747 as fighter jet

[Scarpozzi]

If you had a machine gun mounted on a biplane, you could take a 747 out. (if you could catch it)

My point is that even though a 747 can cruise over 550mph, you really need a supersonic aircraft as a launch platform. Without being able to maneuver, you wouldn't be able to defend yourself in a SAM attack or against other anti-aircraft measures....(including other aircraft)

A plane that large just can't bank because of its sheer mass. (not so much a problem with the weight)

 

[PeteRoy]

Check this 757 as F22

 

[loic2003]

Slightly off-topic:

back in WW2, I always felt they should have had a couple of bombers equiped with no bombs, but a couple of heavy AA flak cannons like you got on the ground, instead of the lighter, much less effective, machine guns they had in aircraft such as the lancaster or flying fortress. These could have flown at the back and provided serious cover for the rest of the bombers.

Also, other ideas such as trailing an explosive shrapnel charge on a cable out the back of these aircraft with maybe small winglets to keep it stable could have been effective. When aircraft attacked from the rear this charge could have been detonated resulting in almost certain destruction of the attacking fighter. If anything, it would prevent the figters attacking from the rear and force them to come from up high or the side where there was potentially more threat to them.

Further, still using this shrapnel bomb idea, I always figured fighters scrambled to intercept bombers should have had small, timed bomblets which effectively worked like very large hand grenades. With a three or four second delay after release, a pilot could drop these in the vicitity of the bomber group and with a little practice get the devices to detonate at the correct time. They would be very simple, cheap weapons, and once they had been released, the fighter could go about his normal attack method with no loss (ie extra weight). The bombers are attacked in a way that offers little risk to the fighter pilot, but the potential for heavily damaging or destroying a bomber is pretty large.

 

[freebee]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
What is being proposed is the equivalent of the Navy carrier.

Not the carrier does not operate on its own. IT has power but has limitations also.

The same would be with an airborn battle ship.

If you want to play theory; read up on some of Dale Browns's Flightof the Old Dog series.
Has what you want to describe based around a B-52

Agreed. The OP's idea has already been carried out in theory in the fictional EB-52 Megafortress. ..which is how I think this whole thread got started.

Furthermore, while the OP is sufficiently versed on modern military tactics and capabilities, you neglect to mention the B1 (aka the Bone), originally a high performance platform during the Carter days. Later on a revised b1-b platform emerged, which was superior in every way (except for supersonic speeds). Certainly one could argue that this would be a far more suitable fighter substitute than a 747.

Howver, without getting too political, in this day and age, its domestic terrorism that is the real threat. Gobal standoff capability is better handled via cruise missles and unmanned drones.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: loic2003
Slightly off-topic:

back in WW2, I always felt they should have had a couple of bombers equiped with no bombs, but a couple of heavy AA flak cannons like you got on the ground, instead of the lighter, much less effective, machine guns they had in aircraft such as the lancaster or flying fortress. These could have flown at the back and provided serious cover for the rest of the bombers.

they'd be slower than the bombers when flying back. that's a problem.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: pavester

read this book and come back later
http://www.megafortress.com/12.htm

Beat me to it.

 

[g8wayrebel]

While this concept hasn't been attempted for an air to air assault yet , we have exactly this type of design for air to ground assault. The old troop transport c-130 has been retrofitted to what is now the a-130. It is nothing short of a flying gunship.
The OP's idea has merit in many aspects. It is readily conceivable to have a functional air to air missle defense system.
The range of our view from the air would potentially make the Patriot missle system functional for this very purpose since it would have unrestricted technological visibilty.
While they [Patriot missles] may be overkill , they could easily do the job since they would be tracking to the approaching target , not on an intercepting course.
They could also be modified to be area dispersal weapon ( many projectiles released in proximity) for effect ,rather than direct intercept weapons as they are today.
The aerodynamic stability of such an aircraft makes a convincing argument for it's ability to launch these missiles from the air as well ,even with the size of the missle platform traditionally used for the Patriot system.
The range of our missles has been severly underestimated by those who have mentioned it as well.
We can throw a shell the size of a car farther from a ship with a fixed gun than has been claimed as our tactical missle range.
It may be a dream OP , but it is certainly possible.

 

[WayneTeK]

In all honesty, it's a great fantasy but far from reality.

 

[ScottMac]

Try reading "Flight of the Old Dog" by Dale Brown.

It's the first of a series of flying fiction about re-engineering the B-52 into an attack platform. They're pretty good books if you're into flying, military, action adventure-ish stuff.

I think the series went ~4-5 books. His other stuff is pretty good too.

FWIW

Scott

 

[AlienCraft]

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

It's not like they haven't thought of this already.

But soon, we all will be if the Guvmint has it's way......
BTW 747's are being used for fire fighting, so being used for real fighting isn't that extreme of a stretch.

 

[91TTZ]

The OP's idea is not as far fetched as it first seems.

Tracking missiles and aircraft is easy stuff, but being able to actually hit the target is much harder. Eventually anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles will be replaced with lasers, and an aircraft that uses lasers would have a tremendous advantage over an aircraft that can only fire bullets and missiles.

Right now, it's still in the development phase and only 1 aircraft has been designed to carry an airborne laser weapon system- a Boeing 707 called the Airborne Laser Lab. It was able to shoot down 5 sidewinder missiles and a target drone.

Obviously having a powerful laser that can shoot down missiles and aircraft will give you a huge advantage over something that cannot. Sometime in the not-to-distant future we may see aircraft like this or the ABL (the 747 which hasn't flown yet) shooting down fighters. Think of it as an AWACS that can fire lasers. Sure, it will be a big target, but it will be able to be stationed so far away from the action that fighters will not have a chance to get into range, and the fighters themselves will be too small to carry such laser gear, thus necessitation a large aircraft to carry it.

 

[Gunbuster]

Build Yukikaze!

 

[OrganizedChaos]

thats what you call putting all your eggs in one basket

 

[CaptnKirk]

Curtis Sparrow-Hawk meets Godzilla

 

[alfa147x]

wow, thats cool!

 

[91TTZ]

It seems that everyone else is picturing something totally different than what I have in mind. They're picturing a giant 747 trying to tangle it up with Mig-29's, taking direct hits and all that, while I'm thinking more along the lines of an AWACS with lasers, picking off fighters with impunity from a great distance.

Sure, the fighters can see the AWACS out there on radar, but they can't do anything about it since it's so far away. The reason the AWACS is so big is because you can't fit all of that equipment into a small fighter. The same would go for an airborn laser system. Ideally you'd want it in a F-16 or something, but a small aircraft wouldn't be able to carry all of that equipment.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
If you had a machine gun mounted on a biplane, you could take a 747 out. (if you could catch it)

My point is that even though a 747 can cruise over 550mph, you really need a supersonic aircraft as a launch platform. Without being able to maneuver, you wouldn't be able to defend yourself in a SAM attack or against other anti-aircraft measures....(including other aircraft)

A plane that large just can't bank because of its sheer mass. (not so much a problem with the weight)

That is oh so not true. The 747 was barrel rolled during it's inagural fly by. The AWACS KC-130's are routinely banked to wing flapping extremes during excersizes.

 

[LiquidImpulse]

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

LOL

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
If you had a machine gun mounted on a biplane, you could take a 747 out. (if you could catch it)

My point is that even though a 747 can cruise over 550mph, you really need a supersonic aircraft as a launch platform. Without being able to maneuver, you wouldn't be able to defend yourself in a SAM attack or against other anti-aircraft measures....(including other aircraft)

A plane that large just can't bank because of its sheer mass. (not so much a problem with the weight)

That is oh so not true. The 747 was barrel rolled during it's inagural fly by. The AWACS KC-130's are routinely banked to wing flapping extremes during excersizes.

It may be able to roll; but manuevers to about a weapon will also require the ability to pitch and yaw quickly. The 747 and lother arge A/C are not designed (at the present time) to be able to do such abrupt actions safely.

With respect the the ABL, missles have to be fired from the direction the laser is aimed at.
The laser beam has only a small field of view. The flexability required to reposition the laser would either require banks of mirrors for full effectiveness or the ability of move the full laser to a different orientation quickly.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

With respect the the ABL, missles have to be fired from the direction the laser is aimed at.
The laser beam has only a small field of view. The flexability required to reposition the laser would either require banks of mirrors for full effectiveness or the ability of move the full laser to a different orientation quickly.

There is a mirror which is mounted on a swiveling head.

picture

 

[sandorski]

747 = nice big target in the sky. If you wanted Air Superiority over Haiti, a 747 would likely do, but over any half modern Military would be costly. Perhaps as a Defensive Measure(never leaving Freindly Airspace/Friendly Territory) it might work very well, but once that plane gets over enemy controlled territory it'd be a sitting duck. Systems would be made to simply overwhelm any kind of Missile Interception capability of such an aircraft, maybe Missiles with Counter Measures or Dummy Missiles as distraction.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
If you had a machine gun mounted on a biplane, you could take a 747 out. (if you could catch it)

My point is that even though a 747 can cruise over 550mph, you really need a supersonic aircraft as a launch platform. Without being able to maneuver, you wouldn't be able to defend yourself in a SAM attack or against other anti-aircraft measures....(including other aircraft)

A plane that large just can't bank because of its sheer mass. (not so much a problem with the weight)

That is oh so not true. The 747 was barrel rolled during it's inagural fly by. The AWACS KC-130's are routinely banked to wing flapping extremes during excersizes.

That is oh so not true. Boeing never rolled a 747. It was the 707 prototype - the first (real) jet airliner. The "barrel roll" of the Dash 80 (707 prototype) was a long, slow 1g roll. Almost any aircraft can performan this since the a/c never exceeded 1g. You could possibly do it in a 747 if you started very high altitude since you'd lose a lot of height.

However, that's completely moot. To save the 747 is maneuverable compared to a fighter is absolutely retarded. They are nowhere close... it's an orders of magnitude difference. I've flown a military F-16 simulator as well as Boeing's 7x7 simulators. You can't even speak of fighter and airliner maneuverability in the same sentence - there's nothing to compare.


We've established the fact this idea is just not a good one. Fighters are cheaper, faster, more maneuverable, more flexibile, more survivable, and more stealthy. The only advantage I can possibly see with a 747 is large payload... so that you lose more money, people, and equipment when it gets shot down so easily.

Everyone can conjecture about why this missile platform would work, but we already gave tons of reasons it wouldn't. If this thing really would work well and our reasons are wrong then the military would be pursuing this idea.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie


That is oh so not true. Boeing never rolled a 747. It was the 707 prototype - the first (real) jet airliner. The "barrel roll" of the Dash 80 (707 prototype) was a long, slow 1g roll. Almost any aircraft can performan this since the a/c never exceeded 1g. You could possibly do it in a 747 if you started very high altitude since you'd lose a lot of height.

However, that's completely moot. To save the 747 is maneuverable compared to a fighter is absolutely retarded. They are nowhere close... it's an orders of magnitude difference. I've flown a military F-16 simulator as well as Boeing's 7x7 simulators. You can't even speak of fighter and airliner maneuverability in the same sentence - there's nothing to compare.


We've established the fact this idea is just not a good one. Fighters are cheaper, faster, more maneuverable, more flexibile, more survivable, and more stealthy. The only advantage I can possibly see with a 747 is large payload... so that you lose more money, people, and equipment when it gets shot down so easily.

Everyone can conjecture about why this missile platform would work, but we already gave tons of reasons it wouldn't. If this thing really would work well and our reasons are wrong then the military would be pursuing this idea.

That Alaskan Airlines plane with the broken jack-screw in the T-Tail did a few barrel rolls and an inside loop as well . .
and we know how that turned out. (splat)

Big Airframes aren't desingned for sharp, quick, responsive performance - they're basically a big bus with wings.

Airborn laser was a concept from before the first Space Shuttle flight, prior to Stealth eenvelope design and the
sophistican of synthetic aperature radar, where a stand-off large platform could pick off and kill a missle in it's
primary launch phase the first 30 seconds of flight - when it was low and slow.
At 31 seconds it's moving too fast . . . and has gone too far, to snuff it with a Gas Dynamic Laser.

Kinetic Energy Weapons, or Rail-Guns would be more effective.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Big Airframes aren't desingned for sharp, quick, responsive performance - they're basically a big bus with wings.

The one thing I noticed most when flying the 757 simulator was how incredibly sluggish the thing was to control. Even after flying games like MS flight simulator, flying the engineering simulators still took me a bit by surprise.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

With respect the the ABL, missles have to be fired from the direction the laser is aimed at.
The laser beam has only a small field of view. The flexability required to reposition the laser would either require banks of mirrors for full effectiveness or the ability of move the full laser to a different orientation quickly.

There is a mirror which is mounted on a swiveling head.

picture

Notice the field of view for the mirror. Depending on the effectiveness of the laser and location; you have a narrow time/attack field to operate in.