess the kinematic ability to pursue a neutral or even advantageous engagement with an enemy fighter. Shot ranges invariably favor faster and more agile aircraft, which can also pursue an aggressive launch-and-leave profile denied to the B-52. However, the Arsenal B-52 configured with air-to-air missiles during a defensive counterair (DCA) mission untethers the Eagles and Raptors from some defensive munitions. A 2009 report on the F-22 program by the Congressional Research Service stated, "The F-22A Raptor is the Air Force’s primary air superiority fighter, providing unmatched capabilities for air supremacy…and cruise missile defense…”  Cued or operating autonomously (if equipped with a modern radar), the Arsenal B-52 can assume primary responsibility for cruise missile defense, particularly for island bases. An F-22 carries a maximum of six AIM-120 AMRAAMs, setting conditions in which even a four-ship formation of F-22s can shoot themselves dry against a large cruise missile wave without neutralizing enough of the inbound missiles to protect the base from damage. A single B-52 would be much harder to empty, freeing the fighters to move their combat air patrols forward in pursuit of the more important launching platforms.










I have always found this to be an interesting concept, and one that is again being studied.  I rather liked the idea of using a modified 747, but I guess a B-52 would do.








-K




 

Arsenal planes are dumb. ICBMs do everything planes do, and better.  

Except waste money to Lockmart.

Neato burrito excerpt from the article:

- "Equipped with six of the modified surface attack SM-6 missiles, the Arsenal B-52 could deliver a responsive penetrating weapon capability at substantially greater range than allowed by a launch from a surface ship."

I am reminded of John Stillon's 2015 CSBA report on future trends in air-to-air combat. A SM-6/B-52 flying behing F-22/F-35 isn't UCAS ahead of a stealthy flying wing with VLRAAM, but damn if it wouldn't be a neat step along a path to such a capability.

I thought the B1 was the preferred option for AIM-120 mass launches.

Shoot and scoot.

Dan Brown approves this message!

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or ignorant and the problem is on the internet it's impossible to tell.

 

We should completely defund the Flying Club. As long as they don't have pilots, they can keep Cyber and Nukes.

how are they at shooting down incoming missiles?

how are they at loitering and looking for targets of opportunity?

there's plenty of missions an ICBM cannot do, starting with conventional warfare.

There won''t be incoming missiles or targets of opportunity because we'll never fight a nuclear armed power.

ICBM tactical warheads? That would be %10000 more expensive than planes.

HA!

The Air Force would find a way to take a brand new 100 million dollar 747 and make it cost 1.4 billion each.

I don'the know about Dan Brown, but Dale Brown certainly approves!

Flight of the Old Dog is one of my favorite books.

A B-52 did a flyover for today's Victory Day parade

Things like MRBM and IRBM would be excellent for this sort of thing, had we leadership with the balls enough to say "fuck a defunct treaty with a nation that no longer exists" and develop them again in modernized guise.

Arsenal plane concept is dumb.

Their landings are generally a little sketchy.

Oh, I forgot we are at peace with North Korea, and that Iran will never get the bomb.

we will probably also get into some fights with China.

to make a blanket statement of "Never" is silly.

Your pictures are going to require a new thread. Lets see them k thx

That concept was called the B-1R. Think that one through for a second, the aircraft is called the "bone" because that's what you get if you spell out 1. And then they added an R to the end of that. I think someone was fucking with us.

Now that's a hell of an interesting dynamic. Displaying a strategic asset at a parade of a foreign country. What was the local reaction?

How is the B52 a strategic asset?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

An ally that borders our most dangerous and reviled  enemy.

I'm pretty sure anybody,well who isn't a North Korean or some other dreadful thing,who looks up and sees a B-52 pretty much universally goes "WHOA!"

 Especially consider that this is 100% of the Estonian Air Force's jets.All both of them.


 Strykers were the parade too,you can see them in the the background of 1st picture:

When they did the Independence Day parade within rock throwing distance of Russia,they were flying big US flags. I'm not sure if anything needs read into that one way or the other,in regard to showing Russia that Americans are right there or perhaps it was to tone down a bit or other though,to not give Russian trolls "see,now you're occupied again".

Why do we need an arsenal plan when we already have lots of bombers that can launch hurt. Thousands of stand offs alone, let alone JDAMs.

What was the Russian reaction?

I believe it was this...

Old Dog ftw!

  Russian reaction to BALTOPS and Poland's Anakonda exercises was typical "warmongering NATO dangerously threatens peace" etc. NATO sent out a  neat pic of the B-52 with American and Polish F-16s,German Eurofighters and Swedish Gripens.Anakonda had forces from Finland and Sweden in addition to 22 NATO countries,obviously Russia's method of keeping Finland and Sweden away from NATO via bellicosity is working great...

B1-R.



The pure genius of frat boy/Archer-esk humor that is the flying BoneR requires that this happens.  The unofficial slogans and jokes write themselves.

 
I think its the latter.  After all, consider his username.

That's sexy right there.

I would imagine you could build a drone version much cheaper. Without a crew you could make it cheaper and smaller while carrying a larger payload.

Specifically the formation.

Lol



 

The B-52 already carries those things and is a bomber.



The Air Force needs to understand that they themselves are saying the BUFF will be around another twenty five years and upgrade it as such.  Their linked proposal for a J model isn't that revolutionary.  New motors, new jammers, new radar, new avionics, and RVSM are all things that should be done already as sustainment efforts.



 

Ha! In our in a few of our SIM problems were set up so you'd get a plan going then a non-RVSM BUFF comes and fucks it all up

As long as the Air Force has no pilots, it's ok. If they don't have pilots, their culture will change, and they'll supply on demand CAS to everyone regardless of their position on the priority of fires.

Frankly they should be looking ahead and putting in autothrottle while they are at it.



 

What's the least number of hours on one? And how many do we have left?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

I think I'd fly this one