Military Review

Carry more cruise missiles or UAVs: U.S. Air Force wants arsenal

45

C-130 transporter, a possible candidate for the role of an arsenal aircraft


The US Air Force is once again returning to the concept of an “arsenal aircraft”. Once again, it is proposed to work out the appearance of a promising missile carrier aircraft capable of carrying ammunition of increased dimensions. So far we are only talking about research and the creation of flying laboratories. With their help, the Air Force will determine the real value of the original concept and its potential to strengthen combat aviation.

Bold plans


Information about the new research in the interests of the Air Force was published on June 25. The Air Force and the Pentagon's Strategic Opportunity Directorate have posted a request for information inviting potential contractors to collaborate.

The customer wishes to receive preliminary designs of a platform aircraft capable of carrying a large number of cruise missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles. Such an arsenal will have to operate at a safe distance from enemy air defense systems and launch its combat load: for reconnaissance, striking, etc.


The layout of the CMCA aircraft offered in the past

Arsenal aircraft can be developed from scratch or run on the basis of an existing machine. This aspect is not yet of fundamental importance. At the same time, preference is given to simpler projects, which can reach the experimental and test stages in the shortest possible time.

Strategic importance


The main objective of the new project is to build up the strike capabilities of strategic aviation. At the disposal of this kind of troops there are dozens of several types of aircraft and in the near future new ones are expected. The fleet of specialized percussion machines can be supplemented with fundamentally new ones.

The Air Force notes that the presence of non-standard platforms for the delivery of weapons expands the operational capabilities of strategic aviation when acting against a technically advanced enemy. Thus, the combined use of missile-carrying bombers and arsenal aircraft will ensure an increase in the number of missiles in strike and will affect its effectiveness.

The success or failure of a new research project may affect the further development of strategic aviation of the US Air Force. In the future, after obtaining the necessary data for a research project, plans for existing ones may be revised. The arsenal aircraft will be compared with the promising stealth long-range bomber B-21 Raider. Having a number of characteristic advantages, the latter is notable for its high price and complexity of operation. A hypothetical flying "arsenal" will be able to surpass it in a number of important characteristics. In this case, the specialized B-21 will be able to complement the "arsenal".


Dump the pallet with CLEAVER products from the MC-130J

Not the first of its kind


It should be noted that this is not the first attempt by the US Air Force to create an arsenal capable of complementing or replacing strategic bombers. In the past, projects of this kind were developed, and some studies even reached practical events. However, in all cases, the “arsenals” could not be surpassed by specialized bombers and therefore did not get into the troops.

The most famous project of this kind is the CMCA (Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft) from the eighties. This "arsenal" was made on the basis of the transport Boeing 747-200C. In the cargo compartment, it was proposed to install revolving launchers and rail tracks for their movement. Using guides, the launcher had to approach the hatch in the rear of the fuselage, drop the rockets out and give way to another drum. Depending on the type of weapons, the number of launchers, etc. CMCA could carry from 50 to 90-100 missiles.

The CMCA was seen as a potential replacement for the old B-52 Stratofortress and compares favorably with both a more modern platform and increased ammunition. However, the new project had some drawbacks of a technical, operational, combat and other nature, because of which it did not even reach the stage of testing a flying laboratory.

A few months before the current request for information was posted, in January, the Air Force Special Operations Command and Air Force Research Laboratory conducted an interesting experiment. From the MC-130J Commando II aircraft, pallets with different weights were dropped in the air, including with mockups of modern cruise missiles. In practice, it was possible to confirm the fundamental possibility of dropping weapons from a military transport aircraft.


The heavy transport aircraft C-17 unloads containers on the run

Together with other products with the MC-130J, four layouts of CLEAVER (Cargo Launch Expendable Air Vehicles with Extended Range) aircraft were dropped. This is a promising long-range cruise missile, on the basis of which a multi-purpose UAV can also be created. The January experiments look curious in the light of the new R&D: their results show the possibility of creating an arsenal of aircraft.

Advantages and disadvantages


Arsenal is significantly different from a conventional missile carrier. Some of these differences can be considered an advantage, while others lead to limitations, including the most serious. The ratio of strengths and weaknesses of such a concept may limit the actual value of the finished aircraft for the Air Force.

The main advantages of the flying "arsenal" are the possibility of using a well-developed air platform from the class of military transport aircraft. Ammunition growth is also possible, for which both significant dimensions of the cargo compartment and high aircraft carrying capacity are used. For example, the widespread C-130 transporter, depending on the modification, can carry up to 19 tons of cargo in a large cab. The larger C-17 Globemaster III carries more than 77 tons and is capable of carrying 18 standard pallets.

Flight performance and operational characteristics depend on the type of base platform. In particular, when using existing platforms, the Arsenal can have a large flight range and combat radius, but supersonic flight speed with all its advantages is unattainable.

Carry more cruise missiles or UAVs: U.S. Air Force wants arsenal

Landing with C-17. Similarly, cruise missiles can be dropped

Due to the mass of restrictions, an arsenal cannot break through an air defense using the same methods as a strategic bomber. In this regard, the new research for the US Air Force provides for the use of long-range cruise missiles. Arsenal will have to launch missiles outside the zone of destruction of enemy air defense. This will increase survivability, but reduce the range of weapons available for use.

It is also possible that certain difficulties arise at the stage of converting a transport aircraft into a rocket carrier during construction or operation. In addition, it is still not clear whether the arsenal, made on modern technologies, can become a full-fledged addition for bombers (not to mention replacement).

Near future


In general, the concept of an arsenal aircraft has the right to life and can even be brought to development work. However, the further fate of the initiated research for the Air Force and the Office of Strategic Opportunities remains unclear. The idea of ​​a flying "arsenal" in theory is able to receive support with the subsequent implementation and delivery of finished equipment to the troops. It will expand the strike capabilities of the Air Force, but a complete transition to arsenal aircraft is in any case impossible.

Overall, within the next few decades, US strategic aviation will face major changes, and some of them may be unexpected. So, in accordance with the approved plans, part of the existing equipment will be written off for moral and physical obsolescence, and completely new models will replace it. The main hope of the Air Force is the promising B-21. Recently launched research work may lead to the creation of a fundamentally new missile carrier, or may not. But regardless of the results of this research, it is clear that the US Air Force intends to look for any ways to increase the strike force of strategic aviation, including those that go beyond the traditional approaches.
Author:
Photos used:
US Air Force, Up-ship.com
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 3 July 2020 18: 08 New
    +2
    Flying aircraft carrier, carrier of missiles and UAVs? In my opinion this is from some fantastic book) but it is already possible))
    1. lucul
      lucul 3 July 2020 18: 23 New
      +4
      Flying aircraft carrier, carrier of missiles and UAVs? In my opinion this is from some fantastic book) but it is already possible))

      Yeah, the so-called "clear sky plane." Ie when no one bothers him - neither fighters, nor air defense)))
      Otherwise, a guaranteed corpse ...
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 3 July 2020 18: 55 New
        -1
        Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie must destroy fighters and air defense :)
        1. lucul
          lucul 3 July 2020 19: 31 New
          0
          Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie must destroy fighters and air defense :)

          The keyword is MUST. Should - it does not mean to fulfill)))
      2. donavi49
        donavi49 3 July 2020 19: 31 New
        11
        Why? This is quite a suitable means of rapid buildup, and with hidden capabilities.

        For example, it is necessary to gouge Iran or some other country not of the first world. We need a powerful first strike on a mass of targets. If you pull the fleet openly, then the other side of 2003 did not look at the fact that it would dutifully wait until the entire state-owned company gathered to kick its feet. Hidden deployment and reasonable retraction of the fleet - has its limits.

        Using the Air Force is simpler, but there are some limits too. And again, the transfer will open.

        And here we can catch 20-25 such trucks, say, it will not cause any suspicions. Then at hour H they, together with other forces, will provide a truly sudden and large-scale first strike.

        In ordinary sluggish conflicts / acts of revenge-upbringing, this is also useful. To drive which B-52 / B1 is really expensive, a bunch of approvals. But such strike transport is cheaper and may well replace the destroyer in strike equipment. And quickly, while Burke will need 3-5 days, if he is in operational readiness in the region. And it may not be, or will have to be pulled from a section of 4-5 ships of 6-8 Axes in each. Or wait until they equip and drag the drum from the main base for a week or ten days.

        Yes, and for a big war. A total of 20-30 converted cars will arrive in Poland-Estonia-Ukraine, under the legend, diapers and hamburgers were brought. And this is a significant buildup of the first strike, and they will shoot back from the territory of NATO / Allies.
        1. lucul
          lucul 3 July 2020 19: 33 New
          -7
          Why? This is quite a suitable means of rapid buildup, and with hidden capabilities.

          Nonsense.
          Well, the rest of the countries have closed the sky for you to fly your planes, and that’s all - the whole concept is immediately in the trash.
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 3 July 2020 19: 36 New
            +8
            This is for Russia - therefore it is necessary to do the fleet, they will not close it.

            The United States will close the space only next in line for democratization, but few of them.
            1. lucul
              lucul 3 July 2020 19: 41 New
              -2
              The United States will close the space only next in line for democratization, but few of them.

              They just become more and more - it can reach the point that Europe will close)))
          2. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 3 July 2020 19: 36 New
            +2
            And someone asked them?)) This is a US plane, they have access to all countries)
            1. lucul
              lucul 3 July 2020 19: 42 New
              -1
              this is a US plane, they have access to all countries)

              So much for everyone))))
        2. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 3 July 2020 19: 44 New
          -4
          X58a for self-defense and anti-aircraft defense, Predator C or modification MQ25 for striking. In theory, these UAVs can be caught, caught on a cable as when refueling, pulled to magnetic locks and pulled into an Aircraft Carrier to reload missiles :)
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 3 July 2020 19: 48 New
            -1
            Aircraft carrier based on the Boeing 747-8 :)
        3. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 3 July 2020 20: 07 New
          +1
          The appearance of such "arsenals" will give rise to bring down without hesitation any large-sized aircraft without bothering with moral standards! Do Americans really want to turn their entire civilian fleet into legal targets? hi
        4. Katanikotael
          Katanikotael 3 July 2020 21: 19 New
          -2
          without a flying radar, such things will not fly anywhere, and this immediately unmasks the entire squadron
      3. gregor6549
        gregor6549 4 July 2020 17: 50 New
        +2
        This aircraft is not going to be used by anyone where it can be threatened by fighter interceptors and air defense systems.
        The range of cruise missiles is enough to ensure that they can be launched long before entering the coverage areas of the IA and SAM. Plus, the ability of modern cruise missiles to bypass such zones when flying to the target. Add here their ability to go around the terrain, which makes their detection and interception a very difficult task, as well as a large number of RCs that can simultaneously fly at a given target from different directions and get an oil painting.
        I dare say that the dismissive opinion of the "axes" that has recently formed among the general public does not quite correspond to the threat posed by modern KR. They, too, are developing rapidly, have multi-mode and multi-spectral homing heads and can be quite effective even with an layered air defense system.
  2. Oleg Zatsepin
    Oleg Zatsepin 3 July 2020 18: 46 New
    -7
    By and large, crap and stupid fantasies. Against barmaley it is excessive and not necessary at all. Against Russia, for example, stupidly. It is hoped that intelligence will miss the fool’s departure and no one will fly to intercept ... Maybe, of course, start firing like Hitler once, without declaring war, but the second is unlikely to take place.
    1. Passing
      Passing 3 July 2020 20: 36 New
      13
      Quote: Oleg Zatsepin
      intelligence will miss the flight of this fool and no one will fly to intercept ...

      Well, our intelligence service didn’t oversleep, sees that they are flying bastards, are planning something, or exercises, or a disarming strike, where to fly into Poland’s airspace, or maybe Estonia? It turns out that we cannot prevent this device from reaching the launch line, and until there is a mass launch of missiles, we cannot shoot down this pepelats with something long-range, like the S-400, and when there is a mass launch, it will be too late. So it turns out not crap and stupid fantasies, but an ace of trumps.
    2. bayard
      bayard 3 July 2020 21: 47 New
      +6
      You do not consider the range of cruise missiles. Aircraft does not differ in appearance from an ordinary transporter, you can equip it in a hangar, it will launch in international airspace. So for the first blow is quite a means. If each such fool can launch 40 to 50 or more missiles, then a massive salvo for overloading and suppressing air defense will be ensured. Do not forget that after launching from the carrier, the CRs will fly at low and extremely low altitudes and for air defense will be very difficult targets - in terms of difficulty of detection, first of all, for ground-based radar systems, their detection range will be 15 - 35 km.
      So the idea of ​​arsenal aircraft is very promising, although not new. Last time it wasn’t realized because such planes would have to be included in contracts, like carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic with nuclear warheads (no one would have to listen to the excuses that they were “conventional” - the Cold War is like that), after the end of the war, such aircraft need it wasn’t ... but now it has appeared.
      And it would not hurt our MO to carry out an OKR to launch the KR with IL-76 - X-101, X-102 and promising X-50. With such air arsenals, it is very convenient and quick to maneuver forces long distances.
      Let’s say the situation in the Far East aggravated, and several such arsenals are thrown there during the day ... or several dozen - that’s how the Moscow region’s appetite will be played out. And now - no crisis is already terrible.
      Or there’s a mess in the Caribbean Sea - Venezuela is again offended ... And several transport planes fly there ... And the hooligans think about it ... And we don’t need to drive any ships ... which we don’t have for such distant TVDs.
      And it is much cheaper and easier to implement than building a fleet of strategic bombers. For the Security Council there will be others - more complex and responsible tasks.
      Since the strategic arms control treaty will not be signed, plans can be built now.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 6 July 2020 07: 42 New
        0
        You do not consider the range of cruise missiles.

        I don’t quite understand why the majority are discussing this delusional spherokonin. To put an end to this entire program, it is enough to recall the flight speed of the Kyrgyz Republic - a little more than 800 km / h. That is, the path of the Kyrgyz Republic from the borders of the Russian Federation to any of the strategic areas will take not even minutes, but hours. There is enough time to launch an ICBM retaliatory strike - you can even have lunch and smoke slowly in the end. Attack of states without developed strategic nuclear forces? Well, there are quite enough submarines
        1. bayard
          bayard 6 July 2020 15: 57 New
          0
          She is by no means delusional, and this has been discussed for a long time.
          Firstly, it’s cheap - it’s much cheaper than a strategic bomber and even more so nuclear submarines.
          Secondly, the arsenal carried by one such carrier is equal to a volley of ash-type MAPL. And 3-5 times more than the Tu-160.
          Thirdly, the range of modern KR - 2 - 500 km. Therefore, the launch can be carried out either from its territory (and it is very large here), or from a safe distance (above the North Pole, over the south of the Caspian, from the middle of the Atlantic (if you fly through the Middle East and North Africa).
          The speed of these missiles (subsonic) is also not an obstacle, because if it is a global conflict, then they will go the second (if not third) wave, when the means of over-the-horizon location, low-orbit satellites, military and fighter aviation aerodromes, command centers, etc. will already be hit and disabled. These KR will hit the military and civilian infrastructure, military bases, energy, transport hubs ...
          And in the first wave (depending on the theater of operations), the border Iskanders and Daggers will go (because we simply don’t have normal SLBMs yet), hypersonic Zircons (if they will be in service by then) from MAPL and 500 km from the coast of the enemy (at the moment just a very likely enemy), and of course the ICBM, if this conflict is nuclear.

          The United States is now faced with the problem of strategic carriers (they have a lot of problems, but this is one of the most painful) and they cannot solve it. Moreover, they cannot - quickly. The V-21 will not be in service soon, it will be expensive and it is unlikely that it will solve the problem of a massive launch. So they are experimenting with launches of the Kyrgyz Republic from transport aircraft. Everything is logical.
          We have the same problem - the fleet of strategic bombers is old, the new ones cannot be built (and they will not work soon), and when they succeed, it will be expensive and long. Look at the flour with attempts to weld a titanium center section for the Tu-160 and the resumption of the production of NK-32M engines for him ...
          Can you imagine what will happen when they try to build PAK YES?
          Difficult task .
          And very expensive.
          But the whole laugh of the situation is that for our KR with a range of 4 - 500 km. such sophisticated media are not needed. Enough ANY carrier, the most ordinary, for their launches are possible from an absolutely safe area, out of sight of enemy air defense systems.
          You can save on media.

          In China, in the presence of unlimited funds, there are no strategic bombers. Tu-16 does not count - it is a long-range and anti-ship aircraft.
          But there is a KR.
          So they also have a natural interest in such budget carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic.

          So this is far from a whim, but an objective necessity.
          And this question is gaining urgency right now - when the USA refused the INF Treaty, and now the strategic arms treaty will surely sink into oblivion. Surely.

          ... And here we sadly turn back to Ulyanovsk, where for ten years they have been torturing the resumption of serial construction of the Il-76MD90A ... This year they promised the first serial delivery (6 or 8 units) ... and silence ... Are they building? ... not building? ... but there is no one to punish ...
  3. alien308
    alien308 3 July 2020 18: 49 New
    +3
    Discharge of payload beyond the scope of air defense. And they probably have a lot of transport workers in storage. This car can be made unmanned. If that transporter from storage worked out a resource is not a pity.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 3 July 2020 19: 07 New
      -3
      Yeah, 3-4 unmanned aircraft carriers with UAVs and missiles, 1-2 tankers, 1 aircraft command center at a distance :)) And there has become more democracy in Bandstan :))
  4. mdsr
    mdsr 3 July 2020 18: 49 New
    +5
    And what an interesting concept, and most importantly, inexpensive. Just imagine, IL-76s loaded with calibers or hypersonic missiles take off from our airfields, fly over the Caspian Sea under the guise of our fighters, and over the friendly territory of Iran, missiles are mass-launched through one of the Persian Gulf or North Africa. There are a lot of advantages, starting from the lack of the need to build expensive Caliber carriers, to increasing the speed and significantly increasing the range of missile destruction. Another important point is the emergence of the possibility of carrying out a mass attack with cruise missiles of important military and administrative targets of the enemy without entering the air defense zone. Another issue is that the missiles themselves are very expensive.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 3 July 2020 18: 56 New
      0
      But what about the cargo of a Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie UAV? )))
      1. mdsr
        mdsr 3 July 2020 19: 06 New
        +5
        Quote: Grazdanin
        But what about the cargo of a Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie UAV? )))

        There is no fundamental difference, UAV-kamikaze launch or cruise missiles. The very possibility of significantly increasing the range of an attack by any means of attack increases the country's military capabilities.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 3 July 2020 19: 08 New
          0
          This is not a kamikaze, X58a UAV fighter, driven for the F35.
    2. lucul
      lucul 3 July 2020 19: 28 New
      -7
      And what an interesting concept, and most importantly, inexpensive

      Nonsense is like hammering nails with a microscope.
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 3 July 2020 19: 35 New
        0
        Quote: lucul
        Nonsense is like hammering nails with a microscope.

        No, it's like hammering nails with a niler :)
      2. kjhg
        kjhg 3 July 2020 19: 46 New
        10
        Quote: lucul
        Nonsense is like hammering nails with a microscope.

        Nonsense - this is to substitute their planes and lose pilots and artillery gunners, assigning them posthumously the title of heroes. Nafig need your medals to the soldier’s parents, his wife and children. They need him alive!
        1. lucul
          lucul 3 July 2020 19: 48 New
          -1
          Nonsense - this is to substitute their planes and lose pilots and artillery gunners, assigning them posthumously the title of heroes.

          Yeah, I see the advantages of your concept for the last 2 years))))
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. nice.temniy
    nice.temniy 3 July 2020 20: 19 New
    +3
    An excellent means of oversaturation of enemy air defense with cheap ammunition.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 4 July 2020 21: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: nice.temniy
      An excellent means of oversaturation of enemy air defense with cheap ammunition.

      Well, the KR was never cheap, at least in comparison with the price tag of missiles ...
  7. Ros 56
    Ros 56 3 July 2020 20: 40 New
    -10
    Oh, and will there be a roar on the earth from their fall, or do the striped think that these sheds will fly with impunity wherever they want? The naive days of the development of the wild west are long gone when they fought with guns against bows and tomahawks. A dozen missiles at the airfield and these flying coffins will remain on the ground, and those flying up in the air will also be greeted.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 3 July 2020 20: 45 New
      +7
      Quote: Ros 56
      A dozen missiles on the airfield

      At an airfield somewhere in Texas? Oh well :)
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 3 July 2020 21: 00 New
        -9
        You need to think about it with a little head, and not only it has a hat to wear, or you think that these sheds will fly for weeks with such a load. They will be based in Europe. And in the event that they trample on us and Texas can work out, most likely it will.
  8. Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 3 July 2020 20: 52 New
    +3
    All true.
    There are flying radars, tankers, command posts, radio jets .....

    Why not be flying arsenals. Everything rests, right on Medvedev, in grandmas. And the soundness of the application strategy.
  9. Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 3 July 2020 21: 35 New
    +1
    But the Boeing began to complain that there are no orders for the B-747, they want to curtail production. An order from the Air Force for such an arsenal would be very useful for the company. But there are technical difficulties - a transport plane - this is not a destroyer with a VPU, not a fighter with an external sling, and not a bomber with a cargo gun on the half-body. It is necessary to somehow deliver the missiles through the entire fuselage to a hatch of a limited size, which is very hemorrhoids.
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 4 July 2020 08: 13 New
      +1
      They need to redo the arsenals of B737 MAX
  10. evgen1221
    evgen1221 4 July 2020 04: 48 New
    +3
    They are looking for ways to reduce the cost of air strategists. After all, a specialized board is an expensive pleasure — they try to put the strategist’s functionality into a regular cargo board. The concept of dumped platforms is good in my opinion - during the threatened period, you can make a lot of boards hang and figure out where the truck is and where are the missile launchers, and normal missile carriers will break the way.
  11. sen
    sen 4 July 2020 05: 01 New
    +3
    Together with other products with the MC-130J, four layouts of CLEAVER (Cargo Launch Expendable Air Vehicles with Extended Range) aircraft were dropped. This is a promising long-range cruise missile, on the basis of which a multi-purpose UAV can also be created.

    Those. there are no such aircraft yet; they will still have to be created. It is clear that they will be larger and heavier than the existing AGM-84H SLAM-ER and AGM-158 JASSM. Previously, the CLEAVER project has already been discussed at VO.
    https://topwar.ru/171647-proekt-cleaver-kak-prevratit-v-udarnuju-aviaciju-obychnye-transportniki.html
  12. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2020 16: 30 New
    +3
    Quote: lucul
    Why? This is quite a suitable means of rapid buildup, and with hidden capabilities.

    Nonsense.
    Well, the rest of the countries have closed the sky for you to fly your planes, and that’s all - the whole concept is immediately in the trash.

    Name at least one country that decides to ban UTA flights? I suspect that this is Georgia, Ukraine, Romania ...

    Quote: sharp-lad
    The appearance of such "arsenals" will give rise to bring down without hesitation any large-sized aircraft without bothering with moral standards! Do Americans really want to turn their entire civilian fleet into legal targets? hi

    And what, there is an opportunity to bring down their civilian fleet?

    Quote: Katanikotael
    without a flying radar, such things will not fly anywhere, and this immediately unmasks the entire squadron

    What are you saying?!? And what, American BOEING-474 fly around the world exclusively paired with a flying radar?

    Quote: Oleg Zatsepin
    By and large, crap and stupid fantasies. Against barmaley it is excessive and not necessary at all. Against Russia, for example, stupidly. It is hoped that intelligence will miss the fool’s departure and no one will fly to intercept ... Maybe, of course, start firing like Hitler once, without declaring war, but the second is unlikely to take place.

    Unfortunately what you write is really crap and stupid fantasies. Does our intelligence track the departure of every passenger aircraft worldwide? Or do you think that such arsenal aircraft will carry the coloring of the US Air Force?

    Quote: bayard
    So the idea of ​​arsenal aircraft is very promising, although not new. Last time it wasn’t realized because such planes would have to be included in contracts, like carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic with nuclear warheads (no one would have to listen to the excuses that they were “conventional” - the Cold War is like that), after the end of the war, such aircraft need it wasn’t ... but now it has appeared.

    Not certainly in that way. The 2 agreement on SALT-1979 stipulated a ban on the use of such aircraft (civilians) as weapon carriers. That is, in ordinary words, “it is forbidden to make a bomber-rocket carrier on the basis of existing cargo and passenger aircraft. And the USSR insisted on introducing this point, because we would be in a situation where it would be necessary to shoot everything down, and we could not shoot down just physically. And the adversary had an order of magnitude more civilian aircraft of this class than ours.If there is now a gap in the line of SALT-START treaties, then the Americans will be able to simply get out of these positions based on the absence of a strategic agreement.

    Quote: alien308
    Discharge of payload beyond the scope of air defense. And they probably have a lot of transport workers in storage. This car can be made unmanned. If that transporter from storage worked out a resource is not a pity.

    There is no need to make it unmanned. The system will be less flexible than manned. In addition, you will have to have it and a plane from which it will be necessary to control the drone ...

    Quote: mdsr
    And what an interesting concept, and most importantly, inexpensive. Just imagine, IL-76s loaded with calibers or hypersonic missiles take off from our airfields, fly over the Caspian Sea under the guise of our fighters, and over the friendly territory of Iran, missiles are mass-launched through one of the Persian Gulf or North Africa.

    And at this time, Boeings of various modifications, in the amount of an order of magnitude more than the IL-76 from different directions approach the territory of Russia? How to meet them? All fighters will accompany our IL-76, which will go "to punish one of the Gulf countries." And how to meet the Boeing armada ??? How they like to consider only one side on the VO, forgetting that there is a second.

    Quote: Ros 56
    A dozen missiles at the airfield and these flying coffins will remain on the ground, and those flying up in the air will also be greeted.

    Can you tell from which airfields passenger or cargo Boeing 747s are taking off now? And what, is there an opportunity to hit us with a "multi-missile" Moroccan or Thai airfield ???

    Quote: Ros 56
    You need to think about it with a little head, and not only it has a hat to wear, or you think that these sheds will fly for weeks with such a load. They will be based in Europe. And in the event that they trample on us and Texas can work out, most likely it will.

    Really you need to think with your head, and not toss your hats. It is not at all a fact that these machines will be at the airfields of Europe. And probably those who inserted this article into the OSV-2 agreement were not dumber than you. Unequivocally, he did not suffer from hatred, but considered the threat real. And not just real, but which cannot be fended off ...

    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
    It is necessary to somehow deliver the missiles through the entire fuselage to a hatch of a limited size, which is very hemorrhoids.

    These problems were worked out in the late 70s. There were two options. missile hatch in the right front of the fuselage or in the tail. The whole difficulty was moving the cartridges with cruise missiles inside the fuselage. But this problem was solved simply. Planted another crew member to control the movement of these containers

    Quote: sen
    Those. there are no such aircraft yet; they will still have to be created. It is clear that they will be larger and heavier than the existing AGM-84H SLAM-ER and AGM-158 JASSM. Previously, the CLEAVER project has already been discussed at VO.

    Part yes. And part can be used already existing AGM-86B / C / D and AGM-158 JASSM
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 4 July 2020 23: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      There is no need to make it unmanned. The system will be less flexible than manned. In addition, you will have to have it and a plane from which it will be necessary to control the drone

      From one plane, you can control 3-4, in principle, even several dozen, unmanned arsenal aircraft, modern passenger planes almost the entire route can be on autopilot, including takeoff and landing. In this situation, there is no risk of losing people at all, and most importantly, a large number of pilots are not needed.
      Quote: Old26
      It’s not at all a fact that these machines will be at the airfields of Europe

      Most likely they will not fly from Europe; this is too narrow a sector; in the west, our main troops and air defense, east, south, north, are open. Range is not a problem at all.

      In the US, the priority concept is fast projection of power. To move troops as quickly as possible to anywhere in the world. Therefore, fast transport is needed, therefore there are projects for convertiplanes, etc. In modern conditions, the Navy has become too slow, and aviation means are needed. It’s difficult to relocate fighters, you need ground-based infrastructure, time to drive. Other types of aviation are naturally more complex. Modern technology allows thinking about 2 concepts
      1. Arsenal aircraft, with a cargo of cruise missiles and other strike means, for reloading air defense, destroying a maximum of enemy troops per unit time.
      2. Aircraft carrier with UAV cargo for the direct support of ground forces. Perform the tasks of an aircraft carrier by unmanned aerial vehicles. By the end of this decade, UAVs will fulfill all the main roles of manned aviation: fighters, attack aircraft, bombers, etc. Except maybe the transportation of people. Aircraft carrier with several dozen UAVs like the X58A is quite real.
  13. Old26
    Old26 5 July 2020 12: 34 New
    +1
    Quote: Grazdanin
    From one plane, you can control 3-4, in principle, even several dozen, unmanned arsenal aircraft, modern passenger planes almost the entire route can be on autopilot, including takeoff and landing. In this situation, there is no risk of losing people at all, and most importantly, a large number of pilots are not needed.

    You are right and can go on autopilot, and you can control a dozen. But exclusively manage. If such an arsenal of budent will carry both strategic and operational tactical missiles, then the question will arise as to what purpose and at what particular moment it should work out. It’s one thing when a manned aircraft and the PIC decides to attack target No. 3, rather than targets No. 1 and No. 2 (according to information that it has at a given time. And it’s completely different when a KP aircraft will go a hundred kilometers from arsenals and will not have all the information to make decisions.

    Quote: Grazdanin
    Most likely they will not fly from Europe; this is too narrow a sector; in the west, our main troops and air defense, east, south, north, are open. Range is not a problem at all ..

    I completely agree with you. Just turn on the flyradar and see traffic flows

    Quote: Grazdanin
    In the US, the priority concept is fast projection of power. To move troops as quickly as possible to anywhere in the world. Therefore, fast transport is needed, therefore there are projects for convertiplanes, etc. In modern conditions, the Navy has become too slow, and aviation means are needed. It’s difficult to relocate fighters, you need ground-based infrastructure, time to drive. Other types of aviation are naturally more complex. Modern technology allows thinking about 2 concepts
    1. Arsenal aircraft, with a cargo of cruise missiles and other strike means, for reloading air defense, destroying a maximum of enemy troops per unit time.
    2. Aircraft carrier with UAV cargo for the direct support of ground forces. Perform the tasks of an aircraft carrier by unmanned aerial vehicles. By the end of this decade, UAVs will fulfill all the main roles of manned aviation: fighters, attack aircraft, bombers, etc. Except maybe the transportation of people. Aircraft carrier with several dozen UAVs like the X58A is quite real.

    In principle, I agree with this option
  14. Crabong
    Crabong 1 September 2020 09: 34 New
    0
    Great idea, actually ... At the moment it is impossible for a bomber to overcome any more or less organized air defense. The only shock option is the launch of funds without entering the affected area. Why then fuss with the B-21 and PAK YES? Moreover, they have B-1, 52. We have Tu-22, 95, 160.
  15. Living7111972
    Living7111972 9 September 2020 09: 54 New
    0
    An airship with a reactor, let them be afraid ...