737 - The next great air frame?

[Wild Weasel]

With computer-controlled training weapons mounts, such as those on the AC Hercules, I don't see why not. I don't know if it would be possible or fuel-efficient for the plane to be slowed down to the Spectre's ridiculously-slow loiter speed, ( I suppose the surface area of the flaps, and other control surfaces would have to be increased, ) but if the same airframe can function as a maritime patrol plane, then why not?

The added speed might be a blessing for the aircrews who are taking light ground fire, or who might be flying through MANPAD territory.

 

[Big-E]

With computer-controlled training weapons mounts, such as those on the AC Hercules, I don't see why not. I don't know if it would be possible or fuel-efficient for the plane to be slowed down to the Spectre's ridiculously-slow loiter speed, ( I suppose the surface area of the flaps, and other control surfaces would have to be increased, ) but if the same airframe can function as a maritime patrol plane, then why not?

The added speed might be a blessing for the aircrews who are taking light ground fire, or who might be flying through MANPAD territory.

The great thing about the AC-130 is she can loiter at those slow speeds and turn tightly enough to keep her guns always pointing towards the axis. The 737 would have to throttle up to pretty high speeds at those low altitudes, she really is a brick to fly compared to a C-130. This means when she has to turn she will have a large portion of the turn outside of the weapons arc. It's much like the turning radius of the sailing ships of old giving a broadside. The targeting range comes into question as well. Most of the guns onboard, exception to the howitzer, need to be fired from low altitudes and the 737 can only keep her guns trained in the arc (at all times) at medium altitudes making the Bofors and the miniguns useless. This makes the 737 a poor choice as a gunship. The difference you ask of why not as opposed to the maritime version comes down to a matter of role. P-3s don't need to point guns at a target for extended periods of time. All they do is drop torps, sono-bs and launch Harpoons non of which require a slow loiter tight turn radius.

cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

737s would make horrible bombers.

It depends on how you want to classify the capability. eg the P8 requires the installation of bomb bays to launch torpedoes. If you have a bomb bay then you can certainly fill the racks with JDAMs. Its not as if there isn't an organic capability to support the guidance of the JDAM onto a target.

In real terms you could argue that they're a defacto bombing airframe as one of the goals is to be able to use JDAMs in a defacto anti-shipping role.

IIRC the last successful B-52 tests (mid 2005) involved dropping a JDAM onto a moving "convoy speed" vehicle at 50 miles range - and it was a successful prosecution.

How difficult is it to certify a racked up Orion and/or P8 to drop JDAMs? Probably not a lot.

The resident FTE should be able to give a clue.

 

[Wild Weasel]

The great thing about the AC-130 is she can loiter at those slow speeds and turn tightly enough to keep her guns always pointing towards the axis. The 737 would have to throttle up to pretty high speeds at those low altitudes, she really is a brick to fly compared to a C-130. This means when she has to turn she will have a large portion of the turn outside of the weapons arc. It's much like the turning radius of the sailing ships of old giving a broadside. The targeting range comes into question as well. Most of the guns onboard, exception to the howitzer, need to be fired from low altitudes and the 737 can only keep her guns trained in the arc (at all times) at medium altitudes making the Bofors and the miniguns useless. This makes the 737 a poor choice as a gunship. The difference you ask of why not as opposed to the maritime version comes down to a matter of role. P-3s don't need to point guns at a target for extended periods of time. All they do is drop torps, sono-bs and launch Harpoons non of which require a slow loiter tight turn radius.

cheers

Ah, yes. I thought as much. I was reaching, and clearly out of my depth.
But if I may conjecture further; It could be possible if the weapons could be trained far enough ahead of the flightpath, if the mounts had the tracking speed, and if the weapons had the range to attack effectively, and accurately. I suppose a race track pattern would have to be used in this case.
But that would probably also require the use of guided ordinance as well, and that ups the cost of the weapon system/platform. Then again, that's what you people use all those billions of defense dollars for, right? :

But I do maintain that the US military could put these aircraft to use in other roles in a cost-effective manner. Just not as bomb-trucks.

 

[Big-E]

It depends on how you want to classify the capability. eg the P8 requires the installation of bomb bays to launch torpedoes. If you have a bomb bay then you can certainly fill the racks with JDAMs. Its not as if there isn't an organic capability to support the guidance of the JDAM onto a target.

In real terms you could argue that they're a defacto bombing airframe as one of the goals is to be able to use JDAMs in a defacto anti-shipping role.

IIRC the last successful B-52 tests (mid 2005) involved dropping a JDAM onto a moving "convoy speed" vehicle at 50 miles range - and it was a successful prosecution.

How difficult is it to certify a racked up Orion and/or P8 to drop JDAMs? Probably not a lot.

The resident FTE should be able to give a clue.

Whats the point of it... she can't carry enough to be economically feasable. She's a narrow body which makes it difficult to jam all the weapons to load a bomb-bay. Her engines are next to the body which are the best points for heavy ordinance. Her cargo load is only 40k lbs and after all the ECM, Chaff/Flare dispenser, bomb racks, pylons and associated equipment are added you aren't going to have much space for any weapons.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Whats the point of it... she can't carry enough to be economically feasable. She's a narrow body which makes it difficult to jam all the weapons to load a bomb-bay. Her engines are next to the body which are the best points for heavy ordinance. Her cargo load is only 40k lbs and after all the ECM, Chaff/Flare dispenser, bomb racks, pylons and associated equipment are added you aren't going to have much space for any weapons.

The point I'm making is that the platform is already boxed to carry JDAM's if someone elects to make the launchers/internal rails. You could fit 3 JDAMs in the same length of space as 2 x Mk54's.

The main issue is that even though you could fit more JDAM's at a linear level, an unballasted Mk50 weighs slighly less than a single JDAM.

My argument is based on potential flexibility - not on whether they should.

 

[Big-E]

The point I'm making is that the platform is already boxed to carry JDAM's if someone elects to make the launchers/internal rails. You could fit 3 JDAMs in the same length of space as 2 x Mk54's.

The main issue is that even though you could fit more JDAM's at a linear level, an unballasted Mk50 weighs slighly less than a single JDAM.

My argument is based on potential flexibility - not on whether they should.

So you agree that they absolutly shouldn't.... right?

 

[gf0012-aust]

So you agree that they absolutly shouldn't.... right?

I'm not sure I'd go that far

- the platform is big enough to have some flexibility for different loads.
the point being that if they were not on wet missions, they could be loaded up for something else if push came to shove.

whether its appropriate is another issue....

after all, people shove FAE's out the back of Hercs....

 

[Wild Weasel]

This is certainly true

 

[Big-E]

Yeah, but those FAEs are sliders, not belly droppers. They would need a guidance package for accuracy considering the speed of a 737 don't ya think?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah, but those FAEs are sliders, not belly droppers. They would need a guidance package for accuracy considering the speed of a 737 don't ya think?

of course, but the issue of speed is relative to mission. and if your Orions are fitted with GMTI then the chances of adding an extra blister or two to do other "assists" is still within the realm of achievability.

P8 was considered for MPA because it could also do slow and lazy circle work - if it can do laps in the paddock, then one assumes that its slow enough to unload weaps on the target as well.

A lot of the ISR work done in the Gulf would probably confidently be called "slow". ie How "slow is slow" to unload a JDAM?

Its still an issue of platform potential to undertake a disparate role.

 

[WaterBoy]

The ‘Classic’ B737 -100/200/300/400 series aircraft have some deficiencies which would limit &/or preclude their conversion as bombers. First of all, their structure is a semi-monocoque structure. In simple terms the whole aircraft is pressurized & the skin provides a percentage of the aircraft structural strength. An unpressurised area to provide a bomb bay would have to be designed & the fuselage modified to provide for the altered structural properties.

Additionally, the current wings were never designed to allow for weapons carriage, so their modification could prove difficult, particularly considering the cycles already completed by these old aircraft (~ 20-40,000 take-offs & landings). The B737NG/ P-8A have new design wing, which may make this process easier.

There may also be centre of Gravity & balance issues associated with loading several thousand pounds of ordinance forward & aft of the wing & asymmetrically dropping these stores. Airliners as a rule don’t jettison passengers, the only changes to their weight inflight is fuel burn-off.

The classic B737 isn’t particularly big on endurance. Designed as a short to medium range airliner, range wasn’t a strong point of early B737’s. Extra fuel tanks could be fitted in the cabin / cargo holds, but this would cut into payload. Unmodified these aircraft don’t have an endurance or range much greater than 4-5 hours.

The avionics fit of these ‘classic’ B737’s is straight out of the Apollo age. None of that new ‘fan dangled’ GPS equipment; these old birds rely on 2 (IIRC) gyro powered INS, which without ground navigation aid updating, ‘drift’ about ~1NM per flight hour. Hardly weapons aiming accuracy.

The electrical generators fitted to the older B737’s could also be unable to produce enough power to supply the weapons systems required of a warplane. These older aircraft struggle to provide enough power for individual in-seat entertainment, & I imagine military avionics consume a lot more electricity.

I’m sure any aeronautical engineers could add to this list of potential problems. Whilst none of which are insurmountable, IMHO they would make any proposed B737 classic ‘Bomber’ very expensive. Given the choice, I’d prefer to go to war in a F-16 0r F/A-18, which would probably carry just as much, just as far with a lot more survivability.

A Bomber based on the proposed P-8A MMA design however, could be something quite different. All of these issues have been addressed by this warplane. And they even come with a HUD!

Regards,

WaterBoy!