747 as fighter jet

[tynopik]

> by the time this 747 invincible fighter jet is designed it will have a cost of 10% of the US's budget. Not worth it.

actually i would think it would be rather cheap

no titanium, no composites, no super advanced jet engines, the airframe itself could be relatively inexpensive

what would be expensive would be the number of personnel required to man it

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: Spike


You mean no longer in production. We still have many carriers with F-14's on them and until the superhornets and the F-35 (naval variant) can fully replace them that will stay the case. Also the AIM-54 is no longer in production as well though we still have some left and I believe I heard talk of modifying other airframes to be able to carry them but I have no idea if that was just rumors.

-spike

I think you might be a little behind on this:

The AIM-54 was retired in 2004. Text

The F-14 just flew its last combat mission this month. There were only 2 squardrons of F-14 left and they are now in the process of being converted into superbug squads.

 

[Proletariat]

This is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard.

How can one subsonic flying boat take on an entire air force?

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> You mean no longer in production. We still have many carriers with F-14's on them and until the superhornets and the F-35 (naval variant) can fully replace them that will stay the case.

nope, they are retired now

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,88041,00.html?ESRC=navy.nl

your right about combat but the articles (and others I found) say they are not all going to officially retire until september 2006 with VF-31 being the last squadron. I was not aware they were doing a complete change before the F-35's where ready to take their place but I guess it is for the better. Those super hornets are freaking cool jets.

*Fixed, added the month
-spike

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> There is no way it could survive an attack from a real fighter. All the figher has to do is point it's guns at it and shoot. The 747 can't do much against bullets.

um, the fighter shouldn't be able to get within 100 miles of the jumbo fighter before being blown out of the sky

If a 747 can shoot a missile 100 miles toward an incoming fighter, why can't the fighter shoot a missle 100 miles towards the 747? Assuming both planes fired a missile at each other 100 miles apart, the fighter now has the advantage as it could turn and fly away faster while the slower 747 has less maneuverability and speed to avoid the incoming missile.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
Thankfully you do not work in the defense industry.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Ever read Flight of the Old Dog?

Involves turning a B-52 into what you described.

 

[tynopik]

> How can one subsonic flying boat take on an entire air force?

well it's not the subsonic flying boat per se, it's the missiles it carries

by the same token how can a stationary SAM site ever hope to take down a supersonic fighter?

just think of it as an air-mobile SAM site

of course it could only take down planes that wandered into its kill zone. If they all actively avoided it, it would have no way of shooting them down

 

[tynopik]

> Ever read Flight of the Old Dog?
>
> Involves turning a B-52 into what you described.

nope, but sounds interesting, thanks

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> How can one subsonic flying boat take on an entire air force?

well it's not the subsonic flying boat per se, it's the missiles it carries

by the same token how can a stationary SAM site ever hope to take down a supersonic fighter?

just think of it as an air-mobile SAM site

of course it could only take down planes that wandered into its kill zone. If they all actively avoided it, it would have no way of shooting them down

Well, one of the weaknesses of this aircraft I could see is that its position would be very distict (frm the radar it carried). All you'd need to do is to fly below it at ground level and attack from benieth. No more 747.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: Spike


You mean no longer in production. We still have many carriers with F-14's on them and until the superhornets and the F-35 (naval variant) can fully replace them that will stay the case. Also the AIM-54 is no longer in production as well though we still have some left and I believe I heard talk of modifying other airframes to be able to carry them but I have no idea if that was just rumors.

-spike

I think you might be a little behind on this:

The AIM-54 was retired in 2004. Text

The F-14 just flew its last combat mission this month. There were only 2 squardrons of F-14 left and they are now in the process of being converted into superbug squads.

I all-ready posted on the f-14 issue and as for the AIM-54 yes, it was retired but that does not mean we are destroying them all. I bet if we had a sutible airframe to mount them they would be put into service again as we still do not have a comparable missle.

I'm not sure you all understand what the military means by "retiring" something. That just means we rip some stuff out of it and put it in a storage field/port for a while until it is decided to truly destroy/sell off them. I have been to the navy base in Bremerton, WA and seen the 35+ nuke subs sitting there tied along side several carriers that were used in WW2 and Korea (one I believe was the "Ranger"). Talking to some of the people there they explained that while they were retired all could be activiated with a signifigant overhaul taking from 3-9 months. While that is a long time there being "retired" still did not mean they were actually gone.

I can't find them now but I had a link once to a sat pic of all the bombers and fighters sitting in a huge yard in NV I believe. There were a bunch of F-4's and B-52's as well as other older aircraft. I have no idea their maintinence status (that is if they are as well maintained as the ships in Bremerton) but it was kinda strange to see all these long retired aircraft still sitting there.

-spike

 

[Regs]

747 could make a good gunship, but no way in hell a fighter. Maneuverability and speed mean much more to a fighter pilot then just raw ordinance capacity.

 

[tynopik]

> All you'd need to do is to fly below it at ground level and attack from benieth.

is there any reason it couldn't have a radar to track targets moving along the ground?

plus this is no different than regular sam sites, hence the counter-missiles

 

[tynopik]

> Maneuverability and speed mean much more to a fighter pilot then just raw ordinance capacity.

but if you push the engagement envelope out far enough, what difference does manoueverability make?

this isn't Top Gun where the plane has to be aimed directly at a target to get a lock

if a missile can be fired in any direction (off-bore as it were), only the manoueverability of the missile matters

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> All you'd need to do is to fly below it at ground level and attack from benieth.

is there any reason it couldn't have a radar to track targets moving along the ground?

plus this is no different than regular sam sites, hence the counter-missiles

Its hard to track targets against the change terrain of mother earth and also of the sea. If you came from below and closed the distance fast (thinking F-22 ish) and opened up with your guns, no chance for the 747. F22 may not be completely invisible, but low radar crosssection would help it.

 

[KillerCharlie]

I do, in fact, understand how aircraft are retired, especially since I work in the aerospace industry.

The boneyard you're referring to is Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona. Several aircraft are stored there in case they need to be used again while many others stored there have no intention of ever seeing flight again. I know there are tons of F-16s and A-10s there that are sometimes pulled out and put back into service, but those are aircraft that are still in service anyway. It's a totally different story to pull out an aircraft that's not in active service. You have to completely retrain all the flight and maintenance crews. On an aircraft that got killed in part by it's incredibly bad maintenance requirements, bringing it back will just not happen.

A missile is the same way. Right now only the F-14 can use the AIM-54. To revive the retired missile you'd have to bring back the F-14 as well. Modifying aircraft to carry the Phoenix would be incredibly expensive, especially when the missile is old and outdated.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: Drakkon
from what starcraft has taught me...a squadron of wraiths (4-5) can take out a battlecruiser or an unmanned carrier....thus a set of just a few migs should be able to take out a 747

yay for game logic

4-5 wraiths cost more than a battlecruiser/carrier... how would 3.5 wraiths do?

If you massed BCs, you're pretty much dead unless you can lock them down pretty damn fast. Point is you're FVCKED. Unless you got some carriers with an arbiter, you might as well resign.

Same thing here.

If you march in a squadron of 747s. Even if you put a squad of MiGs against them, do they all want to come within firing range? Those 747s can unleash 3 -4 missiles against EACH MiG and have plenty to spare and the point here is you have more ammo. You can shoot more. If you gave me an MG versus a handgun and 5 terrorists charging at each other, instead of shooting each one or twice, I might put a good 4 -5 rounds in each. Same thing here.

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
I do, in fact, understand how aircraft are retired, especially since I work in the aerospace industry.

The boneyard you're referring to is Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona. Several aircraft are stored there in case they need to be used again while many others stored there have no intention of ever seeing flight again. I know there are tons of F-16s and A-10s there that are sometimes pulled out and put back into service, but those are aircraft that are still in service anyway. It's a totally different story to pull out an aircraft that's not in active service. You have to completely retrain all the flight and maintenance crews. On an aircraft that got killed in part by it's incredibly bad maintenance requirements, bringing it back will just not happen.

A missile is the same way. Right now only the F-14 can use the AIM-54. To revive the retired missile you'd have to bring back the F-14 as well. Modifying aircraft to carry the Phoenix would be incredibly expensive, especially when the missile is old and outdated.

You're not bringin back the F-14. You're modifing a 747 in any case. Was it designed to carry AIM-120s? What about AIM-9s? Just becuase we don't use the Phoenix anymore doesn't mean we can't put it on a 747. You're going to have to mod the plane SOME HOW to get a load of missiles on it.

 

[AaronB]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

A missile is the same way. Right now only the F-14 can use the AIM-54. To revive the retired missile you'd have to bring back the F-14 as well. Modifying aircraft to carry the Phoenix would be incredibly expensive, especially when the missile is old and outdated.

Why is that?

Is the missle dependent on the aircraft for something? Radar perhaps?

 

[tynopik]

> F22 may not be completely invisible, but low radar crosssection would help it.

well yes this would all be predicated upon having sensors (radar/IR/some combination) that are good enough to detect all stealth planes far enough out OR facing an opponent that doesn't have the required stealth tech

if an opponent could close to gun range, the whole idea would be rather pointless

 

[JulesMaximus]

Too slow. It would be shot down easily.

 

[tynopik]

> Those 747s can unleash 3 -4 missiles against EACH MiG and have plenty to spare and the point here is you have more ammo

that is a good point, someone mentioned that pilots can avoid a missile if they can see it, but can they avoid a STREAM of missiles?

whatever, they would so occupied trying to escape they wouldn't have any opportunity to counter-attack

 

[AaronB]

It wouldn't make much of a difference but this disscussion should have involved the B-1 Lancer instead of the 747.

 

[tynopik]

> Too slow. It would be shot down easily.

that's what the counter-missiles and super-long engagement range are for

it's like saying a SAM site is too slow or not manoueverable enough

granted there are ways to attack SAM sites (wild weasels and whatnot), but i think this could work better

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: AaronB

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

A missile is the same way. Right now only the F-14 can use the AIM-54. To revive the retired missile you'd have to bring back the F-14 as well. Modifying aircraft to carry the Phoenix would be incredibly expensive, especially when the missile is old and outdated.

Why is that?

Is the missle dependent on the aircraft for something? Radar perhaps?

I'm sure there are lots of reasons (electronics sytems, physical mounting hardware), but I'm guessing (don't know for sure) that the radar is the single biggest reason, especially on a super long range missile like that.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> Maneuverability and speed mean much more to a fighter pilot then just raw ordinance capacity.

but if you push the engagement envelope out far enough, what difference does manoueverability make?

this isn't Top Gun where the plane has to be aimed directly at a target to get a lock

if a missile can be fired in any direction (off-bore as it were), only the manoueverability of the missile matters

What fantasy world is this? A plane that can shoot off air-to-air missiles with no worry about line of sight or the physics of propulsion? Even if it could, a larger plane like the 747 would always be the pursuited and not the pursier. As soon as the 747 is detected by radar, fighter planes will have the advantage of closing in on it by all possible angles, given the 747 little to none possibilities of evasion. It will be essentially a sitting duck, and a huge target to just about everything.