[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha / animu / ausneets / bsa / cafechan / leftpol / lewd / sw ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

File: adbceb96d703286⋯.png (126.83 KB, 578x799, 34:47, 1415748458278570.png)

File: 26234dc9dc23854⋯.jpg (106.83 KB, 550x630, 55:63, 58eefd735c5417552ad9d0948a….jpg)

File: 85ba7d5cfb4a59c⋯.jpg (91.99 KB, 1600x800, 2:1, 429e1e719daa25fbdc19544565….jpg)

File: 22759126c1a3077⋯.png (19.88 KB, 891x285, 297:95, avparsit_12.png)

File: 6fe11ac248f0a5d⋯.png (43.24 KB, 599x288, 599:288, 1415748285491293.png)

224a9d No.549223

In the early 1970s Boeing began putting more money and thought into the 747 platform. In addition to commercial purposes, the 747 platform was used as a base to provide a refueling aircraft and an air warning and control aircraft to the military. Other concepts explored were a submarine hunter, a general transport aircraft capable of launching paratroopers, a bomber/cruise missile launcher that carried 70 missiles, and the 747 AAC (airborne aircraft carrier). Boeing did a full workup study on the AAC, including aircraft to fit in it called microfighters as well.

The first images show various draft designs and the final tailless microfighterfighter. It is undoubtedly the smallest modern fighter jet ever designed weighting less than a HMMWV. It lacks a landing gear, the body is composed only of an engine, radar, pilot seat, and fuel space. If it couldn't reach the AAC and needed to land in an emergency, it could deploy a skid landing gear, or if that failed an emergency airbag. It would then be recovered by a truck.

224a9d No.549224

File: 4cbbda73274dcfc⋯.jpg (41.47 KB, 1024x481, 1024:481, DOD_boeing-aac-carrier-cut….jpg)

File: cfa2b0576a35d67⋯.jpg (347.58 KB, 848x1164, 212:291, bevon.jpg)

File: 79aef7147fe02fb⋯.png (62.71 KB, 852x680, 213:170, PXfXDMS.png)

File: 3da274e9d60cedf⋯.jpg (29.01 KB, 400x334, 200:167, antonov-graph.jpg)

The microfighter was lighter than the average four door sedan, and its performance in close range dogfighting was to be unparaleled. It would have had a thrust to weight of 1.45:1 due to its YJ101 engine with 64kN thrust, total weight of 10,000lb. It could easily reach mach and had a wing loading of 250kg per square meter F-15 has 360kg/m2, F-35 has 642kg/m2. The microfighter was armed with either a pair of sidewinder missiles or a pair of mark 82 bombs to complement the M39 cannon and 400 rounds of ammunition.

www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/529372.pdf

Once the design of the microfighter was over it was found the AAC could fit eight of them. More than enough to run CAP fighter+wingman patrols around the clock for protection of the AWACS, or carry out a lightning strike. Boeing even designed methods to launch and recover the aircraft, as well as maintenance schedules and techniques. Space on the AAC would be tight, but on paper at least, it would have proven to be capable.

Project was cancelled because the military did not think Boeing could produce 2 seperate new vehicles (the AAC and the microfighter) without cost overruns, and because airborne refueling made it possible for the F-15 to defend AWACS as well. A modern day AAC concept could be based on the A380, which is 35% larger than the 747, is longer ranged, and could have a seperate deck allocated to an AEW dish to coordinate the 8 microfighters. In addition the microfighters could use the F404 evolution of the YJ101, which is far more powerful and reliable, and a whole range of new weapons (SDB, AIM-9X).


ca1b6d No.549226

>>549224

Never heard of it and it's the most beautiful thing I've read in a long time.


224a9d No.549227

>>549226

I just think the microfighter is cool. If it was given landing gear, it could be a budget high performance fighter for a LOT of countries.


49057f No.549232

>>549227

The idea is definitely cool, and I'm sure it provokes a lot of erections out there - but why include the microfighter rather than firing long range AA/Cruise missiles from a 747 instead of launching a miniaturised fighter to carry the missile?


a2e0a8 No.549234

>>549232

Brit wrote it before I can.

Not only regular cruise missiles though, but hypersonic missiles.

I don't think they'd risk shooting down a 747 until after it launches its payload as well you can even go the full Slav route and paint it in civilian colors


4ffb2c No.549242

File: 3cd57c8506416c4⋯.jpeg (45.73 KB, 710x510, 71:51, NMNA.jpeg)

Furthermore, hooking yourself on a trapeze wire is a heck of a lot easier than landing on a carrier due to the minimal relative velocity.


ca1b6d No.549244

>>549232

They could omit the nasal plane bay in favor of a strong radar and they could have a long-range air patrol platform.


4ffb2c No.549245

File: 3306ceba623e62a⋯.jpg (349.33 KB, 1697x683, 1697:683, jqpnexme8siuimsknw4a.jpg)

>>549232

>sage because doublepost

They toyed with that idea, but dropped it because they didn't want the Russians shooting 747s down en masse.


2e3bbb No.549251

>>549245

This. Having commercial planes serve military role is a horrible idea.


224a9d No.549277

File: 9318e5886f11eaa⋯.jpg (170.6 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, airborne_hero_lrg_01_1280x….jpg)

>>549232

The miniature fighter is cheaper, is more jam resistant, will be less likely to shoot at civilians, and can react more quickly because it can be kept on station hundreds of kilometers away.

A SAM would have to be launched from the AAC and will burn out before it goes 15km, meaning its path will be limited on ballistic after that. It's a lot more vulnerable to decoys, jamming, and target mistakes (hitting civvies).

Oh and of course, the thing that killed this >>549245 the missiles could be nuclear tipped. As soon as Russian spies confirmed America built one of these, Russians would then have no choice but to start shooting all 747 approaching their territory.

But if Russian spies said America built an AAC with microfighters… no one would care.

I think there's a niche for AAC in supporting paratrooper forces or defending key aircraft like the Air Force One. Although I think AAC should be built on a larger platform, which can include eight microfighters and an AEW dish just to make it perfectly clear it's not a civilian.


9054cd No.549297

File: 6640558774c0cd8⋯.jpg (50.04 KB, 1034x549, 1034:549, Tupolev_TB-3.jpg)

Soviets had you beat by almost a century, mate.


fdbe00 No.549302

File: 44dc962f254e173⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 611.22 KB, 2000x1601, 2000:1601, USS Macon lewd.jpg)

>>549277

>AAC should be built on a larger platform

This? Should be easy enough to distinguish from civilian airliners in the current century, and if manned parasite fighters are too heavy/impractical it could still make for a decent drone carrier+tanker.


b7d5bb No.549307

File: 46c9780c606ab07⋯.jpg (60.5 KB, 832x553, 832:553, TIE_Advanced.jpg)

>>549223

What purpose would this serve? It's a cool idea, but I just don't see how it'd be practical with mid-air refueling. Even if I were commissioned to come up with an AAC, I would examine the possibility of an airship first. It would probably be able to carry more aircraft as well as a wider variety and be less expensive to develop. My only concern would be the weight.

>>549224

>2nd image

I wonder if George Lucas was ever inspired by this when doing the worldbuilding for Star Wars.


6487c7 No.549308

>>549307

The art of Star Wars came mostly from a professional artist named Ralph McQuarrie. The original paintings very different from what we got. Stormtroopers had lightsabers, the Deathstar dish was hexagonal, C3P0 was the robot from Metropolis, etc. It's similar enough that you know what you're looking and can see how they got from the paintings to the models they used, but it's very interesting to see what might have been.


224a9d No.549319

>>549297

Its not the same, this thing can do maintenance on aircraft in flight. Thats more like early mid air refuelling.

>>549302

Cant keep up with what it defends. Maybe is there was a lifting body jet powered variant.


224a9d No.549613

File: 5b75d6a583bcc3d⋯.jpg (17.83 KB, 654x368, 327:184, getpubliccontent.jpg)

Like this


1d72b5 No.549914

>>549849

I doubt that the Aigion would be able to even fly IRL.


1d72b5 No.549945

>>549935

How realistic is this?

We are talking about a plane who's wing thickness alone must be nearly 10 meters.


b2f10c No.549967

File: 1a68a86d9c78a53⋯.webm (10.67 MB, 716x404, 179:101, 1a68a86d9c78a535da06acc54….webm)

>>549945

>How realistic is this?


5cbc3d No.550003

>>549914

Everything can fly if you can give it enough thrust. The problem with design of such vessels is that they're all piss easy to destroy. You can always make a bigger missile, there's always such missile size that takes out the whole thing in one blow, and a missile is always cheaper than the thing it destroys. Even in modern day there exist anti-carrier missiles that destroy Nimitz class ship instantly, and because they fly only few centimeters off water surface they're nearly impossible to detect and shoot down. For this reason, in modern day capital battleships ain't worth a shit, nobody who's serious about their navy uses anything other than missile cutters anymore. The single reason aircraft carriers still exist is because they can be used as a mobile airfield and can't be easily invaded by infantry.


def53b No.550005

>>550003

>a missile is always cheaper than the thing it destroys.

The Middle East would like to have a word with you.


5cbc3d No.550007

>>550005

I wasn't suggesting firing your anti-cruiser missiles at the outhouses.


9054cd No.550016

>>549223

How would they retrieve the fighters after deploying them for maintenance/rearming?

Very close to the tips of the wings of aircrafts strong turbulence develops. This happens because of the high pressure below the wings pushes past the wings near the edge to fill the space above the wings. This turbulence can get extremely big and means that planes that fly behind it must keep a certain distance to be able to fly safely. This is a major concern for airports (greater turbulence->longer wait times between landing planes->less money made), but also for air to air refueling, because the refueling beam must be lowered mechanically to ensure that the fighter doesn't get thrown around too much by turbulence.

Flying a fighter (a tiny one at that) so close to the plane to actually be able to reel it in would invariably mean flying it into the turbulence. The old TB-3 didn't have that problem, since it wasn't nearly as large (->not nearly as heavy->required less lift->less pressure difference between the wings->less turbulence).

The only real option would be a downward cargo door, but where do you put the landing gear then?

Adding a hole that large to the fuselage would also create a massive problem. Look at the 747 SOFIA telescope project. It's basically a 747 with a large cut and a telescope put inside. What I am about to say sounds crazy, but the SOFIA 747 weighs more than a normal 747, even without the telescope. Why? Cutting a hole that large into the side of the plane means that all of the forces that would usually be routed through that part of the fuselage will now have to be routed through the other parts of it, which means that you must reinforce it. A plane without cargo doors weighs much less than a plane with cargo doors, and adding a large cargo port at the bottom of the plane (one of the two planes where the most forces are applied during takeoff and landing) will be pretty complicated.

As soon as the fighter goes inside the airframe it will not produce lift and fall out again. The fighter would also have to shut down it's engine or burn the insides of the aircraft, so you would need a solid system that can hook into the fighter, allow the fighter to shut down it's engines, and then pull it in. "Landing" would take as long as it takes for the fighter pilot to dock (seeing how new pilots have trouble with refuiling already this may be a problem), plus the times it takes to wind down the engine, plus the time it takes to pull in the craft and stow it away. A single landing could take five to ten minutes. If you want to land five a flight of 6 fighters that would be 30 minutes of extra flight time on the last fighter. Now imagine if something went wrong and landing was delayed further.

The fighters would need extra fuel reserves for cases like that, and since they have severe size constrains already, that would mean that you can't fly too far away or you will burn too much fuel and have non as emergency backup.

Don't get me wrong, the idea is very /k/, and which kid hasn't fantasized about shit like this already, but there are some engineering problems that need to be solved.


cdd604 No.550052

>>550007

tomahawks for portajohns, hearts and minds


1d72b5 No.550076

>>550065

Is that the Whitesword from Sky Target?


1d72b5 No.550080

>>550003

>Everything can fly if you can give it enough thrust.

Only if the thrust is downwards. lift/weight decreases exponentially as the aircraft size increases and it will demand increasingly higher speed to stay airborne.

Someone who's autistic enough at math probably can easily do the calculation.


1d72b5 No.550081

>>550080

>Someone who's autistic enough at math probably can easily do the calculation.

According to ace combat wiki its dimensions are:

Beam: 963.77m

Length: 433.3m

Height: 102.39m

The closest real life equivalent in shape and proportions is the YB-49:

Wingspan: 52.43 m

Length: 16.18 m

Height: 4.6 m

Wing area: 371.6 m²

Empty weight: 40,116 kg

Wing loading: 163 kg/m²


0c0ea3 No.550082

File: bebf1429fa043fd⋯.png (118.87 KB, 2377x3051, 2377:3051, sr-75-penetrator-rockwell-….png)

>>549223

Apparently Skunk Works did something similar with the "SR-74 and SR-75" which ironically was developed and tested around the 70's. Seems like Boeing and Lockheed were competing behind the scenes with top secret black projects as well.


ecfa51 No.550091

>>550076

I believe it's the protagonist's jet from Swat Cats.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha / animu / ausneets / bsa / cafechan / leftpol / lewd / sw ]