"First wave of the attack came in disguised as a commercial charter flight, same way they did in Afghanistan in '80. Only they were crack airborne outfits. They took these passes in the Rockies. So that's what hit Calumet."
Posted on 01/23/2016 5:06:41 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
The B-52 had long been one of the Air Force's key weapons, being the first aircraft to attack Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War.
But over the past two decades, half of the military's B-52s have been scrapped due to budget constraints, leading several companies to come up with suggestions for a replacement.
One of these groups was Boeing, who came up with a plan in the 1980s to turn a 747 into a launcher capable of carrying 70 cruise missiles.
The aim was to create a low-cost bomber, at 15 per cent the price of the B-2, but able to carry 50 more missiles than its predecessor.
A major benefit of the plan, according to Boeing, was that the enemy would find it difficult to separate B-747s from civilian 747s.
This would also make it flexible enough to land at civilian airports without raising alarm among nearby residents.
The plane – which remained a concept - was named the Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft, or CMCA for short.
The design was based on the 747-200C, a cargo version of the plane, with nine launchers mounted on tracks inside of the cabin.
Each launcher would hold eight missiles that could be hidden in the rear right side of the aircraft, according to an in-depth report in Foxtrot Alpha.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3410999/Plan-turn-747-missile-launcher-revealed-Design-70-cruise-missiles-body-Boeing-aircraft.html#ixzz3y4Yw16Dy Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Sounds like a Howard Hughes project.
That was my immediate reaction - when I saw an 85% discount for an advanced weapons system, I thought “a bunch of people got fired for even suggesting it.”
Have you considered the role dihedral plays?
Wings that slope downward from the fuselage tend to enhance maneuverability (crucial for military aircraft), whereas wings that slope upward from the fuselage enhance stability (good for passenger comfort).
A downward sloping wing, positioned low on the fuselage, would risk encountering far too much ground contact. That’s the main reason why military aircraft tend to be high-wing.
LOL, good one.
In a real war, I wouldn’t be flying around unless it was directly related to the war effort. I think tourism would be put on hold.
Not a bad idea, but don’t you dare use mustangs for that, that would be sacrilege!
I think the German HE 111 began life as the fastest civilian airliner, but was really developed with the idea of turning it into a bomber - or at least Spitfire chow.
“There are only two kinds of planes, fighters and targets...” sic
Yup, she’d be a big target.
Just like AWACS and aerial tankers
If we asked for volunteers from the boneyard, the P-51 - one of the most beautiful planes of all time - would step up. It served this country well over many years. As the Donald might put it, the P-51 is beautiful on the inside as well as on the outside.
“might not the enemy start shooting every 747 it saw out of the air to take no chances?”
I believe the Soviets made some comment to that effect at the time.
The B-1 already has this capability, with revolving launcher racks. I believe B-52’s also have these racks.
The Japanese had the same idea. Only those were manned.
Hostile countries that aren’t yet at open declared war could start shooting down 747s a la KAL-007 and they’d have a justifiable claim that they thought it could be a military craft instead. Not good.
KAL007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
Or, put another way, what if every flight near, say, the Middle East got shot down like MH17, even if they weren’t actually over the country that launched on them?
MH17: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
Civilian airliners are terrifyingly vulnerable to modern non-MANPAD SAM and AAA systems.
The P-51 sucked at ground attack against even post-war systems, as we found out in Korea. You do not send a water-cooled piston engine fighter up against automatic weapons fire - a lot of the P-51 losses in Korea were due to ground fire taking out the radiators and therefore the engine. This is why the A-1 Skyraider took over the role and was so successful.
Another case for “civilian airliners that look exactly like a military aircraft end up getting shot out of the sky”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Cathay_Pacific_Douglas_DC-4_shootdown
A-1 … a whole new concept! Yes, the P-51 was designed as a long-range escort with the capability of acting as a fighter-bomber. In the latter capacity, it attacked German planes on the ground or during take-off or landing, as well as other targets of opportunity. This fighter-bomber capability was very important for destroying German jet planes (and their pilots) (think of the ME-262) that we could not fight well in the sky. The concept of the A-1 (embodied in the A-10 of today) is a plane that can survive while operating in a ground attack role when the enemy is throwing up a lot of small arms fire. Because the vital organs of the plane are protected by positioning and armor plating, the A series plane will often come back from a mission full of holes that would have crippled a plane not designed to operate in such an environment. I suppose there is a trade-off of speed, range and maneuver to gain this level of protection. I did not know about the A-1, so thanks for the tip.
what’s IFFF?
Well, the progenitor of the idea is the Russian IL-2 Sturmovik. We don’t have any of those, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2
Actually, the A-1 had incredible range - 1300+ miles on internal fuel alone. Wasn’t terribly maneuverable, but it was competent and several of them actually were able to shoot down fighter jets in combat. Their cruise speed was about 200mph, which was just fine for a ground attack aircraft; it let the pilots loiter for a very long time - Skyraiders in Vietnam could hang out over targets for literally *hours* providing ground support. A fully fueled Skyraider had a flight time of up to ten hours.
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.