Arsenals are being tested in the USA: C-17A simulated launch of several AGM-158 cruise missiles

The US Air Force C-17A Globemaster III transport aircraft on September 30 simulated the launch of several AGM-158 air-to-surface cruise missiles placed on pallets. The test is part of an extensive "arsenal aircraft" testing program, the deployment of which is expected to give US aviation extra striking power.

In the course of the experiment, the interaction of various communication systems was studied, the exchange between which allows you to link together disparate means of destruction. The creation of a single network is extremely important for "arsenal aircraft", as they do not have a means of identifying targets based on information collected by others weapons systems.

The main stuffing of the BTA aircraft, allocated for striking, is the pallets with ammunition placed on them. The high carrying capacity of military transport vehicles allows them to be turned into arsenals of weapons of destruction packed to capacity. Currently, this idea is being tested, which will make it possible to understand how effective it is.

The stake is placed on AGM-158 cruise missiles with a flight range of approximately 370 km and AGM-158B with a range increased to 925 km. The AGM-158D version, which should soon enter the Air Force, will already cover a distance of over 1600 km.

They [arsenals] can dramatically increase the ability of the US Air Force to deploy large quantities of heavy, long-range weapons.

- says The War Zone.

Comments

[Fedor Sokolov]

Systematic technical preparation for the Rapid Global Strike (BSU) strategy is underway. In general, an interesting thing is that 90% of the weapons created by the Americans are exclusively offensive in nature, while in their opinion it is Russia that is aggressive and dangerous.

[Insurgent]

Arsenals are being tested in the USA: C-17A simulated launch of several AGM-158 cruise missiles

In fact, repetition and consolidation of the previously covered material (publication and photo VO dated December 28, 2014):

ICBM Air Launch - 40 Years Later

December 28 2014

Air Launch of ICBMs - 40 Years Later Forty years ago, in October 1974, an experimental launch of the Minuteman-5 ICBM was carried out in the United States from a military transport aircraft C-1A. This was the first ever launch of a rocket of this class from an airplane. The tests were an integral part of the work under the program to create a promising MX ICBM. The mass of the Minuteman-1 rocket was 31,8 tons. Rockets of this mass have never been launched from aircraft. The largest ballistic missile previously launched from aircraft was the Skybolt missile, which had a launch weight of about 5 tons.

https://topwar.ru/65707-vozdushnyy-start-mbr-40-let-spustya.html

[figwam]

Quote: Fyodor Sokolov

There is a systematic technical preparation for the Rapid Global Strike

It can be seen that they do not have enough bombers for a massive strike.

[iouris]

Quote: figvam

not enough bombers.

Why are they needed? The rockets will decide everything. Air defense simply cannot cope with a very large number of targets.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Fyodor Sokolov

in their opinion, it is Russia that is aggressive and dangerous.

They are systematically preparing for a war with China, Russia as a threat has faded into the background.
Here's what they write in an article about these tests:

All of this suggests that the Air Force seems to be moving quickly towards new exploration of these concepts, and it will be very interesting to see how these projects develop in the near term. If brought to operational capacity, they could dramatically increase the U.S. Air Force's ability to carry large quantities of heavy weapons into long-range combat, which is absurdly relevant given the challenges facing potential struggle with an equal state, especially in the vast Pacific theater of operations.

All told, the Air Force looks to be moving quickly to explore these concepts anew and it will be very interesting to see how these projects continue to evolve in the near term. If they are pursued to an operational capability, they could drastically increase the USAF's ability to carry large numbers of heavy weapons into the fight over long ranges, which is absurdly relevant considering the challenges faced with a potential fight against a peer-state, especially in the vast Pacific theater.

[OgnennyiKotik]

In parallel, there is a project to create UAV air carriers, an analogue of aircraft carriers. Transport workers will also be altered.

[Pechkin]

An interesting concept, we take one drlo plane (as a command plane) and 3 gremlins, for example, and arrange an enemy air defense for the Bartholomew night)

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Pechkin

take one drlo plane (as a command plane) and 3 gremlins for example.

Yeah. Add air tankers, arsenals, bombers, B-21s, and we get an air analogue of the AUG that can fly anywhere in the world in less than a day.
A couple of such groups will destroy the army of the conditional Venezuela, against Iran or China, a serious strengthening of sea and land forces. Moreover, you can organize a constant watch in the area. The aircraft can patrol in the area for 2-3 days, of course rotation is needed.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

and we get an air analogue of AUG

not .... there the essence is a little different, VTA is used to deliver and return UAVs that have a large autonomy and flight duration, but a low speed and average fuel supply. That is, there are UAVs that are good for reconnaissance and reconnaissance-strike missions, but at the same time they do not have the ability to get quickly and get far to the LDP and at the same time do not have the opportunity to reduce the cost up to disposability. Now it is necessary to move the basing point closer to the LDP, which puts it at risk of defeat and forces it to spend money on overdrive protection. And in this case (Airborne Launch & Recovery) the home point can be removed at a greater distance and save money and resources on protection. This project (Airborne Launch & Recovery) is, in fact, an alternative branch of technology development relative to the branch of technologies based on large UAVs (C-70 "Okhotnik", RQ-4 Global Hawk) which have a much higher cost and / or longer response time.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

in this case (Airborne Launch & Recovery), the home point can be removed at a greater distance and save money and resources on protection.

And that's what I mean. If there are "transporters" they need to be protected and supplied with fuel. UAVs have limited ammunition, some of the UAVs must be used as fighters. It is impossible to keep a large amount of ammunition on an aircraft carrier, the drones and equipment themselves weigh a lot. It is wiser to identify targets with UAVs, and cover them with CD or kamikaze drones from the arsenal. The classic AUG is AB with drones, their task is reconnaissance, protection, destruction of primary targets. V-21 with V-V and V-P missiles, an analogue of destroyers / frigates, the task of defending the group, striking the identified targets. B-52, arsenal aircraft analogue of cruisers, carriers of the main part of the CD and "disposable" drones. Avax, respectively, control of the group and aircraft tankers.
There are rumors about the creation of a bomber escort fighter, but so far these are assumptions.

[ProkletyiPirat]

in my opinion, you are obviously analyzing the information in a wrong way, judging by the theses, you are fixated on the "naval nature of aviation", approximately as in WWII, tank manufacturers were fixated on the "naval nature of tanks" and sculpted "land cruisers" so you are trying to mold an aviation AUG, while do not think about the expediency of this action.
For example, your mistakes
1) "UAV-based fighter aircraft", it is corny unnecessary, because modern fighters are not used to DESTROY enemy aircraft, because they are used for EXPLORATION of detected targets, but PV / BB missiles are engaged in destruction. And during the application of "Airborne Launch & Recovery" additional reconnaissance is simply unnecessary, there is either destruction at once or your own / allied airspace.
2) "It is wiser to identify targets with UAVs, and cover them with KR or kamikaze drones from the arsenal", here again is a mistake in not understanding the advantages of reconnaissance and shock UAVs over purely reconnaissance ones, try to estimate various application scenarios and compare the reaction time to a change in the situation, for example the cycle "detection - confirmation of destruction of the target".

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

fighters are not used to DESTROY enemy aircraft,

The Turks did not shoot down the Su 24 and Su 25 fighters. Used and will be used. It is imperative to protect such groups. There is no sense in them as counter-guerrilla, the MQ-9 will do an excellent job, such groups are precisely for striking the first and second echelons, when ground and air defense systems exist.

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

estimate various scenarios of use and compare the reaction time to a change in the situation, for example, the cycle "detection - confirmation of destruction of the target"

That's why I write

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

carriers of the main part of the CD and "disposable" drones.

CDs have long been able to patrol in the area of ​​application until a new target is obtained. "Disposable" drones are kamikaze, decoy targets, radar emitter. They are used concurrently with the Gremlin reusable drones and have the same response time.
The X-61A has a 65 kg payload that is 2 MAM bombs or 1 ATGM. Even if an apparatus 2-3 more, a la XQ-58 (payload 200-250 kg), goes into production, the combat load is still insufficient, it is impossible for carriers to have a large supply of weapons for reloading in an aircraft.
Dynetics X-61 Gremlins parameters:
Capacity: 65,7 kg
Length: 13 ft. 9 in. (4,2 m)
Wingspan: 11'5 '' (3,47 m)
Width: 1 ft 10 in (0,57 m)
Height: 1 ft 8 in (0,52 m)
Gross Weight: 1,499 lb (680 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Williams F107 turbofan engine, 700 lb (3,1 kn) thrust
Maximum speed: Mach 0,6
Operating range: 350 miles (560 km, 300 nm)

[ZEMCH]

In our country, KR (Granite) 30 years ago flew like a "wolf pack" to become a leader, the rest followed with a choice of priority targets. Similarly, there is no problem to organize a swarm of kamikaze UAVs. And where to launch them, in general, all the same, only external control centers are needed. Or a control point, which can always be organized on a transport aircraft or an AWACS aircraft (we are talking about a "swarm", large UAVs via satellite). Well, then the matter of electronic warfare, to organize security, not even air defense)))

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

A couple of such groups will destroy the army of conditional Venezuela

They won't destroy even Venezuela's army. It's more like a weapon against the navy. Chinese.

[Alexey Sommer]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

A couple of such groups will destroy the army of the conditional Venezuela, against Iran or China, a serious strengthening of sea and land forces.

Against scrap, no reception unless there is another scrap.)
Have you heard?

[iouris]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Russia as a threat has faded into the background

This means that you know that the Russian Federation has no nuclear weapons. From which moment?

[Shraik]

Nuclear weapons have nothing to do with it. China threatens the US economically. That is why he became enemy number 1.

[Vadim237]

With subsonic cruise missiles, there will be no Rapid Global Strike.

[Interlocutor]

Systematic technical preparation for the Rapid Global Strike (BSU) strategy is underway.

What a global blow ...
Preparation for it is easily tracked .... (IMHO).
Keep track of the movement of members of "families and their servants." As people are drawn to Africa or New Zealand - open the mine covers ... (joke) - with a grain of truth.
Well, without changing the traffic of planes and ships - navryatli it will turn out to be done. His people will have to be returned before the mess.
Well, the specialists probably have their own secrets ...
So with an unrequited global blow - sorry ... it will turn out ...
Well, without the shapkozakidatelstva, of course, you need to have an echeloned defense of the Motherland, its coastal zones and the sky.
Well, learning how to clean space over the country (or over the mainland) is probably also necessary.

[spectr]

They will simply repurpose. Transport aircraft can be used as bombers, only with current air defense systems it becomes problematic. But if you turn it into a missile carrier, then the survivability of the aircraft increases. In addition, there is where to attach obsolete missiles, and not create new ones with an increased range.

[hwostatij]

And how is it better than using a classic bomber jacket?

[Pechkin]

The fact that the number of classic bombers is limited and they have not been produced for a long time

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Fedor Sokolov

In general, an interesting thing, 90% of the weapons created by the Americans are exclusively offensive.

Quote: Hwostatij

И the better it is using a classic bomber jacket?

Better a classic bomber jacket in that its purpose is completely different. The bomber has no, but no means of overcoming air defense, but its own defense (well, machine guns, guns, or something ...). And this "truck" has NOTHING. Because it is not designed to penetrate air defenses. His role is to hammer the Papuans without air defense. Well, or to finish off what remains after the "preventive disarming strike" stipulated by the American military doctrine.

So they will fly from the airfields of Ukraine and the Tribaltic to Russia not the first, but after the missiles with low and medium power nuclear warheads being promoted by the Pentagon.
This is what we need to prepare for.

[Pechkin]

You think a country with a huge nuclear arsenal will be attacked with low- and medium-power charges. No, if you decide to openly attack Russia, they will beat you with everything they have, so that after the first strike they will not wake up and respond.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Pechkin

if they decide to openly attack Russia, they will beat them with everything they have, so that after the first blow they will not wake up and answer.

They won't beat everything they have. I'm talking about the American military doctrine and about the "preventive nuclear disarmament strike" written in it by missiles with low-yield nuclear warheads. You can fire 200-500 megaton missiles at the same time, or 5-7 thousand, 50-100 kilotons each.
In the first case, burn out the entire territory, leave the radioactive desert.
In the second, high-precision strikes against air defense, retaliatory weapons, concentrations of ground and naval forces, military infrastructure and logistics facilities.

The second option is clearly preferable for the aggressor. In the 90s, they tried to achieve this result without the use of weapons. And almost succeeded. About 5 years ago, they declassified the secret report of the Pentagon to the Congress of the late 90s (97th or 98th - I don’t remember exactly), which, in particular, said that “the Russian armed forces by 2004 (??? - why such accuracy in forecasts?) will cease to exist as an independent combat unit. " It did not grow together - Putin did not live up to the "hopes" of Yeltsin and America. In 2024 - the "orange revolution" in Russia, the victory of various "Swamp areas" the hope of the United States has not died - but suddenly the solitaire will not work out again? The painfully strong Russia themselves have been vaccinated against "Western democracy" - Ukraine is close at hand. Now they are looking for new ways - they are inventing sanctions, thinking over power options.

[viktor.]

100% they are with us Grief Hapnut! The main thing is that the hand does not flinch Press the button!

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Zoldat_A

or 5-7 thousand, 50-100 kilotons each.

So many warheads don't exist in nature. And all the nuclear powers in total.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Zoldat_A

His role is to hammer the Papuans without air defense.

Why would he enter the air defense zone if the missile range allows it not to do so?

they will not be the first to fly from the airfields of Ukraine and the Tribaltic to Russia, but after the missiles with low- and medium-power nuclear warheads now being promoted by the Pentagon.

He doesn't need to "fly to Russia." It can also launch missiles from the airspace of these countries.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Piramidon

Why would he enter the air defense zone if the missile range allows it not to do so?

Quote: Piramidon

He doesn't need to "fly to Russia." It can also launch missiles from the airspace of these countries.

I looked at the performance characteristics of the missiles mentioned in the article. Range - 370 km, one of the modifications - up to 1000. All of Russia, if from the territory of "these countries" to Moscow? They won't even finish off Saratov-Engels - and the same "Swans" for the aggressor can make a big headache.
In my opinion, one cannot do without "trucks" in our airspace, and so that our air defenses "from a slingshot" do not knock them down - namely, low-power nuclear charges on long-range missiles in the form of a first strike. And then this "funeral team".

[YOUR]

No better addition. They also do not fall under the scope of the SALT treaty, where, when counting nuclear ammunition standing at the base, each strategic bomber counts as a warhead. See the SALT agreement.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Hwostatij

how is it better than using a classic bomber?

Civilian cargo aircraft can be used as missile carriers, this will significantly increase the number of aircraft carriers of weapons.

[Victor_B]

Arsenal aircraft are being tested in the USA: C-17A

This idea has been exciting the minds for a long time!
Transport ships - arsenals, transport aircraft - arsenals.
And what if not such an arsenal of B-52 and Tu-95MS?
The main thing for a defenseless transport / missile carrier is not to enter the air defense zone!

[mark1]

The main task of the transport arsenals is to overload air defense systems, then normal bombers will go

[halpat]

Quote: Victor_B

Arsenal aircraft are being tested in the USA: C-17A

This idea has been exciting the minds for a long time!
Transport ships - arsenals, transport aircraft - arsenals.
And what if not such an arsenal of B-52 and Tu-95MS?
The main thing for a defenseless transport / missile carrier is not to enter the air defense zone!

you can stir up another plane-weapons room.

[prosto_rgb]

Quote: Halpat

you can stir up another plane-weapons room.

Surprisingly, there has been
AC-130 - a heavily armed ground support aircraft
https://topwar.ru/9573-ac-130-tyazhelovooruzhennyy-samolet-podderzhki-suhoputnyh-podrazdeleniy.html
Video of work on the targets of the crew on board.

[Polite Moose]

Quote: Halpat

you can stir up another plane-weapons room.

Well, then, already an airplane locker. Why waste time on trifles.

[halpat]

Quote: Polite Moose

Quote: Halpat

you can stir up another plane-weapons room.

Well, then, already an airplane locker. Why waste time on trifles.

Yes:))
watering from Gatling with AC-130 is certainly impressive, it is always impressive.
But this is against those who do not have some kind of overwhelming MANPADS.
And then a pile of burning debris on the ground and all the love. The goal is not the size of an Apache and not a warthog by any means.

inspire

[Observer2014]

Just one question. Now how. Any C-17A Globemaster III flying closer than the range of a shot with these missiles should be targeted? Yes, this is utopia. Aircraft arsenals are certainly a cool idea. But it's the same as the Americans on ICBMs at the beginning of zero conventional charges tried to deliver. Or to hide cruise missiles in our shipping containers. How to determine now the beginning of a war? So let's immediately declare the third world war. What to expect then?

[Victor_B]

Quote: Observer2014

Just one question. Now how. Any C-17A Globemaster III flying closer than the range of these missiles should be targeted?

IL-76 is quite designed for AIMED discharge of cast iron!
Moreover, they regularly train not on the training grounds, they actually bomb.
Bomb sight available from birth.

[Observer2014]

Quote: Victor_B

Quote: Observer2014

Just one question. Now how. Any C-17A Globemaster III flying closer than the range of these missiles should be targeted?

IL-76 is quite designed for AIMED discharge of cast iron!
Moreover, they regularly train on the training ground.

"Cast iron" is "cast iron". And not a cruise missile. And in immodest quantities in a transport ship. Its power is like a full salvo of an American destroyer.

[Victor_B]

Quote: Observer2014

"Cast iron" is "cast iron". Not a cruise missile.

And what prevents to hang ALCM on the same pylons under the wings instead of cast iron?
We place all the electronics for aiming (more precisely, for entering the flight program) together with the operator in a standard sea container and put it in the cargo hold.
Profit!
If you need to increase the number of missiles, you can drop them from the ramp, like a technique.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Victor_B

What prevents the ALCMs from being hung on the same pylons under the wings instead of cast iron?

Theoretically, nothing.
In practice, it is necessary to put a system for interfacing with the missiles themselves, with a target designation source (AWACS aircraft and / or satellite), to ensure reliable communication. Well, to work out the mechanics of dropping through the ramp. What, in fact, Americans are doing.

[Rushnairfors]

It is possible that nothing is in the way. But we don’t have anything like that, if there was, infa would have leaked into the public domain, one hundred percent, probably no more secret than some avant-garde, dagger or overexposure

[Evil543]

To drop cast iron, you need to go through the air defense. You don't need to enter the air defense zone to launch a missile.

[Petio]

And bombed in Iraq and Chadelibiskir

[Coconut]

It's a good question ... now they are not announcing a war ... according to an idea ... he launched a rocket to blast nah ... and if he crossed the border ... then finally a kerdyk ...

[Victor_B]

Quote: Coco

and if you crossed the border ... then finally a kerdyk ...

Moreover, even all sorts of "stealth" there.

[Nikolay Ivanov_5]

Where did the Americans get so much enmity and desire to conquer the whole world ???

[Victor_B]

Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5

Where did the Americans get so much enmity and desire to conquer the whole world ???

They are just NAGLOSAXES!
And throughout history the Naglo-Saxons (the empire over which the sun did not set) behaved like this.
Why does a cat lick eggs?
Because it CAN!

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5

Where did the Americans get so much enmity and desire to conquer the whole world ???

There are two ways of development - intensive and extensive. Intensive - development at the expense of its own resources, at the expense of internal modernization. Extensive - there is a great example - a cancerous tumor. By capturing new territories (and with them sales markets, resources, etc.)

Any empire is extensive. Think back to the Roman Empire.

Food, weapons, raw materials, slaves, luxury are brought to Rome from all over the world.
And only shit is taken out of Rome.

I didn’t say - one of the ancient Roman emperors. America has long been an empire. Lives by capturing foreign territories with raw materials, by capturing markets - primarily European. And only dollars are exported from America.

Why do you think there is so much talk about "America's decline"? A cancerous tumor cannot live forever - it either kills the donor (human) and dies with him, or it is surgically removed. She cannot live separately from the body. Americans die together with the whole world "dissent". They are like a cancerous tumor in the body of the world, which, foolishly, wants to destroy the world, but itself to survive. It doesn't work that way.
The intensive path of development is endless - evolution is an example of this.
Extensive is finite - free resources, territories and other nishtyaks are running out. And then, if the empire runs out of power to seize all this, it dies. The entire history of mankind is an example of this - from Ancient Egypt and Rome to the Third Reich. There will always be someone who will knock on the horns of the empire and stop its imperial ambitions and its very existence. Russia has such experience - to destroy "eternal" empires.

America has chosen its own imperial path - this is the path to destruction, collapse. Whether our generation will see it or not, I don't know. Most likely no. But what it will be is like "two and two".

[Rushnairfors]

Well written, interesting.

[Shraik]

To do this, it is enough to recall the history of the emergence of the US state. They were founded by adventurers, lovers of easy money and other unreliable elements from the old world. There were bandits among them. What is their war with the indigenous population worth? Love for slavery and so on and so forth.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Shraik

To do this, it is enough to recall the history of the emergence of the US state. They were founded by adventurers, lovers of easy money and other unreliable elements from the old world. There were bandits among them. What is their war with the indigenous population worth? Love for slavery and so on and so forth.

As many as two disagreeing - and what is wrong? Where is the mistake? Runaway criminals. Losers who want to get rich quickly and, if possible, without straining. Just all sorts of asocialism. That's who fled to America - she gathered all the rabble from Europe. That's who went there in the 18,19th and 20th centuries and the beginning of the XNUMXth century. Well, what a normal farmer with a strong economy or an industrialist with a stable production will drop everything and trample the devil, where to look for ghostly happiness?
Even the scalps were not invented by the "evil and insidious Redskins," but by the same settlers who invaded Indian territories. Specifically, the Dutch. Because the local administration paid well for these "evidence" of the destruction of the indigenous population. Two dissenting people would like to say that Fenimore Cooper with his noble white "pioneers", peaceful and philosophical trappers and bloodthirsty Indians should be read in childhood, and not after 20. And believe too. By the way, in the days of Fenimore Cooper, for 4 female or children's scalps, or for 2 scalps of an adult male, the government paid the amount for which it was possible to buy a good land for a ranch. And for the same amount - and a herd of cows.

[ZEMCH]

Quote: Nikolay Ivanov_5

Where did the Americans get so much enmity and desire to conquer the whole world ???

The Monroe Doctrine, carried over to the entire ball, the basis of US foreign policy, does not depend on the president. She is already two hundred years old)))

[Coconut]

A hearty carcass for our rockets ...

[KVU-NSVD]

Quote: Coco

A hearty carcass for our rockets ...

What kind of missiles, if he does not even enter the theoretical range of our long-range missiles, will shoot? And then for the air defense the task is not to shoot down the carrier, but a bunch of missiles, comparable to the salvo of a destroyer .. A terrible thing - and not so much with its own salvo, as with the uncertainty of the danger of the carrier until the moment of this salvo.

[sabakina]

Quote: KVU-NSVD

A terrible thing - and not so much with its volley as with the uncertainty of the carrier's danger until the moment of this salvo.

Victor, I do not agree with you. In the event of a war / with or without a declaration, it makes no difference), all enemy aircraft, and even more so, BTA, besides, they will know that we know about such weapons, will become targets. And how and how to fend off such a threat is no longer for me, but for the one who is taller than me.

[tralflot1832]

The element of pressure in the negotiations on START 3 and nothing more. America was crumbling, Reagan's cartoons about SDI were worse!

[Petio]

Target identification means at the launch range of the KR do not have both B-52 and Tu-160

[KVU-NSVD]

Quote: Petio

Target identification means at the launch range of the KR do not have both B-52 and Tu-160

They don't need to identify targets. Targets for strategists are usually stationary, predefined, their coordinates are known

[Pavel57]

IL-76 suitable for arsenal aircraft?

[KVU-NSVD]

Quote: Pavel57

IL-76 suitable for arsenal aircraft?

Quite, only we have not yet set tasks for the development of such complexes, and we do not have enough of them - there are no extra transport workers, and production is hardly enough for updating.

[AsmyppoL]

These are aircraft for the suppression of third countries ...
Our country at the 1st stage is not dangerous ...
It probably has more EPR than the B-52. And that one with its 100 squares glows for hundreds of kilometers, and maybe for a couple of thousand. It depends on what to shine.
And for such a group of aircraft arsenals, you can create long-range interceptor missiles with a special warhead)))
Let the tolerant and self-confident Europeans and Balts live in conditions of very high radiation ...
Maybe then they will begin to make decisions themselves, and not fulfill the will of the master?

[Izotovp]

This is the answer to the question that the Americans recently asked themselves: where to get the required number of bombers to suppress the air defense of Kaliningrad? They shot outside the air defense zone by external target designation, first with anti-radar, and then with thermo-democratic ones.

[sabakina]

Quote: Izotovp

They shot outside the air defense zone by external target designation, first with anti-radar, and then with thermo-democratic ones.

Let's say they shot, let's say successfully. But what will happen next? Will Americans hide under school desks and desks in the outbreak of law?

[Izotovp]

They will bring democracy to the Kaliningrad region. Pull it out of the clutches of the aggressor who illegally owned this land for many years. The infantry will be the Balts with the Poles.
They organize protests for the "enlightened public" ... and so on, the scenario is known.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: sabakina

... But what will happen next? Americans will hide under school desks

If they have shot successfully, then they have no need to hide.
The whole point of the first disarming blow in that we had nothing to answer.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Jacket in stock

If they have shot successfully, then they have no need to hide.
The whole point of the first disarming strike is that we have nothing to answer with.

Suppose they shoot Kaliningrad, but Russia does not consist of one Kaliningrad region, and they will not cover the entire territory of Russia at once. Why do you think that there will be nothing and no one to answer? If this were possible, the Yankees would have done it a long time ago. But their glasses are not titanium.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Piramidon

Suppose they shoot Kaliningrad, but Russia does not consist of one Kaliningrad region. Why do you think that there will be nothing and no one to answer?

I did not write about separately attacked Kaliningrad.
I don’t understand at all what those who consider a local war to retake Kaliningrad, the Kuriles, etc., smoke.
At this stage, of course.
I see the situation in such a way that if American missiles fly to Kaliningrad, no matter from Poland, Germany or England and Italy, the response will not be limited to Warsaw / Berlin. Decision centers were announced loudly and distinctly.
If the Poles start shooting, and the Americans say that they have nothing to do with it, then yes, we can be limited to Warsaw. But that's not why American troops are in Poland.

[venik]

"....The US Air Force C-17A Globemaster III military transport aircraft on September 30 simulated the launch of several AGM-158 air-to-surface cruise missiles placed on pallets...... "
=======
This is "news so news" !!! States back in the late 70s carried out experimental launches ICBMs (!!!), dropped from the "Galaxy"! Then they really decided that no one needed it in figs ..... And then there were some lousy "cruise missiles" ....

[kig]

And Cho, that's good. I would say that it is even very good.

[Tsoy]

Why is everyone so excited? This is just a test and even the launch itself has not yet happened, but only an imitation. No one has drawn any conclusions yet. Back in 70-80, R&D was carried out to create a Boeing 747 with cruise missiles. But too many problems have surfaced. It remains to be seen whether the idea will go further. But the prospect is certainly not bad. Combined with decoy missiles, UAVs and Reb planes, such a uterus can saturate the first line of strike, quickly delivering tens of cr.

[Nikolaevich I]

The new is the well-forgotten old! Once I was honored to read an article that the famous An-124 "Ruslan" was "planned" not only as transport workers, but also as carriers of the CD! It was assumed that when it was "necessary", the Ruslans would quickly be equipped with "special containers" with CD. Apparently, the method of using containers should be similar to the American "tests"!

[Reviews]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

The new is the well-forgotten old! Once I was honored to read an article that the famous An-124 "Ruslan" was "planned" not only as transport workers, but also as carriers of the CD!

Don't you confuse it with An-22?

In 1969-70. The Antonov Design Bureau, together with TsAGI, NII AS and other institutes, carried out research work on the creation of the An-22R intercontinental aviation missile system based on the An-22. The aircraft was a flying launch pad and was equipped with three containers with missiles mounted vertically in the fuselage.

And they wanted to make the Ruslans an Air Launch for orbital launch vehicles. In any case, it was precisely for this promise that the Polet aircraft received the An-124. :)

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Avis

Don't you confuse it with An-22?

No ... I am not saying anything ... and I speak "from memory"! "Age" memory is unreliable and insidious ... But nevertheless, it remains in my memory that I once read an article in which it was stated that the An-124 transporter had a spare function as a carrier of the CR ... An-124 ...). I also read about the An-22 and others ... mainly about the backup function of the bomber ... About the An-124, as a carrier of the CD, there could be such a story ... Initially, perhaps and such a "spare" function was supposed! To do this, special containers should be made - "pallets" for KR ... But, later, perhaps they decided: well, their nafik! And they abandoned their production ... and then forgot about the idea. It was connected, most likely, with the weakening, and then the collapse of the USSR!

[Reviews]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

it remains in my memory that I once read an article in which it was stated that the An-124 transporter also had a spare function-carrier of the KR .. (. namely, An-124 ...). About An-22 and others I too I read ... mainly about the backup function of the bomber ... About the An-124, as a carrier of the CD, there could be such a story ... Initially, such a "backup" function was supposed to be!

It is highly doubtful. As a carrier of the Kyrgyz Republic, ICBMs and the like - yes. As a medium from which you can run all this - no. Categorically. Too much needs to be finalized in the An-124 and developed for missiles.
And, even more so, An-22 as a bomber ... :) No. An-12, Il-76 - as much as you like. But not the An-22. No.

[Nikolaevich I]

About the An-22 as a bomber he mentioned "automatically" ... most likely, he confused it with the An-12 ... In the version of the aircraft-missile complex (ballistic missiles), not only An-22 (R-27), but also An -124 (R-29) ... The work on this complex was very secret ... it is possible that at that time there was a "flicker of thought" about the CD ... As I already said, I don't insist on anything ... I'm not saying anything! I just wrote about what I had read and remembered ... Perhaps the author of that article: 1. lied; 2. published the article without checking the information, according to the principle: without looking at the calendar, he thumped the bells! But then I believed him!

[DWG1905]

Good idea, only dumping from the ramp is not very, painfully difficult. A lot of mechanics, insufficient probability of triggering. Then if the BTA mess is needed for other purposes. It is easier to make cruise missile launchers out of passenger aircraft. Although it is necessary to tinker with the bomb bay, for the Americans this is not a problem, the first fuselage for life tests in a year can be pumped up for ten years. You can make new planes, you can remake existing ones. Now, if they go this way, then sadness. We definitely won't have enough air defense and there is nothing to answer, there is no production of new aircraft (which is now tears), 20 old pieces can be collected, but if there is no production, you will be remodeling for 10 years. To be honest in the field of aviation, the United States has nothing to oppose!

[bars1]

Quote: DWG1905

To be honest in the field of aviation, the United States has nothing to oppose!

Do you propose to cover yourself with a sheet and slowly crawl into the cemetery or stir up the revolution in order to sweep away the "thieves' regime"?

[Old26]

Quote: Fedor Sokolov

Systematic technical preparation for the Rapid Global Strike (BSU) strategy is underway. In general, an interesting thing is that 90% of the weapons created by the Americans are exclusively offensive in nature, while in their opinion it is Russia that is aggressive and dangerous.

Dear Fedor! The current tests are not preparation for the "Rapid Global Strike" strategy (concept). We all love to row with the same brush. In general, the BSU concept provides for the possibility of striking in a very short time. From pole hour to 1-2 hours at long range.
Here is the deployment of hypersonic non-nuclear weapons - yes, this refers to the BGU concept.
The deployment of ICBMs or SLBMs with a conventional warhead is the same. And the testing of the arsenal aircraft is in no way related to this concept. But the violation of the provisions of the SALT-2 treaty, which, although it was completed a long time ago, but the provisions of which are taken into account when concluding other treaties - here, if it is not a violation now, it is a step towards violation. For under the contract, each of the parties does not have the right to use civil (passenger) aircraft as carriers. True, it was about strategic ALCMs with nuclear warheads, and the AGM-158A variants with a flight range of about 370 km, the AGM-158B with an increased to 925 km and the AGM-158D variant with a range of over 1600 km are not carriers of nuclear weapons. But "dashing trouble is the beginning." Having worked out arsenals based on missiles of the AGM-158 family, you can later replace them with strategic missiles

Quote: Insurgent

In fact, repetition and consolidation of the previously covered material (publication and photo VO dated December 28, 2014):

No. It was a ballistic missile launch program. And here we are talking about the winged. This is rather a continuation of work on the previously existing programs for creating an ALCM carrier based on a Boeing-747

Quote: figvam

It can be seen that they do not have enough bombers for a massive strike.

They now do not have enough nuclear cruise missiles to fully load even the existing "nuclear" B-52R, not to mention the B-1B or B-2A. And arsenal aircraft are most likely applicable for waging local (regional) wars, when it is necessary to create "saturation" in the shock wave of cruise missiles

Quote: Hwostatij

And how is it better than using a classic bomber jacket?

1. Often cheaper.
2. The number of such aircraft (issued) often exceeds the number of bombers
3. Such an aircraft takes much more of the same CDs than a bomber. The project of the late 70s - the carrier of the KR based on the V-747 could carry in the region of 70-80 KR type AGM-86B (EMNIP). The largest load of bomber cruise missiles - 22 AGM-86B cruise missiles (on B-1B)
4. A headache for the air defense of the country against which the aggression will be directed. Go figure out what this plane is carrying: equipment, personnel, or several dozen ready-to-launch cruise missiles

Quote: Pechkin

The fact that the number of classic bombers is limited and they have not been produced for a long time

The number of carriers of strategic nuclear weapons is limited. But only. If the bomber is not such a carrier, then their number is not limited. About not produced for a long time. Now the USA EMNIP is assembling the first copy of the new B-21 strategist. And bombers are such a product that no one will produce them in numbers comparable to the number of fighters. And fighters are not produced continuously.

Quote: Victor_B

This idea has been exciting the minds for a long time!
Transport ships - arsenals, transport aircraft - arsenals.
And what if not such an arsenal of B-52 and Tu-95MS?
The main thing for a defenseless transport / missile carrier is not to enter the air defense zone!

The idea has been in the air for a long time. At one time, it was slowed down due to the presence of only long-range nuclear ALCMs. Now they are reanimating again. Arsenal, it's still a lot of ammunition. The same B-52 can carry no more than 20 ALCMs. And the Boeing-747 arsenal aircraft (a project of the late 70s) carried EMNIP from 72 to 80 such missiles. That is 4 times more. And such a transport, as well as a bomber, it is better not to enter the air defense zones

Quote: Observer2014

Just one question. Now how. Any C-17A Globemaster III flying closer than the range of a shot with these missiles should be targeted? Yes, this is utopia. Aircraft arsenals are certainly a cool idea. But it's the same as the Americans on ICBMs at the beginning of zero conventional charges tried to deliver. Or to hide cruise missiles in our shipping containers. How to determine now the beginning of a war? So let's immediately declare the third world war. What to expect then?

This is the whole point of the project. The defending side does not know what is coming at you. So far, EMNIP 17 units have been produced by S-270A. convert at least 1/7 of the cars into arsenals - here's an "addition" of 40 cars. How much he will carry the CD is not yet clear. But even if there are 40 pieces, that's plus 1600 missiles ...

[Old26]

Quote: Victor_B

IL-76 is quite designed for AIMED discharge of cast iron!
Moreover, they regularly train not on the training grounds, they actually bomb.
Bomb sight available from birth.

But we do not have Ilov in the same quantity as the same C-17s from the state employees, unfortunately

Quote: Victor_B

And what prevents to hang ALCM on the same pylons under the wings instead of cast iron?
We place all the electronics for aiming (more precisely, for entering the flight program) together with the operator in a standard sea container and put it in the cargo hold.
Profit!
If you need to increase the number of missiles, you can drop them from the ramp, like a technique.

Aerodynamics, Dear Victor. Banal aerodynamics. The arsenal design provides for the placement of a payload (cruise missiles) inside the fuselage. A suspension on pylons under the wings will lead to an increase in aerodynamic drag and, as a consequence, a drop in the range of the carrier. Suspension on pylons is not a good life

Quote: Coco

A hearty carcass for our rockets ...

Yes? Do we already have missiles with a range of 2,5 thousand kilometers or more? After all, you should not consider the enemy a sucker. What will you do with "our missiles". if this arsenal will carry missiles with a range of 3-4 thousand kilometers, and shoot at a distance of 1000 kilometers from our borders? Uryak, what is this "well-fed carcass for our missiles"?

Quote: tralflot1832

The element of pressure in the negotiations on START 3 and nothing more. America was crumbling, Reagan's cartoons about SDI were worse!

Such arsenals were the subject of bargaining at the conclusion of the SALT-2 agreement in 1979. Then they managed to fend off this threat, since there was no tactical CD in the form factor of the AGM-86B missile. And all such missiles were strategic. Now, in terms of its mass and dimensional characteristics, a non-nuclear long-range missile system, the same AGM-158D, is already a strategic one in terms of range.

Quote: Pavel57

IL-76 suitable for arsenal aircraft?

Suitable for the dimensions of the cargo compartment. In terms of quantity - if you believe in the "Military Balance-2020" reference book, at the beginning of 2020 we had

99 Il-76MD Candid; 3 Il-76MD-M Candid; 3 Il-76MD-90A

.
The Americans have 270 C-17A. But we need to provide transport for the airborne forces, ensure the ability to transfer equipment and personnel. It won't be enough to make enough arsenals out of them

Quote: venik

"....The US Air Force C-17A Globemaster III military transport aircraft on September 30 simulated the launch of several AGM-158 air-to-surface cruise missiles placed on pallets...... "
=======
This is "news so news" !!! States back in the late 70s carried out experimental launches ICBMs (!!!), dropped from the "Galaxy"! Then they really decided that no one needed it in figs ..... And then there were some lousy "cruise missiles" ....

This is pretty lousy news. Launching ICBMs from the C-5 is insanity, you can do without an air launch of ICBMs, but an arsenal aircraft for the CD is a dangerous tendency

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Old26

The Americans have 270 C-17A.

They write that they have 222 pieces.
But still, the main "charm" of this type is that it can be converted into arsenals of civilian cargo aircraft. Boeing produces hundreds of them a year.

[Reviews]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

can be converted into arsenal aircraft civilian cargo aircraft. Boeing produces hundreds of them a year.

To launch rockets through the windows? Ramp trucks are not produced in hundreds and not civilian.

[Old26]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

They write that they have 222 pieces.

I met different figures. And 222, and 266, and 270 and 279

[DWG1905]

"Do you propose to cover yourself with a sheet and slowly crawl to the cemetery or stir up a revolution in order to sweep away the 'thieves' regime"? "
If we stir up the revolution, we are definitely a kirdyk. The thieves' regime has nothing to do with it, we have lost sales markets for our industrial products because were defeated, why and who is to blame is debatable. Although in the battle of the refrigerator with the TV, the refrigerator always wins. Therefore, in particular in the aviation industry and related industries, where and to whom to sell our aircraft, and without civilians there is no military. Those. it is necessary to form sales markets, and they are formed only by military means. Trade follows the flag. It is necessary to look for weak spots in the enemy, and not to oppose each of their bomber jackets and each enemy spy satellite their own reconnaissance satellite.

[Old26]

Quote: Zoldat_A

You can fire 200-500 megaton missiles at the same time, or 5-7 thousand, 50-100 kilotons each

It would be possible if they were. Neither the United States nor we have 200-500 megaton-class missiles. Their number among Americans is zero, while we have only a few units (maximum tens). 5-7 thousand low power is not from the word at all. The Americans had a total of 2020, including deployed, reserve (spare parts) and intended for dismantling for 5800. Russia has 6370 according to FAS

Quote: Eye of the Crying

Quote: Zoldat_A

or 5-7 thousand, 50-100 kilotons each.

So many warheads don't exist in nature. And all the nuclear powers in total.

All have much more in total. According to open data from 13345 to 14795

Quote: Avis

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

can be converted into arsenal aircraft civilian cargo aircraft. Boeing produces hundreds of them a year.

To launch rockets through the windows? Ramp trucks are not produced in hundreds and not civilian.

Sergei! What the Americans planned in the late 70s was a standard Boeing 747. There was no ramp at all, and the missiles were dropped through the "hatch" ("door") in the right forward fuselage

[Reviews]

Quote: Old26

What the Americans planned in the late 70s was a standard Boeing 747. There was no ramp at all, and the missiles were dropped through the "hatch" ("door") in the right forward fuselage

The participant said that it is possible to re-equip a standard "hundreds of a year" paksovoi. This is impossible. There, half of the plane needs to be redone. Easier to build from scratch. And this one will no longer be "hundreds a year", but about the same number as ramp ramps are produced. Or less.
And yet, the 747 is a single-fuselage aircraft. :)