You have $50,000,000. What do you mod and buy to turn it into a strategic bomber loaded with ordnance.

You have $50,000,000.

What do you mod and buy to turn it into a strategic bomber loaded with ordnance.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing because I have 50 million dollars. I buy a private island and fortify it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Peak Russian general thinking.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    propane tanks, fuzes, duct tape, and lighters

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pic rel with candy like colors.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      absolutely devilish

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Delightfully devilish even.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can I get one of the 727s with the aft cargo door, instead?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nimrod it

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cessna 150 and a suicidal alcoholic veteran pilot to fly it. Mod it with cheap grey tacticool plastic parts. Sell it to whoever gave me the task as 50mil a piece and make a nice flyer.
    >Bla bla multi modular bla bla AI capable bla bla patented "StratoNext" bla bla worlds first "Hellflamer III" onboard next 13th generation mission assistance system.

    Run with the money and retire.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Strategic bomber? I blow the budget and get 777F's.

    >The 777 Freighter (777F) is an all-cargo version of the twinjet, and shares features with the -200LR; these include its airframe, engines,[203] and fuel capacity.[145] With a maximum payload of 228,700 lb (103,700 kg) (similar to the 243,000 lb (110,000 kg) of the Boeing 747-200F), it has a maximum range of 9,750 nmi (18,057 km; 11,220 mi)) or 4,970 nmi (9,200 km; 5,720 mi)) at its max structural payload.[204]

    Reminder the B-52 can't even take off with max fuel with no bombs.
    Also, it's interesting that every site seems to parrot the "B-52 has a combat range of 8,800 miles without aerial refueling" when there's no way that's true:

    B-52
    Weight: Approximately 185,000 pounds
    Maximum Takeoff Weight: 488,000 pounds
    Fuel Capacity: 312,197 pounds
    Payload: 70,000 pounds

    The 777F can carry 219,800lbs of fuel at takeoff with its 228,700lb load.
    The B-52 can carry 233,000lbs of fuel with its 70,000lb load.
    The B-52 is not getting an extra 3,000 miles out of that 13,000lbs extra fuel using 8 turbojets.
    If the B-52 is fully refueled after takeoff, it *might* be able to do 8,800 miles, but I highly doubt that since that implies a 777 is less than 10% more efficient than a B-52.

    Anybody want to say what the real range of the B-52 is?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      *found this:
      https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/politics/exclusive-on-board-b-52-bomber-mission/index.html

      >The flight would take 33 hours and cover more than 13,000 miles. The jet cruised at about 28,000 feet, mostly over the icy waters of the north Pacific Ocean, where waves were predicted to exceed 20 feet. In total, the B-52 was expected to burn 105,000 gallons of jet fuel during the flight.

      So at only 400MPH it uses 8.077 gallons per mile.
      This gives it an unrefueled range of 4,300 miles at MTOW with 70,000lbs of payload.
      5,769 miles while fully fueled.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        *as a check:
        B-52 burn rate: 3,300 gallons per hour.
        33 hour flight would = 108,900 gallons.

        So CNN's stated 105,000 gallons of fuel for the flight checks out.

        Yay, I just proved we've been massively lied to about the B-52's range for 60 years.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, because there is a near infinite levels of flight regimes and weight profiles that may lead you to that figure.

          You are taking one flight mission and applying it to the entire airframes capabilities.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            we do have access to range/payload graphs for most large civilian aircraft.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This really calls the B-52's claimed unrefueled combat range into question.
              How the frick does an 8 engine bomber supposedly equal a modern 2 engine high bypass turbofan in range with a 70,000lb load?
              70.000lb payload for the 777 is right around 8800-9000 miles.
              Like I said earlier, there's no fricking way that the B-52 can do that completely unrefueled because it can't even carry a full fuel load with 70,000lbs. And even if we call an immediate top-off to be essentially "unrefueled" I still don't see how a fricking 707 era plane which everyone admits needs more efficient engines could possibly come anywhere near a 777.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody cares, shut up.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Glowies have entered the thread.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I wouldn't worry about it (the claimed specifics of the "public" combat range)

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a parachute
    and enough fertilizer and diesel fuel to fill the empty space in plane

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mig-25 Recce variant from Egypt. F-105 was able to carry a small nuke, a Mig-25 should do it just as well. It would probably be less than $100k to purchase, then another $200k to restore and test fly, then $500k+ to add the intended mods. I will use $1m as an estimate, so I would try to seek out a dozen of these and then fill the void with C-130s with drag and glide bombs. Conceivably, a shitty, outdated air force can be formed with $50m and project aircraft.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >F-105 was able to carry a small nuke, a Mig-25 should do it just as well.
      They could, it was even intended as a secondary role for the RB for strikes against high risk targets like SAM sites and radars in West Germany.
      But you might have a problem finding any thermal reinforced 8U-64 bombs rated for external Mach 2+ carry, along with the pylons and control systems, or wiring them up to a export Foxbat.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That is why I chose the Recce variant. The area devoted for camera equipment could be used to carry a bomb load. Even if the bombs limit the aircraft's speed, it would still be able to get out of the area quickly.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    airliners make dreadful bombers because THEY DONT HAVE A FRICKING BOMB BAY AND ARE SCALED TO CARRY PEOPLE, NOT BOMBS

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're actually designed to carry cargo. The passenger floor is nothing.
      They may be slightly inefficient over a dedicated bomber since their fuselage width is designed with less dense cargo in mind than bombs, but when nobody is has designed a new heavy bomber in 60 years and airline manufacturers have been competing for the best designs, you end up with shit like the 777 which can carry a 228,000lb load with the same fuel capacity (and more range) than the B-52H with a 70,000lb load.
      So 1/3rd the cost in fuel, easy serviceability, nearly 100% availability, and longer time between overhauls.

      You technically wouldn't even have to do a lengthy peacetime conversion. There's already precedent for using an external bay in water bombers.
      So just buy a ton of 777's for peacetime use, develop a strap-on bomb bay, then just strap them on when you need a bomb truck. No need to waste billions of dollars designing a dedicated bomb truck and then billions more building planes that can only truck bombs, you have a plane that can *make* money and still be able to drop bombs on durkas 10,000 miles away.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the passenger floor isn't designed to hold cargo, it would require reinforcement. it's what happens to pretty much every passenger2cargo plane conversion. it has a cost, but it's also not uneconomical if the frame is cheap enough.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      True, but the rules are so vague that you can spend 0 bucks and just say that the cargo plane is a nuke suicide plane for a first strike mission. Put a 50-100 MT nuke on it, fly near important targets, and blow the payload. It's so easy and effective that I'm 99% sure that this is how an actual nuclear war would start. Near is actually pretty far away when you start talkign about these monster yields.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When in doubt, dakka it out!

    This one launches ballistic nuclear missiles.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That picture is cool as frick, but I do wonder how bad the CG situation might be with a whole ICBM being transfered from the middle to the back, and then suddenly released.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I buy an old bomber rotting in a hanger somewhere.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Your mum

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >rape room
    Just a giant orgy room where we capture females of whatever nation and just live stream irl NTR to all their electronic devices. Demoralize them in minutes and capture their capital without a shot being fired.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Make a an AWACS or maritime patrol plane instead because airliners do not make for good bombers.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    100 nuclear bombs

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Converting an A320 into a strategic bomber?? Damn dunno about the 50 million but bet the cheapest feasible option that comes to mind is little gremlins pushing palletized munitions out the door. You are probably better off not converting an A320 into a strategic bomber

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You would need a bomb bay or at least a rear ramp to drop anything.

    Wings can't carry extra weight.

    This plane entire design is for fuel efficiency at cruise speed so it is not a great choice for military use.

    Also almost all passenger planes have much more cargo volume than payload lift capabilities.

    If you load bombs in it, it will max out the weight and it will still be half empty.

    Anyway if pressed into service you would need some aiming system and a bomb bay.

    Civilian airliners might do better as large missile buses as the missiles are much more voluminous but a while mechanical system need to be put in place for it to carry the cargo internally.

    The long range of the missiles would also negate the issues with lack of defensive capabilities or limited manoeuvreability.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *