The Humble Boeing 737: Next Air Force Missile Truck?

1,424 Views | 3 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by CanyonAg77
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

...Yet there is one airframe in the inventory today that seems strangely overlooked for its potential to alleviate some of this pressure, as well as to help nullify other major pressure points among the DoD's collective air combat inventory. Its economy, serviceability, extreme flexibility, and its ability to play a major role in any type of future fight the U.S. enters into, including one with a towering peer-state adversary like China, as well as playing critical roles in peacetime, is unrivaled. The aircraft I am referring to is Boeing's P-8 Poseidon, but not in its current configuration.

----

What I am proposing here is an 'RB-8' of sorts. A P-8 stripped of all its maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare gear, aside from the relevant parts of its communications capabilities, defensive aid systems, FLIR turret, and outstanding electronic support measures (ESM) suite. In its nose, an off-the-shelf scalable fighter AESA radar would be installed. A substantial amount of its internal volume would be left empty, aside from packing as much additional fuel onboard wherever possible and housing a trio of open-architecture mission specialist/weapon systems officer consoles behind the cockpit. It would also retain the P-8's current sonobuoy launchers and racks.

What's key here is that the P-8's development is totally paid for. Its evolution continues with new weapons and other capabilities being added. With seven allied export customers now taking part in the program, sustainment of the type will be economical as it can be for decades to come.

A fully-equipped P-8A has a unit cost of $175 million, and a 737-800 costs roughly $85 million new. One could imagine an additional large block buy of this stripped-down variant could be had somewhere in between, let's just throw a number on it, say $130 million. What the total force would get for that price tag, roughly just 50% more than the price of an F-35A, would be absolutely outstanding. In fact, one could argue that it would be the most flexible, economical, and relevant combat aircraft in the entire arsenal.
----

The P-8 has four wing pylons. Each of these stores stations, which are rated at 2,500 pounds, are able to carry standoff cruise missiles, such as AGM-84 Harpoons and SLAM-ERs, and eventually the stealthy Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). If the P-8 can carry LRASM, the RB-8 can carry its land-attack sister weapon, the Joint Air-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), as well as LRASM, and more types of advanced air-launched standoff weapons are on the way. But unlike a fighter, it can carry those weapons over thousands of miles from an aerial refueling tanker, like U.S. bomber aircraft.

Four JASSMs delivered for standoff attacks by fighters flying from bases thousands of miles from their launch points in the Pacific would require a large tanker commitment. The RB-8 would require a fraction of those resources and it could actually execute that mission with near-737 efficiency, which is far cheaper and more reliable than a bomber or even a jet transport aircraft.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40859/the-case-for-stripping-the-p-8-poseidon-down-into-an-rb-8-multi-role-arsenal-ship


I think the author makes an excellent point: the Air Force has demonstrated launching of palletized ALCMs from the rear ramp of a C-130. The Boeing 737/P8 airframe is reliable and proven and the scaled down requirements from the Navy P8 to meet Air Force needs for a launch platform make sense, especially when the aircraft can fly from any number of distributed airports/airfields, especially with extended range JASSM systems.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not sure I buy that a force of ~225 B-52s and B-21s isn't sufficient long-range AF strike, particularly considering the realities of the "financial headwinds" the article mentions, as well as all three Service's ongoing investment in long-range hypersonic weaponry to supplement airborne strike.

If the B-52 was approaching the end of its service life, this option would be more attractive. But the B-52H has roughly half its long design life remaining and has already proven to be an effective CAS option in uncontested airspace as well as a massive stand-off bomb/missile truck.

Plus, since the B-21 will be capable of both long-range standoff and "downtown" penetration, that high-low combo seems to already provide what adding a RB-8 would offer, but without the huge cost of buying and sustaining a new aircraft.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm having visions of a WWII type bomber formation from old movies, except it consists of 737s in Southwest Airlines colors.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CanyonAg77 said:

I'm having visions of a WWII type bomber formation from old movies, except it consists of 737s in Southwest Airlines colors.


Unless their system crashes. I was thinking of Spirit Airlines using angry customers as enraged paratroopers.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
UTExan said:


I was thinking of Spirit Airlines using angry customers as enraged paratroopers.

Well, we have video proof that they are ready and willing to fight. Strap them into tiny seats for two hours on the apron, fly them for another couple of hours in turbulence, then stand up, hook up, shuffle to the door.

Woe be unto however they land on.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.