Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 747/767/777 Could Carry Wing-mount Missiles  
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12578 times:

From a letter sent to the Survivalblog

Though they have shifted targeting to get more bang for the buck, decommissioned military sites that have runways capable of being used to support bombers and fighter/interceptors are still targeted, but so are civilian airports with runways and fuel depots capable of supporting such bombers, fighter interceptors, or hastily reconfigured 747,757,767,and 777 airliners. Boeing puts hard attachment points in the wings of civilian airliners so they can be rapidly reconfigured to carry air launched cruise missiles. [JWR Adds: Reference, Lawrence? I hadn't previously read anything about this.]

I don't put any stock in conspiracy theories, but this is a new one to me. Anyone ever heard anything similiar? It can't possibly be true, since carrying and firing missiles is a complex operation, and no commercial airliner is going to haul around that dead weight. Some people just don't know much about aviation.

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12254 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter):
no commercial airliner is going to haul around that dead weight.

That right there hits the nail on the head.

If it's a miltary variant of a commerical jet, maybe so (although my bet would be for drop tanks, not missiles since missiles also require extensive computer support from the aircraft itself for guidance) but you'd NEVER see this kind of thing on a commercial airliner due to the weight penalties.

Commercial airliners are designed to be as slim as possible, while as strong as possible, to maximize their payload carrying capacity. Freight and Pax are what pay the bills, not hard attachement points in wings that'll never get used.

- litz


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12203 times:

Well, the hard point to carry the 5th engine can be attached with the adhoc wing pylon to carry cruise missiles... of course with the associated performance penalties/limitations and the extra wiring... BUT... should the use of these 747s be necessary, the war would be over before they get the wiring done!

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12026 times:

You could engineer a hard-point on a C-152, so what? Just because a capablility exists, doesn't mean it's used.

This is the type of thing conspiracy theorists (kooks) live for, 'if it's possible, the government must be doing it and anyone denying it, is a part of the conspiracy.'



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineNudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11936 times:

Have fun with those missiles in situations like AF in YYZ or the 742 in MDE...


Putana da Seatbeltz!
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11866 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter):
I don't put any stock in conspiracy theories,

And yet you constantly post material that "supports" them.

 Yeah sure


User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8690 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11845 times:

I believe EL AL would do something like that, but no US airline would do something like that unless they fly a/c into Baghdad where the s--- hits the fan.

Fr8mech,

The bird-dog in Vietnam was equipped. with rockets, so its not that hard to do. The question is, who will do it. My bet is on EL AL b/c their a/c have been targeted recently. I believe they diverted their ZRH flights to GVA for this reason. Unless your a/c is equipped with flight guard, we may see this happening.

United 787,

Welcome to my RU list. I agree 100%.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11774 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Back when Boeing developed the ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile), they floated a proposal to the USAF for using a 747-200F as an airborne missile carrier. It had around ten internally-fitted 8-unit rotary launchers (identical to those used on the B-1B and B-52H) allowing one 742F to launch up to 80 missiles.

User currently offlineTWAL1011727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11719 times:

All air carrier A/C are tempting targets in their own right to a terrorist.
Putting a missile on one would open up a whole can of worms that wouldn't be worth it. Military A/C.... maybe. But anybody shooting one down would cry it was a military spy plane(or a civilian one too.)
Remember the Airbus that was inadvertantly shot down by the U.S. Navy back 15-20 yrs ago and KAL 007 by the U.S.S.R. earlier. Tragic mistakes would occur all over the world.

Its just an absurdly stupid idea IMO.

KD MLB


User currently offlineLredlefsen From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11463 times:

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 7):
I believe EL AL would do something like that

What for? To shoot down incoming shoulder-launched missiles??? That won't work. The US Air Force is currently developing solid-state lasers for the F-35 to shoot down incoming missiles. That kind of technology *may* make it into civilian airliners at some point, although I'm pretty skeptical about that, too. (Expensive, more likely to do harm than good -- just think what happens when one of those things goes off by accident, ...) Here's a link:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread35304/pg1

Quoting TWAL1011727 (Reply 9):
Putting a missile on one would open up a whole can of worms

Exactly. All of a sudden, every airliner becomes a potential "justifiable military target".

And on a way more practical note, do you really want to maintain this crap? Military iron is expensive as all get-go.

I wouldn't want to be anywhere *near* a live Sidewinder, or whatever, especially not in the line of fire (eg the terminal building, or loading/unloading luggage, or refueling some plane, or in the plane taxiing in front of you, or ...).


User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11405 times:

Come on.......

How can Boeing airliners have hardpoints for missles when everyone knows that what weight they can spare is taken up by the tanks that carry the chemicals they release in flight, otherwise known as chemtrails?



Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3509 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11172 times:

I can already see next week's thread:

"737 v.s. A320: Which Would Win in a Dogfight?"



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineAztec01 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 147 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10901 times:

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 12):
"737 v.s. A320: Which Would Win in a Dogfight?"

Overall, I bet they're pretty evenly matched, but in a knife fight, I'd go with the Boeing F737
 scratchchin 


User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10694 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter):
Boeing puts hard attachment points in the wings of civilian airliners so they can be rapidly reconfigured to carry air launched cruise missiles

Complete and utter rubbish. Another example of "print whatever it takes to sell a rag"


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10087 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Back when Boeing developed the ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile), they floated a proposal to the USAF for using a 747-200F as an airborne missile carrier. It had around ten internally-fitted 8-unit rotary launchers (identical to those used on the B-1B and B-52H) allowing one 742F to launch up to 80 missiles.

That program was called the Cruse Missile Carrier Aircraft (CMCA) Program. Lockheed proposed a CMCA version of the L-1011 and I am sure McDonnell Douglas had a DC-10 proposal. The L-1011 design also used a rotary launcher and it could carry 58 Air Launched Cruse Missiles. I still have a factory picture of the L-1011 in USAF Strategic Air Command colors, it looked really sharp.


User currently offlineTbnist03 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 106 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9728 times:

Quoting Lredlefsen (Reply 10):
I wouldn't want to be anywhere *near* a live Sidewinder, or whatever, especially not in the line of fire (eg the terminal building, or loading/unloading luggage, or refueling some plane, or in the plane taxiing in front of you, or ...).

Good call. Shit happens sometimes, and who's to say if/when something will go wrong. People aren't perfect, and I would bet that maintenence isn't always 100% right.

Also, *IF* this were possible, what would happen if the a/c needed to abruptly land? As if fuel loads would't be enough of a fire risk, I'm sure 1-2 sidewinders would be.



-Mike
User currently offlinePilotNTrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9398 times:

No offense to the thread starter, but this gets my " You've got to be kidding" vote


Booooo Lois, Yaaaa Beer!!!
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1130 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8281 times:

I don't know about missiles, but I think American experimented with the ALCL (Air Launched Checked Luggage) at my expense last year. That would explain why a suitcase with 10 days of laundry and absolutely nothing else of value (along with about 5 different types of ID with ways of contacting me) never made it home.

Obviously it was used to flatten some insurgents bunker in Iraq......



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineSlimChance From United States of America, joined May 2006, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8105 times:

Quoting Starrion (Reply 18):
I don't know about missiles, but I think American experimented with the ALCL (Air Launched Checked Luggage) at my expense last year. That would explain why a suitcase with 10 days of laundry and absolutely nothing else of value (along with about 5 different types of ID with ways of contacting me) never made it home.

Obviously it was used to flatten some insurgents bunker in Iraq......

See, its comments like this that keep me coming back here. Big grin


User currently offlineLredlefsen From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8105 times:

Quoting Starrion (Reply 18):
a suitcase with 10 days of laundry ... never made it home. Obviously it was used to flatten some insurgents bunker in Iraq......

The Geneva Conventions forbid chemical warfare. I believe stinkbombs qualify.  Wink


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7661 times:

Overall, I bet they're pretty evenly matched, but in a knife fight, I'd go with the Boeing F737

AGREE ! The F320's FBW system would prevent a dogfight in the first place... Bwahahahaha J/K

Sure they can put cruise missiles on a civilian 747... it has the hardpoints... but no wiring... But... the question remains... WHAT'S DA POINT? Its just an incidental bonus the conspiracy theorists have dug up and extrapolated beyond the limits of sanity...

mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineLitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7596 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 11):
"737 v.s. A320: Which Would Win in a Dogfight?"

If you go by the empirical evidence, the 737 ... as the airbus' tail would snap off as soon as you kicked the rudder ...

 Smile  stirthepot 

- litz


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7811 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7576 times:

Screw ALCM hardpoints on Boeing jetliners, what we should be really worried about are those super-quiet stealth helicopters watching over us.


Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 859 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7405 times:

@ Litz

You dont even need to touch the rudder on a 737, it does a good job falling from the sky anyway.....

Micke//SWE  stirthepot 



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7326 times:

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 11):

"737 v.s. A320: Which Would Win in a Dogfight?"

Depends on the crew (an ex-military fighter jock for captain would probably be the deciding factor). The 737 might have an advantage, since we know it climbs better, and the A320 has Airbus flight law limitations to avoid overstressing the airframe.


Thanks for the responses. I'll bet this rumor grew from seeing fifth and fourth engine carries. It is an absurd idea, but some people'll believe anything.


25 FlyDreamliner : Any war where we'd need northwest and united jets to win? pff. I think we can rest assured those giant missiles in the concrete ant holes in north da
26 Mandala499 : Flydreamliner, That's why it's a ridiculous idea someone came up with! Can a 747 carry an ALCM... sure, why not? But the point I'm trying to make is..
27 Post contains images Leezyjet : And I thought it was only Russian Airliners that had these hard points on the wings !!!.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing's 747, 767, And 757 Operations Shut Down posted Tue Nov 2 1999 14:03:33 by JWM AIRTRANS
Boeing 747-8 Details, New Wing, FBW, EIS Dates posted Mon Jan 9 2006 23:11:56 by Keesje
Boeing Optimistic On Keeping 747, 767 Production posted Wed May 25 2005 06:27:05 by Jacobin777
Boeing's Stretches: 737-9, 757-3, 767-4, 777-3 posted Tue Dec 25 2001 17:36:08 by Vfw614
A Boeing 747-400 Wing posted Thu Oct 14 1999 17:07:50 by Flight
Boeing 747-400 And 777 posted Wed Jun 9 1999 23:51:03 by Boeing747-400
Boeing 747/777 vs A340/330 posted Fri Nov 6 1998 04:25:15 by CX747
Boeing 747-8I Operating Empty Weight posted Sun Nov 12 2006 15:18:58 by TomB
Will Boeing Let The 777 Die? posted Fri Oct 27 2006 04:13:11 by KSUpilot
Boeing 747-300 Sightseeing Flight posted Tue Oct 24 2006 18:13:31 by Canberra