Hacker News Reader

Comment by 7952 | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if a low cost bomber based on an airliner airframe would be useful. You could fire the super expensive rockets out of the belly, have space for a massive radar, and operate across continents without needing to refuel.

View on HN

Boeing has a design for you, the 747-based Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft [1]. The marines are currently using the "Harvest Hawk" C-130 kit [2] which launches small close air support mission missiles from the cargo hold. Also, the Boeing P-8 Poseidon [3] is a 737 based Multimission Maritime Aircraft that can launch torpedoes as well as sonobuoys. See also the Kawasaki P1 launching a Maverick air to surface missile [4].

1. https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-7...

2. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sys...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon

4. https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/1b5tyd/kawasa...

That's essentially what the B-52 is: an airliner-sized, subsonic jet bomber with a huge capacity and a long range. And apparently they're still in active service. (After 64 years!)

The main downside that I can think of is that you really need air superiority to use them effectively, because they can't outfight, outmaneuver, or run away from any sort of enemy fighter. That's not a big deal against ISIS, but it's no good for prospective conflicts with China or Russia or whatever. Also, modern tactics tend more towards precision strikes rather than massive carpet bombing or, God forbid, nukes.

Pentagon is planning to keep B-52 in service for another 40(?) years. That's 100 years since it was first introduced. Grandkids of first pilots/mechanics who worked with B-52 will work on the same planes in year 2059.

Great-grandkids are already working on them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com