Posted on 08/05/2016 3:44:04 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
An interesting concept for America's nuclear deterrent recently emerged on the Internet. A former employee for a US defense contractor describes an idea to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles from midair…using a civilian jetliner. The idea was ultimately shelved, but is reminiscent of a current DoD program for conventional weapons.
According to the post on The Unwanted Blog the author, was an employee for Orbital ATK, a San Jose-based defense contractor specializing in rockets and missiles. The author came across some Powerpoint presentations of a concept developed with another defense contractor, BAE, for turning a 747 into a nuclear missile carrier.
The concept isn't exactly new—back in the 1970s and 1980s, there were also proposals to equip 747s with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The jetliners would have been a cheaper alternative to the B-1B Lancer strategic bomber, then under development. Ultimately the B-1B won out, and the 747 stayed in firmly in the civilian camp.
Orbital ATK's concept, however, was slightly bolder. The concept was to put actual ICBMs in vertical launch tubes along the spine of a 747. The missiles would be launched "hot"—that is, they would ignite inside of the aircraft. That's a dicey proposition, but ATK reckoned they had it all figured out.
Is it an absolutely insane idea? Maybe not. Currently the U.S. has 450 Minuteman III ICBMs sprinkled across the Great Plains and Midwest, tucked away in hardened missile silos nestled among cornfields and farm land. In order to strike those missiles, an enemy would need to directly attack the US homeland, killing millions of civilians and irradiating millions of acres of fertile land.
The U.S. is currently looking to replace the Minuteman III with the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program. With the new missiles comes an opportunity to base them somewhere else—preferably away from America's breadbasket. Placing them in a 747 would do that but—assuming each Minuteman III is replaced on a 1 to 1 basis—you'd need at least 150 747s to carry enough missiles.
The concept is also similar to the Department of Defense's "Arsenal Plane". The concept is to use a large aircraft—such as B-52 or 747—and pack it to the gills with conventional weapons such as cruise missiles and other standoff weapon systems. Stealthy aircraft such as the F-35 or F-22 could then provide targeting data to the Arsenal Plane, which would use long-range weapons to stay away from air defenses let loose on the target.
Kind of reminds me of the little D-21 dronelets that could be carried on either a B-52
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/B-52_with_two_D-21s.jpg
or SR-71
OK, sir, would you like your seat in front of the missile section or behind?
To bad Howard Hughes isn’t around anymore.
Doesn’t sound like a practical solution, but what do I know. Let’s hope the idea was abandoned for impracticality and not for putting more megabucks in the pockets of the military-industrial complex.
1. 747s are civilian aircraft without the redundancy and strength requirements of military aircraft. Loading one up with nukes and waiting for one to inevitably crash is incredibly stupid. How many 747s have already crashed into mountains/piled into the sea so far?
2.When one 747 is used for carrying nuclear weapons ALL 747s become potential targets by enemy forces. How would you like to be aboard a civilian airliner when the "balloon goes up"?
The idea has some merit. If not exclusively for military, but also for commercial uses. A tremendous amount of energy is spent getting the middle off the ground and to 40,000 ft.
Lift off energy would remain constant, however there would be a 40,000+ foot advantage in reduced rocket fuel and weight for each rocket deployment.
The range of an ICBM should negate any disadvantage the 747 has; How many countries can target/track a 747 launching missiles 5,000 miles away?
Maybe yes. Google Operation Chrome Dome and add missiles to the mix.
No thanks.
Meanwhile, all 747s become legitimate military targets.
Dumb.
Presumably every country since air traffic over the United States isn't exactly a closely guarded secret. These plans can't turn off their transponders or we run a risk of collisions with normal civilian aircraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieYsxEe8pkQ 
According to Wikipedia, there have been 60 hull-losses of 747’s, less than 4% of the total built. And many of these were hijackings, blown up, stuck by lightning, hitting another plane on the ground (Tenerife), etc.
Possibly a better record than the B-52’s.
The idea has some merit. If not exclusively for military, but also for commercial uses. A tremendous amount of energy is spent getting the middle off the ground and to 40,000 ft.
Seems like it might be a better idea to drop the ICBM out the bottom of the plane and then ignite it a few seconds later when the plane has moved away.
Even one loss of a nuclear-armed aircraft is a disaster. That B-52 that crashed in Palomares Spain is still causing problems 50 years later.
747s are an overaged, weak aircraft. Criminally stupid idea.
C-17s would be a better choice.
I would assume the designers had a reason for picking the 747, maybe because it’s faster, bigger (about 50 feet longer) and can fly almost 5000 nm further.
Not sure what you mean about ‘overaged’.
Old design or just old?
The 747 is still in production, although they’re talking about winding it down. So it would be a new plane.
As far as old design, I would imagine that they would plan on starting with a stripped airframe anyway.
Whoever did that drawing for PM wasn’t an aeronautical engineer. Good luck on firing a load of missiles from behind the center of gravity.
If you can successfully get a vertical launch without damaging that huge tail, you’ve just changed that 747’s pitch trim to “crazy nose heavy”.
Not great.
Whoever did that drawing for PM wasn’t an aeronautical engineer. Good luck on firing a load of missiles from behind the center of gravity.
If you can successfully get a vertical launch without damaging that huge tail, you’ve just changed that 747’s pitch trim to “crazy nose heavy”.
Or maybe these non-’aeronautical engineers’ already anticipated the trim problem.
Note on the drawing, there are two tanks shown, one over the wing and one in the tail, connected by a tube.
Seems like that might be a way of moving ballast back and forth to compensate. Looks good to me.
Also they had no trouble releasing the shuttle from the top of the 747 without hitting the tail. I would imagine the missile would be leaving much faster.
But anyway, I still think it would be better to drop the missile out the bottom and then light it off. But I also assume they thought of it, and decided against it for some reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
