[pretzel]

What I don't get is, if it is such a simple aircraft - pretty much an airliner with the passenger section being a bomb bay - and we're pretty good at making airliners these days - why don't they as a short term stop gap just turn an airliner airframe into a bomber?

With modern materials, avionics and engines you could have a aircraft that flies faster and more efficiently, thus able to fly further and for less ongoing maintenance cost. I also imagine training would be simpler, if it meant they didn't have to train pilots with slide rules...

[jonathankoren]

You would think right?

For a parallel, let's look at the state of the USAF tanker fleet ("Nobody kicks ass without tanker gas!") The workhorse of the fleet is the pride of 1957, the KC-135. They're old, and so the Air Force wants to replace them, with the KC-46, which is pretty much a Boeing 767 but with seats replaced with big gas tank, and boom off the back. The 767 isn't a new airframe, it's a 30 year old design. And aerial refueling isn't a new technology either. Afterall, the plane that's being replaced has been in service for almost 60 years. Proven airframe. Proven technology. This is a slam dunk right?

Well, no. The KC-46 keeps getting delayed.[1] It's essentially too complicated and too flashy. For exampe, Boeing is ditching the tried and true, and dirt simple system of guiding refueling booms by having a guy look at a window and put the boom into the receptacle, and instead go with some unproven system using an occulus rift and stereo cameras. Why? I don't know. I guess because it's "high tech".

And do you want to know the most damning part of all? Boeing currently sells the KC-767, a refueling tanker based on the 767 airframe, that not only works, but is cheaper than the KC-46, and available today!

It's almost as bad as the F-35 debacle, but not quite.

Honestly, I don't think the military knows how to buy anything, and the contractors take advantage of that. It's Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex writ large.

[1] http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/broken-booms-why-is-it-so-h... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus

[antubbs]

The hilarious thing is that the KC-46 is basically a means of keeping the Boeing 767 production line open and operating and producing airplanes even though Boeing has replaced it with the 777 and 787 for commercial customers. They may be new production aircraft, but they are not modern in any sense of the word. See also: The POTUS being about the only customer actually interested in purchasing the 747-8i these days.

[engi_nerd]

Question: is Boeing pushing this high tech approach, or are they just designing and building to match a requirement?

In other words, is the government dumb enough to ask for it and pay for it, or is Boeing just out to lunch?

[jonathankoren]

That's a good question. Either way, it doesn't look good for the military. Either they're snowed or stupid.

[engi_nerd]

A lot of what I see large defense contractors get attacked for is just them simply giving the government what the government asks for. Now, that doesn't mean the big guys are or should be immune from criticism. But they're not going to ignore a big pile of money to do something, even if that something is dumb. The days of Kelly Johnson sending money back to the government because "we're building you a real dog" are (sadly) over.

[SHIT_TALKER]

Don't forget Eisenhower's original wording described it as the military-industrial-congressional complex. The KC-X would be flying if the original contract to EADS had not been scuttled by Congress:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X

[lotharbot]

The original contract to EADS was scuttled because of the Government Accountability Office, which found that the selection process had been handled improperly -- specifically, that the Air Force "did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation", and that the Air Force "conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing" [0].

I lived in Seattle at the time, and it was widely remarked by Boeing IDS employees that the protest Boeing filed was a remarkably unusual step. They lose out on contracts all the time and just move on to the next thing; it's generally considered bad form for a defense contractor to throw a fit about losing out on a contract. But there were a lot of shenanigans, as detailed in the GAO report, which is why the decision was ultimately reversed.

[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20080625201918/http://www.king5.c...

[semi-extrinsic]

FWIW, the Boeing E3 Sentry (the "AWACS plane") was based on the Boeing 707.

But for a B-52 replacement, I think civilian planes have quite a few problems. For one, the wings are attached in the wrong place; on the B-52 they're more to the front, since the bomb bay has to be at the centre of balance. (Otherwise the plane becomes difficult to control after dropping the payload.) Another issue is that a commercial jet has a unneccesarily wide body, increasing drag. (Bombs are much denser than people.) A third is that commercial jets probably can't take the same level of structural loads in case of evasive action, particularly at lower altitudes. Compare the AWACS example: that airplane should never come close to enemy fire. A bomber most certainly would have to.

All those are engineering challenges, and could be solved. I guess the biggest reason is that it would cost more than you would gain.

[jokamoto]

The B-52 is already something of a case study as far as the changes required to allow a high-altitude aircraft to endure prolonged low altitude missions. SAC's switch to low-altitude attack profiles during the Cold War resulted in a huge number of modifications and overhauls to SAC B-52s specifically to allow for prolonged low-altitude flight.

[pinewurst]

That would be workable only if missions entailed takeoff, climb to 30,000 feet, dropping bombs and returning.

Much of the design difference between an airliner and a strategic bomber is due to extreme stresses from flying balls-out speed at treetop altitude. Older B-52 variants (pre-G) were retired when they couldn't take the load, because they were designed for max altitude cruise and weapons delivery. A big part of the B-1A to B-1B redesign involved removing the fancy high-altitude air intakes and restressing for extended treetop flight (and reducing RCS).

[Roboprog]

You would of course have to replace the electronics with simpler "hardened" versions. Can't have your B-252 brought down by a cell phone :-) (let alone an EMP)

I like the idea, but likely a large number of components would be replaced by less efficient, but more durable, variants.

[Roboprog]

Like slide rules :-)

[runjake]

Everything in the B-52H is nuclear-hardened. Navigators don't actually use the slide rule or start sextant on a regular basis though they do train on it.

This article sounds like a PR effort by the USAF to help cost justify replacement of the B-52H.

[sirkneeland]

At some point SOMEBODY has to mention Battlestar Galactica and the importance of using old tech not connected to "the network" to save the day...

[rjsw]

This is exactly what has been done for the P-8 [1], it is a 737 with a bomb bay.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon

[vpribish]

The B52 and earlier bombers programs at Boeing directly contributed to the development of their airliners - so it's kind of the other way around, historically.

you might find this mid-1970's project amusing: cruise missiles from a 747. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-74...

[bsamuels]

the B52's benefits center around it being such a simple aircraft.

modern passenger aircraft have complications and have made design decisions that increase complexity, require more maintenance, and add cost. airliners are willing to put up with these costs because they add to passenger comfort.