| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Replacing the 'Boomers' with Boeing 747s? |
| 2015-11-18 |
| Posted by:Skidmark |
| #7 I don't see any really good reason that amphibious F-150s couldn't replace the LCS on a one for one basis. 3 crew with one extra berth, 70 knots for 350 miles. ~ $95,000 in Pentagon motif. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2015-11-18 18:18 |
| #6 A replacement for the boomers? While the payload may be similar, an Ohio-class boat would seem to have the advantage when it comes to loiter time and stealth. Maybe one size doesn't fit all. F-150s tricked out as autonomous hunter-killers with missiles and machine guns would be pretty cool. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2015-11-18 16:46 |
| #5 New F-150s are lighter due to military-grade aluminum bodies. Lower fuel consumption and an alternative to the 747. Drink UP! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2015-11-18 15:42 |
| #4 Not a bad idea for a quick and cheap supplement to existing platforms. Especially now that the missiles can be programmed on the fly. I just don't want the bean counters in congress and the pentegon to start saying that this can replace all the bombers like they say about the F-35 replacing the A-10. A Cruise missile carrier is an excellent supplement for a prestrike option prior to a large bombing campaign to take out air defenses. It isn't a replacement. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-11-18 10:48 |
| #3 Can 74's also serve as a platform for Abrams tanks? |
| Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy 2015-11-18 09:20 |
| #2 And yet we're still relying upon B-52s (whose airframes were built before the crews were born), to still do missions. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-11-18 09:13 |
| #1 Gods, not the 747 cruise missile carrier idea again. *facepalms* IIRC, I last saw this concept back in the carter administration, right after they canceled the B-1 bomber. Nihil sub sole novum. |
| Posted by: Nguard 2015-11-18 01:24 |