Posted on 02/03/2016 7:00:59 AM PST by C19fan
U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has revealed the existence of a program to develop a so-called "Arsenal Plane." Designed to back up fifth generation fighters such as the F-35 with a large number of conventional weapons, backing up the high-tech fighters with tried-and-true ordinance.
The Arsenal Plane actually has its roots at sea. During the 1990s, there was an effort to create so-called "Arsenal Ships"— large boats packed with hundreds of missile silos that would rely on the targeting data of the rest of the fleet. The Arsenal Ship was never built, but four Ohio-class submarines were converted to carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each, platforms now recognized as extremely important in providing stand-off, precision firepower.
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
Arsenal ship revisited.
Only airborne.
IOW: a more expensive B-52.
It actually makes some sense. An F-22 or F-35 flying in front to designate targets, and a cargo plane some distance behind launching long-range missiles at the targets.
Such an aircraft would be an easy target for enemy fighter planes.
Rumsfeld was right about one thing. What America truly needs is autonomous special forces. The days of fighting with massive flying and floating contraptions ended with WWII.
Or in other other words, “The F-35 is a piece of crap and won’t do the job it should but we are going ahead with it anyway because we have to pay for votes and we will buy even more votes with another plane. Yea, we screwed up with the 35 but what the hell, it’s only taxpayer money and failed national defense.”
Yes, but suspect such aircraft would have fighter support.
An airborne Yamato. What could go wrong?
A QB is an easy target for defensive linemen.
That is what offensive linemen are for.
Also, a reason for a quick throw and running away.
Plane could carry heavier longer range AA missiles which fighters cannot carry, or carry more to supplement planes when they run out of missiles - since the F-22 is available only very limited quantities - 60 or so operational at any one time, and the F-35 can hardly pack anything (compare with SU-35S) and will also be in limited quantities, they both will run out quickly against swarming massed enemy fighters. (In simulation against advanced enemy planes: the F-22 will only take out 2.5 enemy to 1, and the F-35 is 3.5 lost to 1 enemy those assets will be used up quickly.)
Gimme a geosynchronous satellite with a maximum blasto laser and I’ll knock that sucker out of the sky in a microsecond. Sorry ‘bout the young women flying it.
Yeah. A much more expensive B-52.
They “might” make 3 or 4. Need 110 or 200.
Yamato? How about the Atragon! It could do anything! Flying submarine-battleship that could drill into the earth’s core!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atragon
For air-to-air combat, this is a silly idea. The Sov, er, Russians have long-ranged AAMs, as do the Euroweenies. Unless the range of AMRAAM is significantly extended, the ‘arsenal plane’ will be in range...
A better trick would be UCAVs armed with missiles working in tandem with the fighters.
However an ‘arsenal plane’ for ground attack - that has potential. A flying barge with tons of various sized PGMs ready to drop...
Go whole hog - Dig out the plans for the USS Los Angeles. Use the trapeze system to launch drones,
The Christmas I was 6, I got a toy version of the Army’s “Atomic Annie”. After the real artillery piece was retired, we got word from the former Soviet Army that they knew where each and every one of those guns were, and had plans to destroy each one on the first day of war. This fits the same criteria of “all your eggs in one basket” (or at least too few baskets).
Let’s work on keeping the F-35 in the air first, kids.
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.