EB-52 Megafortress when?
>>64835629Never, who would want some pathetic sissy little shit like that. Stop being such a planelet and get on board a REAL man's plane.
>>64835629Didn't regular B-52s already rock nuclear AA missiles?
>>64835629Looks like the modified B-52 from the book Flight of the Old Dog.In highschool I was a huge fan of Dale Brown's books. I read most of the old ones. Then I broke off the fiction and got involved with memoirs for a solid 10 years. I didn't realize how weak Dale's old writing was until I picked up one of his books again after all those years.
>>64835629can plane fags explain why Boeing can't just turn pic related into a bomber ?
>>64836292the pic in question
>>64836075>Looks like the modified B-52 from the book Flight of the Old Dog.That's because it is, anon>I didn't realize how weak Dale's old writing wastbf it was always there, he's weakest on buffing nuclear explosions way, WAAAAY too much. In Chains of Command he describes a 20kt airburst at 5000 ft being able to destroy (as in, completely vaporize) a hardened command bunker stories under ground and protected by reinforced concrete.
What they've taken from us.(it would be much less problematic with drone tho)
>>64836292>>64836293Speaking of better project, this was on someone's table
>>64836762
>>64836758
>>64836769
>>64835659I can't imagine how we even considered this a practical idea.If at least it was equipped with a laser capable of one-shooting missiles and aircraft.
>>64836762https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/48/0f/75/f0038c4e679636/US4208949.pdf
Fuck it just make Ace Combat superweapons.
>>64836758Just do the same concept but with smaller drones, the Ark Bird dammit, it's simple.
>>64836845I've wanted a Stonehenge for asteroid defense for YEARS
>>64836852Arkbird was the suborbital laser plane. Arsenal Bird is the drone plane.
>>64836765>>64836762Isn't this just rapid dragon?
>>64836311I mostly took issue with his grammar and spelling, honestly. Kinda funny story though. When I was 14, I was reading one of his books (can't remember which one) and it had a really descriptive sex scene. Since this was before the era of smartphones, I used that book to jack off a few times when the computer wasn't available.Seems crazy to think about now.
>>64837520nah i did that in the 90s too
I don't remember why I have this image saved.
>>64836293>>64836292too busy giving away the airframes to museums for a tax write off after the lithium batteries they used in the electrical system started catching fire and they couldn't get certification to fly over Russian airspace.
>>64837684>Russian airspaceSeething pidor hands wrote this
>>64836292>>64836293Low wing makes for a shit bomber
>>64837120Basically, but without the pallets.
>>64836292>>64836293they easily could if the request was made. unless you desire to drop a bomb on a target in high threat environments, militarized airliners make perfectly adequate strategic bombers since the majority of missions will be launching long-range missiles.
>>64838455You know nothing about the 787
>>64838511
>>64838933it cannot be that much easier to shoot down than a b52
>>64839327The swing wing offsets some of the disadvantages of a low wing. 787s don't have swing wings.
>>64839361being cheaper to buy and maintain is a massive advantage tho
>>64836293You can't just make bomb bays with hatches, they will cut through structural frames and stringers and it will fall apart.See project of the B-747 bomber >>64836811They had single small hatch in the back to launch missiles and rail racks to move missile drums to that hatch.You can make specially made fuselage with hatches incorporated utilizing other parts of aircraft (wings, engine etc) see Beluga aircraft but it's not that simple as just take existing craft and put bombs inside.
>>64839328about the same, as they can simply put electronic warfare on it all the same. like the b-52 nowadays, there'd be no reason for them to even be at threat of a shoot down, as they'd release their weapons long before the enemy is in range.
>>64835629>>64835659Looks like my latest ksp creation (actually)
>>64835659Needs more tail engines
