NationStates

Onekawa-Nukanor wrote:Is there proposal or suggestions for a VLO modern bomber that isn't a flying wing, or is that the only worthwhile configuration for a VLO strategic bomber so it can try and get through modern air defence systems?

Like the F-35/22 still resemble fighter aircraft in the broad strokes, but the B-2 looks radically different from most previous bombers.

Onekawa-Nukanor wrote:Is there proposal or suggestions for a VLO modern bomber that isn't a flying wing, or is that the only worthwhile configuration for a VLO strategic bomber so it can try and get through modern air defence systems compared to a more conventional design?

Like the F-35/22 still resemble fighter aircraft in the broad strokes, but the B-2 looks radically different from most previous bombers.

Onekawa-Nukanor wrote:Is there proposal or suggestions for a VLO modern bomber that isn't a flying wing, or is that the only worthwhile configuration for a VLO strategic bomber so it can try and get through modern air defence systems compared to a more conventional design?

Like the F-35/22 still resemble fighter aircraft in the broad strokes, but the B-2 looks radically different from most previous bombers.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Onekawa-Nukanor wrote:Is there proposal or suggestions for a VLO modern bomber that isn't a flying wing, or is that the only worthwhile configuration for a VLO strategic bomber so it can try and get through modern air defence systems compared to a more conventional design?

Like the F-35/22 still resemble fighter aircraft in the broad strokes, but the B-2 looks radically different from most previous bombers.

The F-22/F-35/Su-57 etc. configurations are all compromises between the need for traditional fighter-like speed/agility and VLO capability, with the kinematic needs taking precedence over the VLO concerns. But modern fast jets are already closer to a stealthy configuration than bombers as they don't have cylindrical fuselages or podded engines to remove. They can be made fairly VLO through careful attention to detail without radical departures from their general configuration, although as YF-23 demonstrated more radical departures could deliver even better results.

Given that bombers do not need such agility and VLO bombers do not need such speed, they are free to pursue the most low-observable and aerodynamic shape. Given that conventional cylindrical fuselages and external podded engines are not stealthy, you're basically left with the wing itself in which to bury all of the major components. Thus, you end up with a flying wing which also happens to be more aerodynamically efficient (at the expense of stability and efficient volume use for payload).

Onekawa-Nukanor wrote:So whilst VLO bombers in the vein of B-52/Tu-95 simply don't work as VLO designs, more fighter-esque designs of bombers such as the Tu-160/22M, B-1, Avro Vulcan etc are technically feasible. Just the issue is that bombers don't need fighter-esque performance so commit to the most VLO shape.

Gwrachbyd wrote:

Covenant of Man wrote:Lmfao, that's what I was thinking when I picked this design. But if you look carefully, it looks like there could be wings towards the back and in two sections in the mid section, one above the other (but the angle is exactly sideways from the wings). I gave the design the benefit of the doubt.

Also, they're great for making quick deployments above solid ground, without the limits of a static airbase or the coast keeping away your carriers.

What do you think of this design instead, but with propulsion below the hull?

(Image)

as others have said you'd have a hard job just getting that thing off the ground, the structural stresses alone would cause it to fold in on itself and snap due to the weight without some magical material that is a lot stronger, lighter and stiffer than anything we currently have. to get the required stiffness using conventional materials (or even some of the newest materials under research) you'd need a lot of mass which then means you'll need more thrust to get it airbourne, resulting in more fuel needed resulting in even greater mass. basically the bigger you make it the harder it is to get it in the air.
that said if you were able to get it in the air it would handle like a brick, worse it would handle like a drunken brick, hard to move, very unsteady, and would basically be a sitting duck to any infantry guy with a MANPAD system such as a stinger (one of those engines go and the whole thing comes crashing down)

(OOC: now if you're dealing with FT nation then you can handwave this with super advanced alloys and antigravity propulsion or something but not with anything modern or even post modern tech)

your best bet to make an airbourne aircraft carrier would be a hybrid airship with a VTOL landing pad on the top but this would suffer badly from lack of storage space, and slow speed (you're talking enough supplies for maybe a squadron of fighters at best)
a better option would be to look into long range aircraft technology such as nuclear jets (as were planned during the cold war but were replaced with ICBMs because they were cheaper)

Republica Federal de Catalunya wrote:My Airforce most numerous fighter are the 93 F16AM/BM. In 1975 my country joined the EPC program to reemplace the problematic F104G (called flying coffin or flying dick by my airforce pilots) along other NATO Partners: Belgium, Denmark, The Nederlands and Norway We bought 87 of joint sale of 435 F16A/B from Block 10 and 15 which were assembled by SACSA Sabadell plant (now Catalonia Aerospace EADS) in the 80s We bought and assembled 42 of the 169 continuation orders, all them of F16A/B block 15OCU. During the 90s 108 of them were upgraded in the Airforce depot in Salt to MLU standard.

They have been used in the Gulf War, Over Bosnia and Kosovo, Afganistan, Lybia and Irak.

The Airforce has by now received 6 F35 as part of the replacement program.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:

Republica Federal de Catalunya wrote:My Airforce most numerous fighter are the 93 F16AM/BM. In 1975 my country joined the EPC program to reemplace the problematic F104G (called flying coffin or flying dick by my airforce pilots) along other NATO Partners: Belgium, Denmark, The Nederlands and Norway We bought 87 of joint sale of 435 F16A/B from Block 10 and 15 which were assembled by SACSA Sabadell plant (now Catalonia Aerospace EADS) in the 80s We bought and assembled 42 of the 169 continuation orders, all them of F16A/B block 15OCU. During the 90s 108 of them were upgraded in the Airforce depot in Salt to MLU standard.

They have been used in the Gulf War, Over Bosnia and Kosovo, Afganistan, Lybia and Irak.

The Airforce has by now received 6 F35 as part of the replacement program.

SO how did Catalonia get out of Spain? I'm curious because it seems like an NS thing to just make Catalonia independent anytime Spain is involved.

Post War America wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:SO how did Catalonia get out of Spain? I'm curious because it seems like an NS thing to just make Catalonia independent anytime Spain is involved.

Strange that its always Catalonia too, Vascaya never seems to get any love.

Republica Federal de Catalunya wrote:In the XVIIth century in my case. Then the timelime is as ceteris paribus to RL.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:Could the A-12 Avenger be modified to serve as a carrier based tanker aircraft by replacing the weapons bay with a fuel tank?

Austrasien wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:Could the A-12 Avenger be modified to serve as a carrier based tanker aircraft by replacing the weapons bay with a fuel tank?

The A-12 was a fundamentally flawed design, much of the lawsuit drama relates to the fact it could never have met the Navy's VLO requirements. GD simply didn't know how to design a stealth aircraft at the time.

Gallia- wrote:No.

(Image)

This would have worked.

Gallia- wrote:*Chibi!B-2.

Iltica wrote:Its a bit small for a tanker don't you think?

The Manticoran Empire wrote:

Iltica wrote:Its a bit small for a tanker don't you think?

The US Air Force has used fighter sized aircraft as tankers before.

Republica Federal de Catalunya wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:The US Air Force has used fighter sized aircraft as tankers before.

I think it was the USN.
All USAF tankers I remember were large aircraft.