The USAF just tested launching cruise missiles from cargo planes. This involves much more than just pushing them out the back!

1) Verify the plane has the right data link installed. Seemingly, USAF C-130s and C-17s already do, but a 737 off the back lot might not.

2) Load the plane with a munitions dispenser carrying the missiles. This is much more than a large box.

3) Fly to the right place.

4) Push the munitions dispenser out the back. With missiles it weighs several thousand pounds, so plan for this.

5) It deploys a parachute. I imagine some electronic things occur to tell the missiles it's time to fly. It drops the missiles.

6) Bang.

It's not obvious how expensive the munitions dispenser is, but it does have flight safe, mission critical electronics. It's also not obvious how hard it would be to put some pylons on a select portion of our cargo fleet.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... -in-action

A cool idea for the military cargo planes, for sure!

The USAF once launched a Minuteman ICBM from a flying C-5:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96A0wb1Ov9k

kitplane01 wrote:

1) Verify the plane has the right data link installed. Seemingly, USAF C-130s and C-17s already do, but a 737 off the back lot might not.

Well... you'd think that the biggest issue with using a 737, other than the datalink, would be the lack of a hole to push the missile crate out of.


More seriously, while an interesting concept, wouldn't this be more of a 'last resort' kind of strategy when on the backfoot in a conflict and running out of pointier attack airplanes?
I can't imagine a slow and relatively defenseless Herc would be a general's first choice to deploy his missiles...

I'm not sure what this gets you other than a surprise maybe one time.

I'd think we'd want to use our transport aircraft for, ya know, transporting stuff.

Parachutes, and associated equipment, are heavy. Why not just launch off the 130s ramp and jettison dispenser?

Of course if you’re using a 130 for this the situation is already desperate.

zanl188 wrote:

Of course if you’re using a 130 for this the situation is already desperate.

Not necessarily. There may be time when you need a surge of ordinance. At the begining of an operation where you may want as many missiles in the air at one time to suppress air defenses, you may be able to spare a few dozen Hercs. After that they can go back to their regular duties.

We are taking about cruise missiles with hundreds km of range.

bt

That's more of what I was thinking. This would be useful for a one time saturation attack when your opponent isn't expecting to have to deal with one at the moment. Remember, some things in war are more about just having and demonstrating a capability instead of actually using it. Much like nuclear missiles, your opponent will have to account for each attack vector. Considering how many missiles this would allow even just 10 C-130s to put on a target set, your opponent would have to expend a considerable amount of resources on missile defenses, in depth, to deal with the swarm, and any leakers from outer rings of defenses.

Heck the system seems simple enough to be able to translate to the C-17or A400.

bt

zanl188 wrote:

Parachutes, and associated equipment, are heavy. Why not just launch off the 130s ramp and jettison dispenser?

I'm thinking they may want to time the launches to coincide with each other and with the delivering aircraft at a further distance from the launch site.

With the launches closer to the ground, ground base radar would less likely pick them up.

bt

zanl188 wrote:

Parachutes, and associated equipment, are heavy. Why not just launch off the 130s ramp and jettison dispenser?

Of course if you’re using a 130 for this the situation is already desperate.

I don't think they want a rocket motor going off *inside* a C-130. Consider the failure modes.

I don't think you'd need to be desperate at all. Most scenarios involve a C-130 flying to within 500 miles of an enemy to offload supplies. Once it's time for the attack, using the C-130s and C-17s for the one-off initial bombing attack seems reasonable. Then they can go back to running supplies.

One can buy something like 50 C-130s for the price of a B-21. If the mission can be done by a C-130 ....

(Please don't remind me how much more a B-21 can do. I already know. But if the mission doesn't need those capabilities, the C-130 is soooo much cheaper.)

Just thought of a tech reason for the parachute.

You also don't want the missile to launch directly from the crate. The exhaust would fry the crate and may damage or interfere with the launch of the next missile. With the chute, the missile can drop from the crate and free fall a bit so when the rocket ignite it would not cause collateral damage. Your crate then can be made cheaply instead off being resistant to extreme heat.

bt

It's not a particularly new idea, though I don't think it's ever gone beyond studies and experimental prototypes. The UK was considering the A400M to launch Storm Shadow cruise missiles back in 2003. https://www.flightglobal.com/mbda-to-ev ... 12.article An experimental UAV launcher was developed by Airbus recently. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/airbus- ... transport/ In those cases, the missile or UAV simply gets pushed out the back and ignites the engine once sufficient separation has been achieved.

bikerthai wrote:

zanl188 wrote:

Of course if you’re using a 130 for this the situation is already desperate.

Not necessarily. There may be time when you need a surge of ordinance. At the begining of an operation where you may want as many missiles in the air at one time to suppress air defenses, you may be able to spare a few dozen Hercs. After that they can go back to their regular duties.

We are taking about cruise missiles with hundreds km of range.

bt

Now you’re talkin.

Think the first night of ODS. Load up a dozen or so C-17s and have them drop a wall of ALCMs. We are talking of hundreds of cruise missiles launched without having to tie up any strike aircraft with their delivery. A slightly more complicated version of what could be done with a GLCM, but without all those deployment logistics and treaty obligations.

Spacepope wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

zanl188 wrote:

Of course if you’re using a 130 for this the situation is already desperate.

Not necessarily. There may be time when you need a surge of ordinance. At the begining of an operation where you may want as many missiles in the air at one time to suppress air defenses, you may be able to spare a few dozen Hercs. After that they can go back to their regular duties.

We are taking about cruise missiles with hundreds km of range.

bt

Now you’re talkin.

Think the first night of ODS. Load up a dozen or so C-17s and have them drop a wall of ALCMs. We are talking of hundreds of cruise missiles launched without having to tie up any strike aircraft with their delivery. A slightly more complicated version of what could be done with a GLCM, but without all those deployment logistics and treaty obligations.

Still seems better to have some tomahawks pooped out some B52s and B2s.

TWA772LR wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Not necessarily. There may be time when you need a surge of ordinance. At the begining of an operation where you may want as many missiles in the air at one time to suppress air defenses, you may be able to spare a few dozen Hercs. After that they can go back to their regular duties.

We are taking about cruise missiles with hundreds km of range.

bt

Now you’re talkin.

Think the first night of ODS. Load up a dozen or so C-17s and have them drop a wall of ALCMs. We are talking of hundreds of cruise missiles launched without having to tie up any strike aircraft with their delivery. A slightly more complicated version of what could be done with a GLCM, but without all those deployment logistics and treaty obligations.

Still seems better to have some tomahawks pooped out some B52s and B2s.

The B-2s will have other duties on that first night. Why waste strike and penetration aircraft on simple missile truck duties when they can be much more useful elsewhere?

TWA772LR wrote:

Still seems better to have some tomahawks pooped out some B52s and B2s.

The Tomahawk is a naval missile.

TWA772LR wrote:

Still seems better to have some tomahawks pooped out some B52s and B2s.

You can poop it out or you can Montezuma revenge it

by

Spacepope wrote:

Think the first night of ODS. Load up a dozen or so C-17s and have them drop a wall of ALCMs. We are talking of hundreds of cruise missiles launched without having to tie up any strike aircraft with their delivery. A slightly more complicated version of what could be done with a GLCM, but without all those deployment logistics and treaty obligations.

So we're talking about a system we use once every 30 or 40 years.... There's a reason why these ideas don't get funded....

C-5s and C-141s were very busy elsewhere the first night of ODS.

We don't need to ignite the missile in the aircraft or in the dispenser. There are simple ways to do this. Cold gas generator for example. Or drag the whole lot of missiles out of the dispenser with a drogue.

A 747 (MC-747) was also proposed for this idea. Only it would carry multiple missiles.

While another 747 was an airborne aircraft carrier.

Wouldn't be the first time the Herc was used as bomber - dropping Daisy Cutters in SE Asia

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Wouldn't be the first time the Herc was used as bomber - dropping Daisy Cutters in SE Asia

The Argentinians tried to bomb cargo ships a few times during the Falklands War with C130s.

cpd wrote:

A 747 (MC-747) was also proposed for this idea. Only it would carry multiple missiles.

While another 747 was an airborne aircraft carrier.

This scheme had either 4 or 6 missiles per container, and the possibility of multiple containers per plane.

Francoflier wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

1) Verify the plane has the right data link installed. Seemingly, USAF C-130s and C-17s already do, but a 737 off the back lot might not.

Well... you'd think that the biggest issue with using a 737, other than the datalink, would be the lack of a hole to push the missile crate out of.


More seriously, while an interesting concept, wouldn't this be more of a 'last resort' kind of strategy when on the backfoot in a conflict and running out of pointier attack airplanes?
I can't imagine a slow and relatively defenseless Herc would be a general's first choice to deploy his missiles...

P-8s have a bay for launching torpedoes, maybe something could be worked for launching a cruise missile.

The P-8A bay is not that large. They can launch Harpoon from the wing pylons, but since it is based on a commercial wing, it can not handle that much weight out there.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy ... tic-2021-6

bt