Why aren't modified airliners used as strategic bombers?I mean these days they are expected to just lob lob ALBMs and cruise missiles.Modified civilian planes are already commonly used in military operations as tankers, AEW&C and maritime patrol aircraft.>E-7 is literally just 737 with big radar bolted on>P-8 is literally just 737 with bomb bay and hardpoints>KC-46 is literally just 767 with a glorified sippy straw bolted onSo why are B-52s still kept on life support? surely it would be cheaper to operate a (more or less) off-the-shelf airliner instead of wasting billions on modernising such an antediluvian airframe
>>64722018Because they are so easy to lock on to that russia could shoot one down. The pilots are expensive. Better to spend more on the plane and get them home for certain.
>>64722028B-52s are difficult to lock on to?
>>64722018Have you looked at the specs for a 737 to see whether it is comparable to a B-52?
Number of proposals for Boeing 747 ALCM (and even ICBM) carriers exist from back in the day. It is not a new concept
>>64722018That's Russia tier shit, we're above that
>>64722060Precisely.Giving pic first strike capability would be naughty.
>>64722060>implying the russians can maintain let alone build airlines
Rapid Dragon is what you are looking for.
>>64722073>>64722060They're reduced to smuggling in parts, even tires, to maintain their aircraft. Accident numbers are also steadily rising.
>>64722060using planes that first flew when Stalin was still alive isn't Russia tier shit?
>>64722095If it ain't broke, why fix it?Besides, >
>>64722018Dedicated bombers can carry more payload since they also come with an interior bomb bay to carry weapons, rather than just some hardpoints bolted on the wings and/or fuselage. The most a converted airliner might have to drop are some sonobuoys and depth charges, which are typically much smaller and lighter than cruise missiles. Airliner frames are good for all the other roles you mentioned because all the usual interior space normally used for passengers can be stripped out in favor of equipment for whatever role is required, which usually also grants increased operational range and endurance. We could make airliner-bombers, but we can also just make dedicated bombers, so that's what we do instead.
>>64722095Having to nigger rig a commercial airline for lack of better option into a bomber is Russia tier.Age does not equal relevance or not. If using brand new designs for everything is your standard of quality, you're a bonafide retard
>>64722106B-1 and B-2 are the technically better optionsB-52 is the coldwar cargocult economical optionB-777 is the logical economical option
>>64722018Thats basically what the P8 Poseidon is, a 737 with bomb bays and anti ship stuff
>>64722202
>>64722210RAAF aircraft with their roundels are always so pretty.
>>64722018Low wing is worse structurally for installing a bomb bay, which is why strategic Bombers are typically mid or high wing.
>>64722084this is a gay and retarded alternative to the rotating Bombay dispenser
>>64723156Why the fuck would you want something that could jam
Boing-o-crash
>>64722018Because auxiliary roles like tankers and AWACS can be done perfectly fine flying straight and level at 40,000 ft and high subsonic speeds. Combat roles can't.
>>64722060It's not. We use converted civilian airliners for military duties all the time, the OP even listed some examples. Converted civilian aircraft does not mean disguising military aircraft as civilian.
>>64722037Much harder than an airliner, yes. Bombers have their own jamming equipment, at least some sensors to detect those threats, stuff like that.A bomber has considerably more equipment integrated into it than a civilian airliner. That's why they're expensive. You'd just make the airliner expensive by trying to do that to it.
>>64723246>A bomber has considerably more equipment integrated into it than a civilian airliner. Easy to fit after the fact. Look at AF1 or the KC-767.
>>64723306>2003 price of a 767: $80 million>2003 price of a KC-767: $200 millionDumb retard.And that's just the fly away cost, all of the countries that bought that plane only did so because each of them was allowed to integrate their own systems. That means they paid $200 million AND THEN paid to add country specific systems.
>>64722202>>64722210>>64722220
>>64723365neat
>>64722018because their airframes aren't designed to hold a shitload of payload weight in a small area
>>64722018Nuclear arms limitation treaties with Russia. Capped the number of "nuke-capable" heavy bombers. If every passenger plane in the country were overtly the same exact thing, the pretense would be out the window so plainly that even the Union of Concerned Scientists could comprehend it.
>>64722018They prioritise them for money making. After all, isn't that why we bomb in the first place?
>>64723470(And yes, I know the relevant treaties are no longer with us. These things carry institutional momentum, and the domestic political movements that gave us treaties to limit how fast we drove the Soviet economy into the ground and how capable our air force could be as a bombardment weapon in the first place are still present and politically expensive to offend. No politician wants to be the guy on TV "unilaterally escalating nuclear tensions with Russia." Yes, this is a serious disadvantage for democracies with media and education systems like ours when matched up against autocracies like Russia and China.)
>>64723470Anon, the whole premise of the thread is why isn't the whole world doing this, not literally just your country. OP doesn't know what he's talking about, but his point in the first place is that most countries can afford civilian airliners. Not that the US can afford civilian airliners.
>>64723658>most countries can afford civilian airlinersOnly if those airliners are used in revenue service to recoup their cost. They can't afford (or refuse to pay for) a large air force equipped with intercontinental bombers.
>>64723668No. Most countries can just afford civilian airliners. Just buying them. For no gain.OP is wrong for reasons other than what you said.
>>64723673No, they can't. They never buy just civilian airliners and have them sitting around not carrying paying passengers.
>>64723676lol yes they can. This is literally how military expenditure works. The only rationalization for mlitary expenditure is that it's cheaper than being invaded. If you don't get invaded then the money is wasted. Every country spends on the military regardless.Just stop. You do not know what OP's point is. You're wrong on the point you made, and you're trying to dance around that. You are just wrong.
>>64723668>>64723673For fuck's sake. The real reason is that airliners are designed to carry a static weight load through flight while bombers are designed to dump a payload. The modifications needed to make an airliner capable of dropping bombs is both expensive and results in a less efficient bomber than a clean sheet design.
>>64722060>what is the p-8
>>64723870The P-8 weapons bay is barely larger than the F-35s. It's not comparable to a strategic bomber.
Slightly older airliners with 3-4 engines, before ETOPS got extended so hard and everyone went to two engines for efficiency would make great bombers.Modern ones with 2 engine obsession kinda suck a bit, but still viable.A modern airliner has far more payload than any bomber ever build, and fitting a rotary launcher in the fuselage is not really a big deal.Launching standoff munitions, which is what most bombers do most of the time, or dropping JDAMs on defenceless thirdies after DEAD, doesn't matter if a 777 or a B-52 does it.Well the 777 has 3x the payload and more range at the same time. And costs a fraction to operate ofc.Y'all are retarded as usual.
>>64723924No, idiot. >inb4 waaah thats not an argument!1Just...just no.
>>64722018Phoenix it
>>64723702nigga, OP's pic has 747 dropping a 30 ton missileTomahawk is like 1.5 tonseven GBU-57 is "only" 12 tonsthis is self-evidently not an unsolvable issue
>>64722018747s have a handy hard point in that position from the factory. It is there to ferry spare engines.Rather convenient don't you think.
>>64722018because modern systems have to be integrated from very early in the construction of an airliner. for example P-8 hulls are only about 20-25% complete before being diverted to the military. to modify them you have to tear out the civilian shit all the way down, and then add in the military shit. which is a lot of work that for large militaries that employ more MPAs than can be counted on one hand is not worth it.furthermore, modifying old hulls is usually not worth it compared to buying new, due to considerations of remaining useful flying life. the bongs learned all this the hard way with the Nimrod fiasco.
>>64722210>>64722220>spreading their bomb bays for the camera like thatfuck's sake anon, this is a blue board
>>64724745>Nimrod fiasco.They discovered the hard way that they were all hand fitted so just manufacturing, say, new cookie cutter wings wouldn't work because they'd all have to be modified for each airframe.As you say, sometimes it just isn't worth the effort.
>>64724713Important to note that the rocket in OP's pic (not a missile) didn't even work when attempting to launch a payload, and later that year the company was wrapped up and defunct.
>>64724756Pegasus would be a working example.
>>64722018>KC-46 is literally just 767 with a glorified sippy straw bolted onIf it was just that, it wouldn't be years behind schedule and way over budget. >>64722090Nice, but accidents should be deadlier and rates should be rising faster.
>>64722018They can't carry shit under wing, your picture is the maximum possible payload for a 747, 1 missile.B-52s work because they have massive payload capacity and range.
Why aren't modified strategic bombers used as airliners?
>>64724771it keeps ballooning in cost because 1) Boeing knows USAF needs new tankers2) Boeing thinks USAF will never buy Airbus because it's not American3) Lockheed exited airliner business long ago and has nothing to counterofferBoeing knows paypigs in Pentagon will give them more money if they simply ask for more money
>>64724755Also the airframes were more clapped out than expected, and the modifications to put in the new systems were more extensive than expected.
>>64722018Because modifying an airliner fuselage to have a bom bay is not trivial from a structural point of view. Plus, because bombs are so much denser than people or cargo, you can make the fuselages of the bombers much slimmer that the fuselages of the airliners that carry the equivalent load, so dedicated bombers will be more efficient (faster/longer range) than the equivalent airliners. Plus, while you can question if the tradeoff for stealth is worth it for a fighter, by this point i don't see how how a large subsonic bomber could possibly accomplish it's mission if it's not stealthy, having to wait until the whole enemy air defense is destroyed somewhat defeats the point.
>>64724869>you can question if the tradeoff for stealth is worth it for a fighterno, you can'ta stealth fighter is unquestionably better than a non-stealth equivalenteverything else is disingenuous copium spread by NATO's enemies until they can come up with their own stealth shit
>>64724877Not if the ridiculous operation costs, maintenance requirements and low availability rates keep going as they are.https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-watchdog-criticizes-lockheed-f-35-maintenance-failures-bloomberg-news-2025-12-23/>>64724797Compare the fuselage sizes.
>>64724887
>>64724887Tu116 was the Bear conversion on the same fuselage the Tu114 used all the Bear parts with a different fuselage.
>>64724912And the tu-116 ended up not even being adopted because the modifications required ended up taking up as much time as building a whole new fuselage for the tu-114. And the tu-114 clearly wasn't a rush job, considering it had one of the best safety records of any airliner in the world.
>>64724804>it keeps ballooning in cost becauseI'm not saying it is corruption, but it is corruption.>Airbus because it's not AmericanNIH is definitely a factor, but most importantly Airbus made mistake of actually building A330 assembly line in Alabama before USAF was really committed to KC-45. Civilian sales of A330 freighters kinda needed more production capacity than they had at the time. KC-46 is inferior plane in every single way to KC-45/A330MRTT.>3) Lockheed exited airliner business long ago and has nothing to counterofferGuess who is partnering with Airbus to sell KC-45 as KC-10 replacement. Last time the local partner was Northrop-Grumman.The main reason why 767 got new wing was because original 767 was even less competitive with A330, that is one of main culprits of KC-46 delays. No airline has ever shown any interest with modernized 767, everyone looking for airliners in roughly same weight class goes with A330, A330Neo or 787. KC-45 simply won the technical evaluation against KC-46 first time around and was selected. Then it was cancelled on basis that some airbases would have needed ramp extensions and bigger hangars, costing some millions per airbase. Probably totaling hundred or couple hundred million. Instead USAF can spend billion or so more every single year due to shittier tanker.KC-X aka KC-135 replacement is probably most corrupt military procurement program I know has happened in a western country, by far. >>64724912Passenger cabin of Tu-116 was literally set up in bomb bay. Basically 10 luxury seats for Krutchev and friends. Cabin crew, cooks and bodyguards squeezed like sardines in whatever space was left over. Only reason it exists is because Tupolev wasn't sure that Tu-114 was ready in time Krutchev needed to visit US and UN HQ.>>64724940It wasn't needed, because they could make Tu-114 in time it was needed.
>>64724887>Not if the ridiculous operation costs, maintenance requirements and low availability rates keep going as they are.Have you any idea what the incremental cost of stealth features are compared to a non-stealth equivalent?
>>64725029This blog makes a much better breakdown than i ever could, before we are talking at least 1,5 times the cost of the equivalent non stealth fighter, of not more.https://www.flyajetfighter.com/the-real-cost-of-an-hour-of-flight-time-for-the-f-35a-a-detailed-analysis/
>>64722018Too slow
>>64725360>This increase is linked to the greater sophistication of the systems on board the F-35AYes. How much of that is due to its advanced electronics, and not its stealth capabilities alone?>In comparison, an F-16C/D has a direct cost of approximately $25,400 per hour, a difference of more than $14,000.Right. And how does an F-16C/D's avionics and sensors compare to an F-35's?>This difference can be explained primarily by the technological density of the F-35A. It features multi-spectral sensors, real-time data fusion, passive stealth, and a comprehensive digital human-machine interfaceCorrect. Not stealth.>This rigor stems from the integrated architecture and the high number of sensors that need to be calibrated, diagnosed, and even replaced preventively.Correct. Not stealth.So once again: Have you any idea what the incremental cost of STEALTH FEATURES are compared to a non-stealth EQUIVALENT?
>>64725390>...if features multi-spectral sensors, real-time data fusion, passive stealth,>not stealthImpressive speedreading skills thereAnd note that the blog also mentions the costs of other fighter jets:>F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, used by the US Navy, has acost per flight hour of approximately US$30,400, ornearly €28,500. TheRafale, developed by Dassault Aviation for the French armed forces, remains more economical, with anestimated hourly cost of €20,000, including maintenance and fuel.I could also compare with gripen e (12 200 $/h according to sweden, 20 000 $/h according to the czechs) and eurofighter (20 000 $/ h according to the RAF, some claim 60 000 $ / h), and if you try to tell me none of the above aircraft have comparable avionics or sensor suites please do tell me how much lockheed martin is paying you to shill on 4chan. They certainly aren't spending that money on engineering, given that availability went down from 2023 to 2024.https://fortworthreport.org/2023/10/05/maintenance-repair-problems-ground-f-35-jets-45-of-time-report-finds/If you think the stealth coating isn't costly when the royal navy has to fly over it's F-35b planes to climate controlled facilities in the united states to repair corrosion you are simply in denial.https://theaviationist.com/2025/12/24/royal-navy-f-35bs-corrosion-repair-us-navy-frcse/ And i've had enough thread derailing.
>>64725509So I missed one phrase. You missed the entire article.>more circumstantial evidence>no direct evidence>refuse to acknowledge direct evidence that contradicts youBlah blah blahTell me, how much would a non-stealth version of the F-35 cost compared to a stealth version, all else being equal?
>>64723892the point is that it's feasible to turn commercial craft into military ones, and it's been proven multiple times. strategic bombers nowadays are mostly just missile carriers.
>>64722018Private jets have seen use.
>>64724889>HURRR IM A PLANE
>>64725662It's not feasible, because you can't put a large enough bomb bay on a low wing airliner to utilize the payload it's capable of carrying.
>>64725928B-1B and B-2 are as low a wing as you can get.
>>64725382777 is considerably faster than a B-52.
>>64724869B-52 is not stealthyB-52 is not more efficient than a 777
>>64725928Low wing monoplane.
>>64725957B2 is Blended Wing BodyB1 was specifically designed to carry its payload in a balanced way without cutting through the center wingbox, as well as benefing from variable geometry wings which can adjust its center of lift dynamically. You can't do that with 737.>>64725984That is mid wing
>>64725960The b-52 is actually slightly faster (560 kn vs 511 kn), it just cruises slower to increase loiter time. Maximum Lift to drag ratio of the b-52 is also better (22:1) than the 777 (20:1), the latter wins out in efficiency only because of the engines.
>>64723156Except this doesn't require building an entire aircraft around a bomb bay. It uses standardized pallets so It Just Works with every US cargo aircraft.
>>64726050Doesn't the B-52 get 40% less fuel consumption with the new F-130 engines
>>64726685>It uses standardized pallets so It Just Works with every US cargo aircraft.hardly every cargo craft. only military crafts already designed for air drops. designing for air drops is designing half a bomb bay.a fully pressurized commercial cargo plane would crash when open its bay mid-flight due to sudden pressure loss.
>>64726806What fixed wing cargo aircraft does the US field that aren't designed for airdrops?
>>64722421Yep, it's what gave the Lancaster a slight payload advantage over the B-17.
>>64724726>Rather convenient don't you think.That is rather cool, never knew that.
"we have bomber at home", the thread. We don't need weird Kriegsmodell planes or converted civilian planes as bombers. That's on the same level as Russians rushing Ukrainian lines in an ice cream truck.
>>6472324618 were shot down in Vietnam. Heavy bombers can only function in permissive airspace nowadays.
>>64722018the US military has some cruise missiles that can be thrown out the back of cargo planes while still on the pallet they came from the factory in, and go do their thingI forget the name, but probably something ending in LCM
>>64724797Because God has abandoned us.
>>64726857>"we have bomber at home", the thread. We don't need weird Kriegsmodell planes or converted civilian planes as bombers.not when you can push a pallet of cruise missiles out the back of a cargo plane
How is it so hella easy that passenger planes get shot down? Are they just not paying attention? Noise should not be ignorable, when the surface is getting missile lock you can hear the really loud Beep Beep Beep BEEP and solid tone. There is just no possibility to not know understanding of what happens there! Why don't pilots Fucking doge the missile when he saw radar alarms went off signaling a missile lock? Pilots is all ex-military yes? Most of the planes seem to have a lot of maneuverability, a lot more than you would think of a plane that size. He could have preformed a dive with a sharp bank to make the missile miss since they have bad turn radius and make it fail angel of attack.If he didn't feel enough maneuver time, pilot should at least launched countermeasures or fired off some flares to try to distract the missile or maybe dropped his fuel tanks so that he could climb quickly. If you remember the movie Congo, they were flying over Zaire space without authorization and so Zaire military started firing missiles at slow ass cargo plane. And there was no way they could doge! The plane was just too big and slow, so the chick from Ozarks, she was much younger at the time, she got great idea to open the side jump doors and then shoot flares at the missiles so the missiles would go for the flares and explode on it! Like she had no military training but it was an ingenious idea and it bought them enough time to get everyone on their parachutes and jump out of the plane! Another thing would have been to try to eject all the cargo and use it as chaff to protect against the missile. Or what about at least trying to jam the missile guidance?Pilot have lot of options but there is never an accounting and used none of them. Pilots and crew didn't even try to parachute away when the plane got hit! There was an Israeli flight few years back and they dodged TWO FUCKING MISSILES at once on a takeoff! Surely other pilots have combat training and can take action!?
>>64722202and that little bomb bay behind the wing can only hold a few torpedoes. you wanna hold large standoff weapons, you need a bigger bay and the airplane's center of gravity needs to be inside it. so those main landing gear gotta move outboard onto the wings, the wings gotta move up the sides of the fuselage so you can fit your heaviest goodies under the middle of the main wing spar, and now you've got yourself something in the general shape of a B-52, Tu-95, or H-6. and that's why nobody has bothered to reinvent the "big dumb bomb truck" wheel in the last 60 years.
>>64724869>Because modifying an airliner fuselage to have a bom bay is not trivial from a structural point of view.Actually, kinda is. We could do that shit on a weekend. Ofc then lawyers and management show up and it takes 15 years and costs 20 billions.>Plus, because bombs are so much denser than people or cargoWhich means you can use a lot of extra space in the existing fuselage to put in some extra bulkheads to fix the load path you cut in half by putting in bomb bay doors.>you can make the fuselages of the bombers much slimmer that the fuselages of the airliners that carry the equivalent loadyou can simply take a narrowbody airliner and cut the fuselage shorter, such variants usually already exist for short haul flight.<so dedicated bombers will be more efficient (faster/longer range) than the equivalent airliners.Yeah but nobody builds conventional bombers. B-52 fuselage is ancient, the engines are ancient and can't be replaced with efficient ones due to the ancient fuselage not having enough sideways stability to handle 1 in 4 engines out, so an airliner with, frankly, absolutely minor modifications, would beat it by a lot as a bomber. >Plus, while you can question if the tradeoff for stealth is worth it for a fighter, by this point i don't see how how a large subsonic bomber could possibly accomplish it's mission if it's not stealthy, having to wait until the whole enemy air defense is destroyed somewhat defeats the point.Explain why B-52 is still in service.Sigh, the IQ on this board is room temp, fr on godt. aerospace engineer
>>64728030When did Boeing hire you, saaar.
>>64728030As posted upthread : >>64722057
>>64722018bombers are high wing to have lots of space for multiple bomb bays and airliners are low wing to have space for larger passenger cabin, the wings are also not designed for heavy weapon stationsP-8 with LRASM and a small weapons bay is just about the maximum you could achieve without complete redesign
>>64724756>not a missileImportant to note that sometimes the only difference between ICBM and launch vehicle is whether you put a nuke or a satellite on the tip
>>64722018because even for that type of duty you will need to completely rework it to the point its simply cheaper just to make a new strategic bomber
>>64728673no commercial rocket would use expensive srb like a icbm. being able to launch on a moments notice without fueling first is pointless for commercial rockets and just adds cost.even those retired srb from an icbm were too expensive and can't compete with spacex's lrb.
>>64723350>That means they paid $200 millionThe Boeing subsidy. Some of that is differencs. Most of that is to keep the production and support going for what is an EOL model.Bid should have said: Base it on something you are going to keep in production for a while. Boeing was (actually did) kill the 767 model. When Airbus won the initial bid, Boeing cried that they'd have to kill the model. They already did.
>>64728716>rework it to the point its simply cheaper just to make a new strategic bomberYou have to understand the mindset of DoD contractors. They don't care about costs. They are out to extract maximum government bux. Hence, they are only interested in end-to-end weapons _systems_. If they could sell you a new plane for every new missile or bomb variant, they would. Some remaining sanity at the Pentagon prevents this.ASM-135 ASAT missile (prototype) caused McD-D to shit themselves. "Nooooo! You can't build a new missile/mission without a brand new launch platform. No fair firing it from an F-15." Hence, the program was destined to die.CF-105 was killed politically when Avro didn't know if the Sparrow missile would be ready (in time, or ever). So they went to a modular weapons bay design. "Build us a new weapon and we'll load it in the aircraft." Even an eventual air launched ASAT. That kind of thinking had to be killed off by the industry. And it was.
>why isn't it possible?>it's possible but too expensive to be worth it>fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck youSee you next thread
>>64723433This is the only correct answer.
