|
Agean90 posted:is that an actual airforce design It was an internal Boeing study. It also gets even peakier cold war:  
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Cool but I was expecting an A-5 vid
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Launching in a dive would just be awesome. Sucidal, but awesome. World's biggest unguided rocket pod.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
I still love this so much. From the Department of Just Because We loving Could... priznat posted:Launching in a dive would just be awesome. Sucidal, but awesome. After making GBS threads out that much weight you'd figure the CG suddenly being all upfront would = 747 divey pants-making GBS threads time no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Everyone should watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SObYcIRTlI
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
It gets even more Cold War than any of those posts, courtesy of Orbital ATK: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11404 Yes, their idea was to hot-launch ICBMs in mid-air. By 'warm-launching' them first. B4Ctom1 posted:Everyone should watch this Yeah, every so often I'll link people to this, because you don't often get to see what RVs look like coming in, and you *certainly* don't often get to see inert ones slamming into the ground at still-hypersonic speeds. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Sep 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:After making GBS threads out that much weight you'd figure the CG suddenly being all upfront would = 747 divey pants-making GBS threads time no matter what. Some of the proposals had ballast that would be pulled forward by a cable as the missile slid out. I don’t know about that one, specifically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Everyone should watch this I've never seen this before. It's frigging amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
http://fox4kc.com/2016/08/03/kcpd-helicopter-pilots-make-emergency-landing-at-kansas-city-intersection/ video http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8e9_1474734407
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/09/26/first-photos-north-koreas-ground-breaking-airshow/
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:It gets even more Cold War than any of those posts, courtesy of Orbital ATK: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11404 No, no, no. 'Warm' launch implies a mild process. quote:a short-burn, high-thrust rocket motor capable of chucking the missile into the air, but fast-burning enough so that it burns out before it actually clears the tube. They mean a Why you wouldn't just drop them out the bottom, let the aircraft get clear and then ignite the motor? I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:is that an actual airforce design http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Q_res posted:The Wingman series had C-5s slinging massive amounts of Phoenix missiles in one of the books. Naw, naw you forgot the BEST thing that they did with a C-5 in those books. They loaded 8 Avengers into one. 8. THAT is warporn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
n0tqu1tesane posted:http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371 For real though why don't they do this? Cost of cruise missiles high enough they never use more than 20 at a time?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Cutting a hole in the pressurized cabin of an airplane can cause problems. And we already have plenty of things to launch cruise missiles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:For real though why don't they do this? Cost of cruise missiles high enough they never use more than 20 at a time? if you know the direction a cruise missile is coming from you can shoot it down. This is why submarines and ships are great launch platforms, they have the required reach and poise to provide an unexpected attack vector.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Cutting a hole in the pressurized cabin of an airplane can cause problems. And we already have plenty of things to launch cruise missiles. I'm sure Being could pull this off technically. And while yes we do, one ship 80 missiles, when you need to launch 80, seems naturally more efficient (crew, energy consumption, etc. wise) than 4 archaic aircraft with 20. Analogous but not perfect comparison:  Baloogan posted:if you know the direction a cruise missile is coming from you can shoot it down. This is why submarines and ships are great launch platforms, they have the required reach and poise to provide an unexpected attack vector. Perhaps some countries can, however the B-52 still carries several. This would be a cruise missile/bomblet/whatever B-52 upgrade/competitor instead of a replacement for those platforms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:
Plus you got JASSM and JSOW and SBD which are cruse missiles / glide bombs with significant range. SLAMER too. Not saying air launched cruise missiles suck, just that strategic gently caress-you-and-die 747s stuffed with 60 nuclear cruise missiles just doesn't make sense today. There was an era when cruise missiles used to be able to sneak in before the development of LD/SD radar. Now low flying cruse missiles show up bright on scopes cause of signal processing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:47
|
|
Baloogan posted:Plus you got JASSM and JSOW and SBD which are cruse missiles / glide bombs with significant range. SLAMER too. The article also mentions using the 747 as a JDAM, etc truck. Probably would be good to have some already on tap for operation bomb sand like we've had for the past decade but probably not worth spending the money on at this point unless we're gonna just keep doing this for another few decades.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Mazel tov! http://i.imgur.com/hZncNJ3.mp4
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
That Works posted:The article also mentions using the 747 as a JDAM, etc truck. Probably would be good to have some already on tap for operation bomb sand like we've had for the past decade but probably not worth spending the money on at this point unless we're gonna just keep doing this for another few decades. What's the benefit of buying into a new logistics train, string of training pipelines for crews and support personnel, etc vs just using the bomb trucks (commonly known as heavy bombers) that we already have? This sort of thing only really crops up when the 747 line is in danger of shutting down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Cold war crazy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/27/receding-icecap-top-secret-us-nuclear-project-greenland-camp-century-project-iceworm Y'all are no doubt familiar with project Iceworm: the Ice planet Hoth-like secret base the U.S. Military built in a glacer in Greenland. Apparently the base was just abandoned, to be iced over "for all time", but global warming may just expose the base and all of its PCB-soaked asbestos. Anyway, the article mentioned something I didn't know: that Iceworm was to study the feasibility of building a missile launch complex under the Greenland glacier the size of Dennmark.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:15
|
|
Godholio posted:What's the benefit of buying into a new logistics train, string of training pipelines for crews and support personnel, etc vs just using the bomb trucks (commonly known as heavy bombers) that we already have? Not arguing for it needing to happen anymore, but if they had built a few of them 20 years ago how much savings would we have gotten to use them in a lot of the cases we have used B52s for since?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Mazel tov! Is that one hell of an updraft/thermal? Seems like they had the cyclic way forward but the nose just kept going up until bris.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
That Works posted:Not arguing for it needing to happen anymore, but if they had built a few of them 20 years ago how much savings would we have gotten to use them in a lot of the cases we have used B52s for since? Counterpoint: Try to picture Bill Clinton or the Pentagon pre-dotcom boom saying "hey, let's build a bunch of super vulnerable 747 bomb/missile trucks to just tool around blowing the poo poo out of mud huts and apartment buildings, dropping smart, long range, low collateral mini-bombs while we enjoy perfect air superiority and will catch poo poo if we bomb the wrong place."
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:20
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Counterpoint: Try to picture Bill Clinton or the Pentagon pre-dotcom boom saying "hey, let's build a bunch of super vulnerable 747 bomb/missile trucks to just tool around blowing the poo poo out of mud huts and apartment buildings, dropping smart, long range, low collateral mini-bombs while we enjoy perfect air superiority and will catch poo poo if we bomb the wrong place." Good point.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Having a 747 full of JDAMs would not have made us win any wars we otherwise would not have won. For a bit more real bombers can do that job, but also the other jobs too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Please tell me this is part of a set.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Please tell me this is part of a set. Looks like Bruce McCall's work, if I'm not mistaken?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Perhaps the biggest reason not to use a 747 as a missile boat? If no 747 is armed, then all 747s are civilian* (unarmed-but-military stuff already in service kinda blurs this I guess). If some 747s are armed, the risk of hundreds of passengers being shot down is far far higher.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 08:22
|
|
Mortabis posted:Having a 747 full of JDAMs would not have made us win any wars we otherwise would not have won. For a bit more real bombers can do that job, but also the other jobs too. Ehh sure but that logic can also be stretched to say that we p much haven't needed anything built since the end of Vietnam to have won us those wars (accepting a few more casualties).
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
That Works posted:Ehh sure but that logic can also be stretched to say that we p much haven't needed anything built since the end of Vietnam to have won us those wars (accepting a few more casualties). Then you have to argue that 747s full of missiles is how you're going to win the Future War(tm), and at the moment the Pentagon's idea of how to win the Future War(tm) is to have stealth platforms connected to the Internet so I'm not sure how you could shoehorn a 747 in that vision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Then you have to argue that 747s full of missiles is how you're going to win the Future War(tm), and at the moment the Pentagon's idea of how to win the Future War(tm) is to have stealth platforms connected to the Internet so I'm not sure how you could shoehorn a 747 in that vision. Fill the 747 with spare Internet. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 11:49
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Then you have to argue that 747s full of missiles is how you're going to win the Future War(tm), and at the moment the Pentagon's idea of how to win the Future War(tm) is to have stealth platforms connected to the Internet so I'm not sure how you could shoehorn a 747 in that vision. Valid point but I don't think "keep using B52s for a century" was something anyone really wanted to plan for either.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Fill the 747 with spare Internet. Duh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-767
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
Brovine posted:Perhaps the biggest reason not to use a 747 as a missile boat? We armed the 737 so I'm not sure that argument means much. Also, I'm not sure how easily 1990s radar could distinguish 747 vs other 4 engine large planes. Oh, and I'm pretty sure there's no armed 777 but tell that to the people on MH17.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
That Works posted:Not arguing for it needing to happen anymore, but if they had built a few of them 20 years ago how much savings would we have gotten to use them in a lot of the cases we have used B52s for since? That's my point, what would it have saved? Sure, it would've been better on fuel, but re-engining the B-52 fleet would certainly be cheaper than buying a NEW fleet of airplanes, and even that plan wasn't worth the financial investment. Brovine posted:Perhaps the biggest reason not to use a 747 as a missile boat? Didn't stop the US from using 707s for everything. Also 737, 757, 767. Edit: Actually the USAF operates 747s already. Aside from the obvious VC-25, there's the E-4. Godholio fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 13:36
|
|
Godholio posted:That's my point, what would it have saved? Sure, it would've been better on fuel, but re-engining the B-52 fleet would certainly be cheaper than buying a NEW fleet of airplanes, and even that plan wasn't worth the financial investment. I was thinking 1) money due to lower operations cost/fuel over the lifetime of the mission and 2) extending the service life of the B52 fleet by minimizing their use further. Probably doesn't add up to actually save enough in the end though given development costs of the new plane like you said.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Why extend the B-52's life further by bringing in a 4th strategic style asset on board? We'd have a missile/bomb boat in the 747, and one in the 52, it doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 14:33
|
|