747 as fighter jet

[tynopik]

> plane that can shoot off air-to-air missiles with no worry about line of sight or the physics of propulsion?

i think you misunderstood what i said b/c i have no idea what you're saying

a plane flying at 30000+ feet has a pretty good line of sight in all directions

as far as physics of propulsion, i truly am stumped

> fighter planes will have the advantage of closing in on it by all possible angles

good thing AWACS can track from all possible angles too

> given the 747 little to none possibilities of evasion

it wouldn't need to evade, it would need to shoot them down before they got in range to fire their own missiles

in this hypothetical scenario, jumbo fighter can kill out to 100 miles, regular fighters have to close to 30 miles.

result: regular fighters get killed before they can even approach engagement range

 

[Toastedlightly]

Just though of this little idea. Air bursted ICBM. No chance (if this plane was really that invincible)

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: 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

Since counter-missiles don't exist now, we might as well use non-existent magical armor that magically reflects missiles.

 

[tynopik]

> Just though of this little idea. Air bursted ICBM. No chance

you mean a nuke?

well yeah . . . but how many people are willing to detonate a nuke (probably over their own territory) to take down a plane?

 

[tynopik]

> Since counter-missiles don't exist now

counter-missiles do exist now and have been proven to work in combat situations

the only issue is upgrading them to handle smaller air-to-air missiles versus larger anti-ship missiles

we're not talking magic fairy dust, it may not have been done yet, but it certainly seems to be in the realm of technically feasible

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> Just though of this little idea. Air bursted ICBM. No chance

you mean a nuke?

well yeah . . . but how many people are willing to detonate a nuke (probably over their own territory) to take down a plane?

Well, if it is causing hte damage you say it is, it'd be worth it. Very low yield nuke. (maybe not an ICBM, but just a nuke missle that arcs above the plane and comes form above)

 

[KillerCharlie]

What missiles are you talking about? All of the anti-missiles are used only for cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, which are much bigger, slower, and less manueverable than anti-aircraft missiles.

 

[everman]

If anything you might be able to use it as a massive flying missile destroyer escorted by a squadron of fighters.

 

[tynopik]

> What missiles are you talking about? All of the anti-missiles are used only for cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, which are much bigger, slower, and less manueverable than anti-aircraft missiles.

yes i have addressed this several times

they don't exist yet, just like this flying battleship doesn't exist yet

what i am saying is that it would just require incremental improvements over current capabilities. By incremental i don't mean small, i just mean it doesn't have to be anything revolutionary

counter-missiles do exist and do work, yes there would be quite a bit of work in creating an improved version that could hit air-to-air missiles, but is there any reason to think that this couldn't be done?

 

[xanis]

The 747 as a fighter jet would not work. However, as a bomber, it would work nicely. In the end though, it really wouldn't matter because the USAF already has large, long-range, high-payload bombers, so it would be pointless to modify a 747 to do the job.

 

[Sunbird]

Originally posted by: everman
If anything you might be able to use it as a massive flying missile destroyer escorted by a squadron of fighters.

Yeah, and it could refuel those fighters too giving them the same range as itself!

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> What missiles are you talking about? All of the anti-missiles are used only for cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, which are much bigger, slower, and less manueverable than anti-aircraft missiles.

yes i have addressed this several times

they don't exist yet, just like this flying battleship doesn't exist yet

what i am saying is that it would just require incremental improvements over current capabilities. By incremental i don't mean small, i just mean it doesn't have to be anything revolutionary

counter-missiles do exist and do work, yes there would be quite a bit of work in creating an improved version that could hit air-to-air missiles, but is there any reason to think that this couldn't be done?

It's not that there is not any reason it can be done, it is just not practical nor efficient.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> plane that can shoot off air-to-air missiles with no worry about line of sight or the physics of propulsion?

i think you misunderstood what i said b/c i have no idea what you're saying

a plane flying at 30000+ feet has a pretty good line of sight in all directions

as far as physics of propulsion, i truly am stumped

> fighter planes will have the advantage of closing in on it by all possible angles

good thing AWACS can track from all possible angles too

> given the 747 little to none possibilities of evasion

it wouldn't need to evade, it would need to shoot them down before they got in range to fire their own missiles

in this hypothetical scenario, jumbo fighter can kill out to 100 miles, regular fighters have to close to 30 miles.

result: regular fighters get killed before they can even approach engagement range

Ok....

So if one 747 fighter witch would cost about 3x as much as a f-15 and take a crew of at least 4-5 people to run gets cornered by 10 F-15's closing in at all different levels of altitudes and angles, you're going to tell me a AWAC and the 747's "photon" missiles are going to be able to intersect all of them and the highly maneuverable F-15's with radar jammers, chaff, and flairs have no way of evading the incoming photon torpedo missiles before they get a chance to lock onto the 'floating' fortress 747 fighter??

 

[EyeMWing]

This is the same school of thought that led to the removal of guns from fighters for a short period of time during the cold war. It has been proven again and again that the missile does not preempt the neccessity to have a close-combat capable fighter.

The people who come up with these ideas are generals, desk-pilots, and aerospace executives, not actual aircraft engineers or combat pilots.

... A B-1b is just about the biggest, nastiest aircraft you could strap air to air missiles to and expect a result worth a damn.

 

[pavester]

The B1b is about the only Bomber/attack aircraft that would work in the role your talking about the Lancer can carry the airforces complete arsenal still fly fast as any fighter aircraft and defend itself

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-1b.htm

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

 

[tynopik]

> 747's "photon" missiles

i'm not sure why you're saying 'photon', they would just be regular missiles, possibly larger or with range booster stages

> you're going to tell me a AWAC and the 747's "photon" missiles are going to be able to intersect all of them

http://www.rense.com/general29/awwac.htm
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/infoelect/767awacs/index.htm

so the indian awacs HELICOPTER can track up to 200 simultaneous targets
i couldn't find comparable figures for the boeing awacs planes, but they can track out to 200 miles

so if a helicopter can track 200 targets, this should be able to handle more

200+ targets 200 miles out, i would say yes it could intersect all of them

> the highly maneuverable F-15's with radar jammers, chaff, and flairs have no way of evading the incoming photon torpedo missiles before they get a chance to lock onto the 'floating' fortress 747 fighter

no i don't think they could get into range. they might be able to avoid one missile, but what about the second? or the third? or the fourth?

they will be too busy avoiding missiles to close to engagement range

> This is the same school of thought that led to the removal of guns from fighters for a short period of time during the cold war. It has been proven again and again that the missile does not preempt the neccessity to have a close-combat capable fighter.

the theory was correct, it was just ahead of the technology. back then you had to point your plane at a target to get a missile lock, almost as if you were firing a gun

the technology has advanced to the point where this is no longer necessary

there is no way the us air force ever plans to allow enemy planes to close within gun range again. Allowing such a thing would be considered a massive failure

> .. A B-1b is just about the biggest, nastiest aircraft you could strap air to air missiles to and expect a result worth a damn.

well that certainly could be a possibility

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: pavester
The B1b is about the only Bomber/attack aircraft that would work in the role your talking about the Lancer can carry the airforces complete arsenal still fly fast as any fighter aircraft and defend itself

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-1b.htm

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

heh, 2nd dale brown reference in this thead...

 

[Regs]

Any radar now-a-days can track well over 200 targets. Doesn't make it an effective fighting machine. Why do you assume that such a large target can be so immune or impervious to a sophisticated fighter jet? And who's to say whatever they can do with a 747 they can do with a much more logical, cheaper, and logistical modern day fighter jet? And why do you think the opposition force does not also have a sophisticated guidance and missile system?

You're assuming way to much!

It all comes down to feasibility, logistics, and money.

 

[tynopik]

> And who's to say whatever they can do with a 747 they can do with a much more logical, cheaper, and logistical modern day fighter jet?

current fighter jets don't have the capability to carry hundreds of missiles

> Why do you assume that such a large target can be so immune or impervious to a sophisticated fighter jet?

how are AWACS expected to survive? AWACS are also slow, unmanoueverable and giant radar signatures, yet they are a cornerstone of airforce tactics

to quote from wikipedia:

"Modern AWACS systems can detect aircraft from up to 400 km away, well out of range of any anti-air weapons. In air-to-air combat, AWACS systems can communicate with friendly aircraft, extend their sensor range and give them added stealth, since they no longer need their own active radar to detect threats."

so AWACS survive by identifying aircraft before come into range and then directing friendly fighters to take out the targets. All i'm doing is replacing friendly fighters with (range-enhanced) missiles. Is that such a large leap?

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: tynopik
there is no way the us air force ever plans to allow enemy planes to close within gun range again. Allowing such a thing would be considered a massive failure

"Allowing" and "Happening" are two VERY different things. There's a reason the F-22 and F-35 both have guns. In a massive combat scenario, none of this tight-ship limited engagement crap we've been into lately, the potential for enemy aircraft to move in on a sortie of F-22's on their way back to base after expending every last missile they have is VERY real, and is probably the single best strategy for taking down American aircraft. Hide on the ground until they're out of ammo, and then pop up and take them out from outside of their current maximum range. You build arsenals based on covering every possible angle, not based on what looks the most impressive. That's why we don't have battleships anymore. They're worth NOTHING in a modern war.

 

[tynopik]

> a sortie of F-22's on their way back to base after expending every last missile

good thing this has plenty of reserve capacity

 

[Regs]

Christ...could you just change your avatar to the kid with the propeller hat all ready?

 

[tynopik]

well if you have any constructive criticism i'd be happy to hear it

the survivability aspect seems to have been shot down, but that wasn't a major part of it to begin with

the main arguments seem to consist of:

1. it would be a huge target
2. long range missiles don't exist
3. air-to-air counter missiles don't exist

to last two i would say it's more a case where they haven't been done not that they couldn't be done. there simply hasn't been a need for such a capability in the past so no effort was spent to create them

while there has been a lot of criticism, there has been precious little evidence there this idea is fundamentally unsound

 

[Toastedlightly]

Not to critisize, but what would be the point?

 

[tynopik]

well needing just one plane to ensure a 100 mile radius of air dominance would be a good start

also the fact that it's bigger means that it can carry more powerful radar (like awacs) which means it can engage enemies further away

and the fact that it would never run low on missiles wouldn't hurt

the massive range means that you wouldn't be limited to vulnerable carriers or relying on a friendly ally to loan you an air base

(i really think of this as critical in a possible china/taiwan situation where taiwanese air bases would probably be destroyed and the US might not want to risk a carrier group. Instead it could just deploy some of these from Hawaii or even Nebraska)

it also means you can loiter on target for long periods of time, providing immediate ground support to troops in need

the size also means you can carry stuff like counter-missiles and possibly phalanx variants which would protect it from many threats that would scare other planes off