Airbus bomber: the B321 Résistant

[Raptormodeller]

Well, the idea is simple and here is the back story:

In mid 2017 the USA finally brings out its destructive might on ISIS. A mass carpet bombing raid with bunker busters and converted sea mines. 30 B52's, 4 B2's and 8 B1B's left their home bases for what would end it being called the middle eastern dresden. After 'just' 2 days of bombing Raqqa and Mosul. ISIS announced it would stop kamikaze raids in western countries.
While most embrassed these claims, most intelligence services believed that it was only a ruse to stop the bombings. One year later, in 2018 a massive explosion rocks the Ellysée in Paris. 60 passers by die during this kamikaze attack. 2 hours later France, USA and Russia launch the largest bombing raid in the 21st century. Palmyra and what remains of Raqqa and Mosul is reduced to dust.
France's lack of heavy bombers was evident and even before this 'vengeance' raid was finished; Airbus is consulted in the modification of 21 A321neo aircraft to heavy bombers. Nothing was heard about this for more than 7 months until on one cold day at the Istres air base a matt black A321 with numerous bulges on the nose and over 20 bombs slung under the wing takes off. It lands 7 hours later with no more bombs. Speculation is rampant. Finally the French air force releases a statement: Our new B321 Résistant bombers have attacked numerous IS strongholds.
It is believed that this bomber can carry more bombs than a B52 and could have more range than a A380 airliner.

Finished! Tell me what you think!

Chomp chomp
-raptor

[Hobbes]

interesting, haven't seen an Airbus bomber before 

[JayBee]

Get building! 

[Raptormodeller]

Get building! 

Wish I could, but I've no kit for this bad boy and I've got other projects. Still, this is one of my 'serious projects'.
Just imagine how much bombs even a small A318 couls carry. Tha cavernous area taken up by seats could be fuel or bombs. All it really needs is a heavily reinforced spine and you could drill out gaping bomb doors. I'll see if I can do a couple of diagrams... In the meantime: HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

[sandiego89]

Overall the concept sounds fine, but I think you are being way too optimistic about payload and range. A 321 based bomber will never carry more bombs than a B-52 or have more range than a Airbus 380 in any realistic configuration.  

You are confusing cubic volume and weight.  Bombs weigh a lot, but really do not take up that much volume.  Bombs are much more dense than passengers.  Yes you have a huge airliner fuselage, but you would never be able to fill all up all that space with bombs, or have an aircraft that can carry that much weight.  You will run out of useful payload (how much weight the aircraft can carry) far before you run out of volume/space.  Look at the size of the bomb bay of the B-52- it is small compared to the overall aircraft.  Where and how the bombs are carried also calls for a robust airframe.  

Fuel and bombs are all part of the payload.  You have a max payload for every aircraft.  Many bomber sorties are a tradeoff between the two.  More fuel or more bombs, not both.    

A 321 has a max takeoff weight of around 181,000 pounds, and an empty weight of around 103,000lbs, and perhaps carry about 41,000 pounds of fuel. (I am just taking a quick look at an old edition of Jane's for this on a 321-100)

Looking at wiki the 321 neo has more payload and range than an original 320, but still far less than other bombers.  So maybe you could get ~35,000 pounds of bombs with max fuel.  The max range of the 321 at usual operating weights is under 2,500 miles, a neo around 4,600 miles max.   

I think you will find the payload, range and weights of the B-52 and A380 are far, far above any proposed 321/320/318 bomber.

20 underwing bombs would severely increase drag- reducing speed and range.  I might suggest a bomb bay.  Like Nimrod perhaps.  

Not trying to dash your idea- there is merit in airliner based "bombers" in permissive environments, just tone down your range and payload expectations and get building. Just trying to help   -Dave

[kerick]

If thought about something by like this for some time. Usually involving a B747 with a cut down fuselage. What if the B 52 wore out and the USAF needed a new bomb truck. Keep the wings and stabilizers and build a new slimmer fuselage. It's on my to do list.

[Raptormodeller]

Overall the concept sounds fine, but I think you are being way too optimistic about payload and range. A 321 based bomber will never carry more bombs than a B-52 or have more range than a Airbus 380 in any realistic configuration.  

You are confusing cubic volume and weight.  Bombs weigh a lot, but really do not take up that much volume.  Bombs are much more dense than passengers.  Yes you have a huge airliner fuselage, but you would never be able to fill all up all that space with bombs, or have an aircraft that can carry that much weight.  You will run out of useful payload (how much weight the aircraft can carry) far before you run out of volume/space.  Look at the size of the bomb bay of the B-52- it is small compared to the overall aircraft.  Where and how the bombs are carried also calls for a robust airframe.  

Fuel and bombs are all part of the payload.  You have a max payload for every aircraft.  Many bomber sorties are a tradeoff between the two.  More fuel or more bombs, not both.    

A 321 has a max takeoff weight of around 181,000 pounds, and an empty weight of around 103,000lbs, and perhaps carry about 41,000 pounds of fuel. (I am just taking a quick look at an old edition of Jane's for this on a 321-100)

Looking at wiki the 321 neo has more payload and range than an original 320, but still far less than other bombers.  So maybe you could get ~35,000 pounds of bombs with max fuel.  The max range of the 321 at usual operating weights is under 2,500 miles, a neo around 4,600 miles max.   

I think you will find the payload, range and weights of the B-52 and A380 are far, far above any proposed 321/320/318 bomber.

20 underwing bombs would severely increase drag- reducing speed and range.  I might suggest a bomb bay.  Like Nimrod perhaps.  

Not trying to dash your idea- there is merit in airliner based "bombers" in permissive environments, just tone down your range and payload expectations and get building. Just trying to help   -Dave

Lighter bombs? Pure Oxygen ones mixed with hydrogen would make a large bang with (probably) less weight.

[Leading Observer]

Bombs are much more dense than passengers. 

Really? Not judging by some of the people I have shared cattle class with from Luton

[sandiego89]

Lighter bombs? Pure Oxygen ones mixed with hydrogen would make a large bang with (probably) less weight.
[/quote]

Not sure what your are referring to, but I don't think I would want to be messing around with pure oxygen and hydrogen (non-nuclear) bombs....sounds quite unstable.  If you are talking about thermobaric bombs (fuel-air explosive) they do pack a punch for the right target, but weight savings is not that much.

Bombs are designed to break things and kill people, so net explosive weight and damage from the shrapnel (coming from the shell or casing of the bomb) is important.  Guided bombs have made it possible to go with smaller weight bombs in some instances- even with concrete filled ones where collateral damage is a major concern.  A concrete filled bomb coming through the sunroof of your unarmored truck is enough to ruin your whole day.        

[kitnut617]

Just imagine how much bombs even a small A318 couls carry. Tha cavernous area taken up by seats could be fuel or bombs. All it really needs is a heavily reinforced spine and you could drill out gaping bomb doors. I'll see if I can do a couple of diagrams... In the meantime: HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Freighter versions are already re-enforced for the extra weight they can carry.

As an aside, while looking for some RAF connection for one of my 1/72 Vickers Vanguard kits I've got, I discovered that the freighter version was used on chartered re-supply flights for the RAF to Germany. The article said it could carry more bombs than a B-52 --- 

[Raptormodeller]

Lighter bombs? Pure Oxygen ones mixed with hydrogen would make a large bang with (probably) less weight.

Not sure what your are referring to, but I don't think I would want to be messing around with pure oxygen and hydrogen (non-nuclear) bombs....sounds quite unstable.  If you are talking about thermobaric bombs (fuel-air explosive) they do pack a punch for the right target, but weight savings is not that much.

Bombs are designed to break things and kill people, so net explosive weight and damage from the shrapnel (coming from the shell or casing of the bomb) is important.  Guided bombs have made it possible to go with smaller weight bombs in some instances- even with concrete filled ones where collateral damage is a major concern.  A concrete filled bomb coming through the sunroof of your unarmored truck is enough to ruin your whole day.        
[/quote]
Well, it would actually be pretty stable (if you think about it) , these are actually pretty harmless gasses when together until a spark is introduced, the subsequent explosion should create water vapour. Different sized bombs with different volumes and different guidance systems could be created wothout too much difficulty. Concrete bombs shouldn't be neglected. But I do think that a couple modernised tallboys is the best way to make terrorists beg for mercy.