The bomb carrying B747 was proposed to the USAF back in the mid-90's. Where the crew lived for up to a week in the upper deck and the aircraft carried 250,000 lbs of bombs.

Great idea, the major flaw I see is that it can lead to civilian 747s becoming “mistakingly” targeted by hostile actors.

@davidkermes393

2 жыл бұрын

Like Korea Airline's flight 007 was "mistaken" for a spyplane by the Soviet Union ? A pointless worry in my opinion, a hostile nation will shoot down a Piper Cub if they're paranoid or just flexing their muscles.

@ReTuRneD1

2 жыл бұрын

We've already militarized 707, DC-10, 767, 737, and other commercial airliners

@TheWizardGamez

2 жыл бұрын

dont forget about airforce 1

@randybaumery5090

Жыл бұрын

Too late. We already have military versions of the 747.

@ImperiumLibertas

Жыл бұрын

I don't think these would be operating anywhere near anti-air or hostile interceptors. They would dispense long range glide / loitering munitions. The enemy should never see the 747 from their perspectives.

The B-2 did not enter service in the 1980s. The prototype first flew in July 1989, the first production aircraft was delivered to Whiteman AFB in December 1993, and it did not reach IOC until January 1997.

@Gravel1331

2 жыл бұрын

@Gort Thank you. Beat me to it.

@gort8203

2 жыл бұрын

@@Gravel1331 Always glad to meet someone else who cares about accurate information.

@phluxtersharpe4646

2 жыл бұрын

Details...

@Gravel1331

2 жыл бұрын

@@phluxtersharpe4646 Facts

@JohnDoe-pv2iu

2 жыл бұрын

Reality verses stupid narrative BS...

Overall, I agree. Another idea that had a ton of promise was the B-1R, which was basically an AIM-120 missile truck with a APG radar to match. The problem with converting a civilian airliner is that it puts a potential target on every airframe of that class, especially if an adversary is planning on hostilities and decides to splash the airborne arsenal. This could result in massive civilian deaths, most likely nationals not even involved.

@gusgone4527

2 жыл бұрын

But it also means that in a first strike scenario. Such a fleet could easily enter enemy airspace cloaked as scheduled civilian airliners and deliver a decisive blow. Either conventional or nuclear. Now imagine a bold country such as Israel, deciding to take out Iran's nuclear programme together with their air defences and command and control infrastructure. One or two of these aircraft converted secretly; accompanied by an F35 or assisted by SF operatives on the ground. Would be perfect. OK, so I'm a cup half full kind of guy when it comes to seizing the initiative and keeping it.

@edwardratliff75

2 жыл бұрын

@@gusgone4527 It is a Great Idea... But were talking about Pandoras Box here... China might actually try some crap like this... and yes... Saying those words really bothers me !!!

@jameson1239

2 жыл бұрын

@@gusgone4527 that’s a warcrime perfidy more specifically

@gusgone4527

2 жыл бұрын

@@jameson1239 It is but some do not even recognise the concept. Go ask the Taliban, Iranians or the ChiComs.

@jameson1239

2 жыл бұрын

@@gusgone4527 absolutely however you should still avoid committing war crimes

The Airforce is doing this with palletized munitions on cargo aircraft. It allows them to turn C-130 and C-17s into missile trucks. A C-130 has a very low cost/flight hour and C-17 is comparable to a 747. And there are other platforms this could potentially work for, C-390 or A-400 for instance. This project doesn't require any modification of existing platforms. I wouldn't think the Airforce at this point would want to buy a legacy Aircraft for a sudo bomber conversion. But this was an interesting program.

@rcushdogdog

2 жыл бұрын

Pseudo too

@kyl3644

2 жыл бұрын

I imagine a flying US embassy

@TheBooban

2 жыл бұрын

I think the C-17 is a legacy aircraft. The 747 would have been more economical.

@Turboy65

2 жыл бұрын

"Sudo"? Man, you need to know how to spell words in order to use them! Try "pseudo" instead.

@sevrent2811

2 жыл бұрын

Yep. A c17 loaded with a dozen launchable JASSM-ER’s each with a range of over 1K would be pretty wild.

The 747 is about as fast as the B52 if I remember correctly. And has just slightly less payload. Stealth isn't a factor for either one. And the 747 gets better fuel economy and as mentioned in the video. There are plenty of them around

@kellyjohnson9394

Жыл бұрын

It would be faster if the implemented the same super-up engines that exist in Air Force One.

Back in the 1980's, it was proposed to put a ICBM in the back of an 747. Also, they wanted to put them on railcars and roll them around the country. Good times.

@nigelft

2 жыл бұрын

... with the latter hardly surprising, given that the Soviets had already thought up, more or less, the exact same thing ...

@jwenting

2 жыл бұрын

they actually test launched a Minuteman from a C-141 Starlifter.

@rmerlin733

2 жыл бұрын

The Air Force concept of ICBM air drop platform was tested earlier using the C-133. ICBM was the same as later tests - Mimuteman series. The actual idea goes even further back but few were crazy enough to try any of the liquid fuel ICBM missiles.

@rickd1412

2 жыл бұрын

@@rmerlin733 I understand the Chinese are putting ICBMs on railroad cars on short tracks of 50 miles.

@kleiton__

2 жыл бұрын

The german idea of the wunderwaffe but make it radioactive

I have been talking about this for a couple of years. But my vote is a 767 bomb-missile truck. It would have massive maintenance compatibility with the KC-46 767 refueler which would bring the flight hour cost down dramatically for both aircraft.

@mikegirard4388

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. Add aux fuel tanks and it could have full global range of 10k miles as well.

@TheDoorspook11c

2 жыл бұрын

In theater loiter would be scary. Different load outs for scheduled missions , flexibility. Near peer enemies would think real hard before approaching over the horizon.

@DragonFury-gq5zo

9 ай бұрын

I think this missile truck concept could be applied to the b1b bomber pretty well

This would be more affordable now than ever, with so many lightly used 747-400s sitting in boneyards.

@JDA2185

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, but only if those cruise missiles were armed with nuclear warheads as well. I don't understand why the US refuses to arm their new hypersonic weapons with nuclear warheads. Without a nuclear warhead these weapons are just very expensive weapons to be used against poorly armed and funded terrorists. Who can be taken out just as well with much cheaper weapons.

@realdennis79

2 жыл бұрын

US is testing palleted missiles on c-130. Cheap and and dangerous c-130 is on the way.

@rainbowshulacorns3666

2 жыл бұрын

Won’t do it because no manufacturer to make money

@JDA2185

2 жыл бұрын

@@rainbowshulacorns3666 I'm certain that if they were asked, they would do it. But like someone else pointed out, there is a similar project that uses a C-130 cargo plane instead.

@WSOJ3

2 жыл бұрын

It’s to avoid another nuclear arm race, because China Russia also have nuclear weapons and can mass produce them if needed.

They even have the design of the 747 with the mini fighters inside which was kind of extreme but with UAVs today that would make a lot of sense to give it both cruise missiles and an ability to defend itself with drones makes it a very viable option

@RickySpanish12344

2 жыл бұрын

I'm wondering if it would be good to have a 747 loaded with 100+ long range air to air missiles. It stays a long range from the danger zone while stealth aircraft relay targeting information to the 747 that launches the missiles.. A single 747 could decimate an air force while staying in a "safe" zone.

@shawnwitthoff471

9 ай бұрын

Ooh I like that

That’s something that people don’t understand, that the B-1B’s greatest achievement was preventing nuclear war, simply by existing, not by actually doing much. Same as the hundreds of ICBMs. But it’s mission was pretty narrowly defined. It was designed to penetrate the USSR and mop up targets not destroyed by an initial ICBM counter-strike. That’s why it hasn’t been used much in conventional combat..

I love the fact that the footage (public released REL-A) from one of my tests are in your opening. Love it!

I dig it. Find a way to put a pair of CIWIS turrets on it also and build a next generation Flying Fortress

@offyourself3986

2 жыл бұрын

Meanwhile in North Korea Confirmed: 1 Deaths: 2

@GawdNawBruv

2 жыл бұрын

Big brain moves

@kevinyaucheekin1319

2 жыл бұрын

2 20mm sea whizz is gonna weight north of 12 tons. Add drag penalties, need for structual strengthening of airframe for weight/vibration issues. Even if a special lightweight variant were possible say somewhat less then 10 tons with very much reduce drag say flush phase array on skin of aircraft. Its gonna take up in terms of useable internal volume/payload at least 12.5 to 13 tons. Developmental timeframe at least de minimis more then 5 years. Also them sea whizz are hittles, like it has to hit to kill based on volumetric weight of fire on a predicted space from a relatively slow moving sea navy platform. Mounting it on a very, very much faster aircraft platform gonna skew hit probabilities on volumetric fire basis badly. The gun platforms will have to be like more then 10x more precise & maybe at least 20x faster reacting in laying onto targets then sea whizz its possible but its gonna be pricey & gonna get heavier then the sea whizz. So weight will grow maybe up to 20 or more tons, not sure about its hit to kill probabilities against much smaller, more agile AAMs? So probably a no go. A point defence anti missile missile operating on the basis of a Microwave refrence command to line of sight, with a proxmity fused directional fragmentation warhead is almost certainly more viable. Something in the range of 200 to 250 pounds. Max powered engagement range of maybe 8000 yards. 2 engagement opportunities before missile hits. Enhanced kill probability capacity to engage AAMs on the basis of maybe firing 2 or more counter AAMs missiles per AAMs. Time sharing of fire control channel. Engage maybe upwards of 8 AAMs at the same time. Loadout of 32 counter AAM missile fore/aft weight under 10 tons.

@kloschuessel773

2 жыл бұрын

Would have been smart and then and could be smart now

@kloschuessel773

2 жыл бұрын

Saves operating costs until it really matters

"747": keeps showing NOT-747. "Concept sounds crazy." Actually not. As an _offensive_ arsenal ship, makes perfect sense. Lots of capacity, proven structure, relatively cheap, parts/repair crews world wide. As a _defensive_ arsenal, not so much. An Aegis or missle barge design would be better for indefinite loiter near fleets/coasts.

@TheRealSlimSteve

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah. Obviously serious problems with finding footage of 747's. It's quite a rare plane.................

@jonathanpfeffer3716

2 жыл бұрын

A defensive airborne AEGIS platform does offer some advantages over a ship-based one (this idea has been proposed too). Its higher altitude would give a significant boost to range, and could provide a faster and more effective interception, as the high altitude would make it so the missile has more energy and does not have to fight gravity, which would increase hit probability and response time. There are obvious disadvantages though, like survivability, loiter time, and reliance on AEW aircraft or ship based radar.

Flew on an early 747 from Atlanta to Jax, FL. There was less than 10 passengers all moved to 1st class.

What a great idea. No surprise but wasn’t implemented. “Cheap” doesn’t fuel those huge military industrial complex margins

@overlord4404

2 жыл бұрын

Or you know, its a bad idea to use civillian vehicle to carry and use weapons, generally only extremists and terrorist resort to that, but then again, its the USA we are talking about.

@bigdefense777

2 жыл бұрын

@@overlord4404 public education?

@richardmanginelli2624

2 жыл бұрын

EXACTLY LOOK COST OVER RUNS OF EVERY MAJOR PROJECT TODAY Ford Aircraft Carrier 110% over budget & 5YRS behind schedule F-35 90% over budget & since it was secret its believed to be 5-7 Yrs behind delivery date, even after the F-22 Tech was already developed

@systemsbroken

2 жыл бұрын

@@overlord4404 How can you put a price on a human life? Seriously, while I am a fan of carpet bombing and land mines, to get the right target blown up and or melted, you just cant put a price on brutal lethality and overwhelming force! ;-)

This really makes sense and could work out well while not having gigantic R&d costs. Pentagon: nah

Interesting concept indeed. I suppose it could be extended to any number of lesser commercial jets carrying lighter loads, and all have the RCS and signal characteristics of any commercial airline. The shell game for sure.

If the air force did procure these aircraft they could also serve a secondary function as cargo haulers or troop transports when not being used for their primary mission

You have been covering this concept of "containerized" mass weapons deployment for years, for (to use an over wrought term) "Land, Sea, and Air" systems. The topic, and the amount of time and material you have contributed to it for public consumption is pretty extensive. To use another over-used term, the intent is to provide "logistical and strategic depth" in a time of all out war. When you need to overwhelm a near peer opponent using unconventional means. Either as a massive opening to overwhelm and secure control of the air, or as a means to keep pressure on a near peer enemy as losses mount. I don't think anyone is implying these would be front line weapons, but an unconventional response, that can be brought to bear if a conventional war on a massive scale needs something to tip the scales. One of my favorites you have covered is using container ships as missile trucks also, with containerized missiles. It wouldn't take much to outfit these platforms with the communications systems to allow them to be mostly out of harm's way, yet have their ordinance guided with targeting information provided by advance units.

I like the theory, and what if they used the 747 platform as a mass anti-air AMRAAM platform, it would be a decent counter to Chinese numerical superiority. They could be guarded by a few F-16's/F-35s etc and the AWACS could guide them with a software update to target hostiles singularly.

@flounder2760

2 жыл бұрын

im not as worried about chinese numerical superiority... their training has to suck.... given all the patriotic songs they have to sing and fellating party members just to continuously prove they are worthy of being pilots.

@hades0572

2 жыл бұрын

@@flounder2760 So pretty much exactly the same as the "we are the best" rhetoric that comes from US propaganda right? Not defending China or anything - fuck them. But people don't see that their own propaganda is exactly that just without people knowing that it's propaganda

@ifrxenvoy124

2 жыл бұрын

The AMRAAM doesn’t have the range to make that very viable. If you had something more like a modernized AIM-54 Phoenix to compete with Russian hypersonic AAM’s that the MiG-31 and Su-57 are carrying or the SD-15 missiles of the Chinese it would be more feasible. As it stands an amraam armed jetliner would just get blasted out of the sky by a SD-15 fired from 150 miles away and guided in my an enemy AWACS via datalink.

@hades0572

2 жыл бұрын

@@ifrxenvoy124 I'm not saying it'd be invincible nothing is in war. I did suggest that they would be covered by F-35's or F-16s etc and don't forget that it will have the space and capacity for it's own defences.. IE chaff/flares and well, AMRAAMS. Longer based missiles like Tomahawks or Mavericks could also be put under the wing tips.

@ifrxenvoy124

2 жыл бұрын

@@hades0572 The US does not currently field any long range air to air missiles. The AIM-120C has a maximum effective range of about 60 miles under ideal conditions. The AIM-120D performance is classified, but Raytheon claims about 100nm ranges have been achieved, though the missile is not yet fully rolled out to the USAF or Navy. The Tomahawk is an air to ground or surface to surface cruise missile and the Maverick is an EO guided anti tank missile with less than a fifth of the range of the AIM-120C. I don’t know why you would have them on an air to air platform.

with data linking, jamming capability and a variety of munitions including HARM, tomahawks - an awesome stand off asset.

Really interesting and subscribed. Reminds me of what the USAF did during WW2 with the B-17. For a time they used "Gunship" versions that would fly in formation with the regular bombers. But rather than carry a bombload, they were loaded up with tons of machinegun ammo, allowing the gunners to expend far more rounds at incoming fighters to literally hose them down, rather than using short bursts as regular gunners were normally trained to do. The problem though, is that after the regular bombers dropped their payloads, the gunships would fall out of formation, being too slow to keep up due to still carrying the weight of all that extra ammo.

I was able to tour the first 747 with the Rolls Royce RB211 engines. It was parked next to the Jet Shop I worked at in Lemoore, CA. Boeing was using our base because of the long runways we had. It was swarmed with white lab coated technicians. I approached the aircraft on the ramp and was greeted by techs asking me if I would like a tour. The seats were all removed and replaced with containers that looked like aluminum beer kegs. These were all plumbed together and contained water for center of gravity testing, allowing them to transfer weight during flight. I was just in the right place at the right time to actually see history occurring. I was working at Williams International (the inventor and Primary Contractor of the Tomahawk and ALCM cruise missile engines) when Boeing announced that they were looking into this delivery system for the military. The joke on the production floor at this time was, “This winter, why not take a cruise to Tehran?”, because of the hostage crisis in Iran.

This makes every passenger aircraft a military target. Well done America.

@50k50000000000000000

2 жыл бұрын

No it doesn’t

@CHMichael

2 жыл бұрын

In war no civilian aircraft will be save - especially over enemy territory. I peace you don't shoot down any aircraft.

@marvintpandroid2213

2 жыл бұрын

@@CHMichael Google 'List of airliner shootdown incidents'

@CHMichael

2 жыл бұрын

@@marvintpandroid2213 your assumptions is that they didn't want to target a civilian airliner? Or had the capability of differentiating between aircraft in the first place.

Most of the time in Iraq our air support would come from AH-64s or AC-130s. Twice I seen a f-16 drop a bomb on a target. We could have used a large ordinance carrier like the 747 that could stay on station for long periods and deliver ordinance to the targets small units needed destroyed. It would allow units to get better support since the cost is so much lower. 3 or 4 of these would be able to cover the entire country of Iraq and support could be had fast and easy.

@dianapennepacker6854

Жыл бұрын

Yeah never understood why they didn't design an attack aircraft for that specific purpose. I want to say maybe we did with the Sky Warden but I don't think that has enough payload or loiter time.

The sight of a 747 spitting out cruise missiles after cruise missiles would be really terrifying.

Thank you Alex. A new favorite channel. Great details, research, footage, overall presentation. This is why they made the youtubes.

With a range of 70 km against moving targets and over 100km against static targets, Small Diameter Bombs would be the most efficient way of providing support to ground forces. Being able to service 200 targets would make these aircraft more akin to heavy artillery regiments than anything else.

@ccdarbsatx

2 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately that’s well within range of modern SAM’s. Not to mention sdb’s are also detectable by modern air defenses and not difficult to shoot down.

@julienrocher1

2 жыл бұрын

Agree- you would need to be at least 500 miles away.

When I was a senior at West Point in 1975, one of our ordnance engineering problems was to analyze competing strategic strike concepts. This missile truck concept was one of the options. The result was that we rejected this options as the A/C was not nuclear hardened (w/o extensive modification), too easily engaged by threat systems (no classified data was available to the cadets) and would put civilian A /C at risk since the Soviets were notoriously trigger happy. This was validated by the KAL 007 incident.

@brrrtnerd2450

2 жыл бұрын

Would the inclusion of classified data, and the capabilities of modern integrated communication systems - SADL, Link-16, newer gateway programs that allow inter-branch comms modify your analysis now?

@arkadious9320

2 жыл бұрын

@@brrrtnerd2450 prob not. simply based on the fact that its a civilian acft, and all the issues that could possibly arise from that. Besides the C17 is just as capable of filling that role if not more.

@brrrtnerd2450

2 жыл бұрын

@@arkadious9320 Good point on the C17 - I have been following testing with the containerized or palletized delivery methods. I think they did that with JSOWs if not mistaken.

@carlosvictoriafalcon637

2 жыл бұрын

There are probably better options available today; however, Air Force One May incorporate nuclear and cyber protection that could be extended to an arsenal plane concept.

Great video, and I actually did pause and clicked the two coveted buttons you requested. Hope your channel keeps doing well!

Yes and no, as a person who has worked/design/developed/redo/upgrade of several bomber platforms, those platform just don't have the requirements to meet military specifications. The safety factors just aren't there for redundancy, for any subsystem. While you could probably outfit it to be so, it probably wouldn't be that economic to do so.

stealthy cruise missiles fired from a large platform at a very safe distance actually represent a better chance of penetration than risking a stealth bomber flying directly into contested,hostile territory. Ground based radars in long wavelength may well make "stealth" bombers moot very quickly.

@granatmof

Жыл бұрын

The actual goal I've seen is target sharing. The F35 gets in closer to spot the targets, then orders the missile from outsode the engagement zone to keep its weapons payload closed. The missiles outside the engagement zone can be from anything range whether it's sitting on land, at sea, or in the sky.

With the current F-35 technology, front line fighters could datalink targeting information to a missile platform out of range. With the current anti-missile technology, a 747 could be quite effective at defending itself from long range anti-air missiles. With 10 747 missile carriers, that could be 720 mass launch. And work in some anti-radiation missiles, with some decoy drones, and all of a sudden, there is a system that could really clean up an adversary’s anti-air missile system.

P-8 Poseidon also has the potential of being a weapons truck, with its radar and network communication capability makes it a logical choice. With F-35 and F-22 planes flying point and designated targets for weapon trucks (Plane or ship) is a concept both air force and navy have been exploring.

@glenn9229

2 жыл бұрын

hugely expensive and high-end surveillance asset to load out as a HE truck.......not the best use of a limited resource. Drop in a cheap bolt-in GPS Weapons System to a 747 freighter..... Dale Brown in his novel The Moscow Offensive has the Russians using a similar system. Shows how it might be used.

Thanks Alex for another great vid

I feel positive about flying missile barges.

@Akren905

2 жыл бұрын

Wait till u see deep sea drone mine boxes. Navies are kaput.

@TenOrbital

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe. but comms are difficult underwater

What would the cost be of this thing filled with 70-something cruise missles? Probably more than the GDP of some countries.

Hell, I had that idea back in '71 sitting on Yankee Station between missions.

This concept was explored for the b52 in the role of air to air/air to ground missile/drone hub. No reason why it wouldn't be cheaper and better to use the 777 and it's amazing engines. Obviously only works as a stand off role today but if you are fighting waves of Chinese planes, it makes sense to use the sensor packages of the raptors and drones in a way that provides extra punch. Depends on missile range and electronic defense measures. Lets not forget though, that as a concept it would HAVE to work because a combat loss of the plane and the load of 72 Very expensive missiles would be bad.

@solarissv777

Жыл бұрын

Actually, a plane like 777x might be not as defenseless as you might think. You mentioned its great engines, and I believe, it is its greatest asset as engines may not only produce thrust, but electricity as well. And with latest advancement in laser technology a concept of a flying fortress might become viable again. And the fact that 777x can fly extremely high, where air is not as dence and is really clear, only helps. The plane like that can carry multiple laser weapons, air-to-air missiles (including possible air launched versions of SM6) and powerfull radars as well as other sensors. There will be be even some place left for air to ground payloads.

Right now the biggest military challenge for the US is protecting Taiwan from invasion from China. Practically that means pouring as many stand-off anti ship missiles into into the Taiwan strait as possible. Even without being stealthy, with 1,500 mile range stand-off cruise missiles, a 747 would be survivable. This aircraft would check all the other boxes like range, payload and cost. 10 aircraft at 72 missiles per aircraft twice a day is a bad situation for an amphibious invasion fleet.

@ronmaximilian6953

2 жыл бұрын

720 AGM-158C stealthy long range anti-ship missiles with a range of 500 mi would take out almost anything.

@dougaltman9148

2 жыл бұрын

U.S. military has personal in Taiwan now.

@Tonatsi

2 жыл бұрын

Do you not think that a dedicated missile cruiser sitting at the same location, or even a submarine, would do a better job? It requires less fuel, is less vulnerable due to radar being less efficient and sonar being easier to counter, and the simple fact that it doesnt have to be constantly moving.

@ronmaximilian6953

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tonatsi The ship would be a sitting target. Supposedly, China has anti-ship ballistic missiles. They certainly have long range anti-ship missiles and aircraft that can carry them. And they have a lot of submarines. A Ticonderoga class cruiser carries 122 to 128 missiles. They wouldn't carry more than 96 tomahawk missiles, because they would also need anti-aircraft missiles.

@Tonatsi

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronmaximilian6953 I would think china also has sufficiently long range anti air missiles to attack that plane, and a target like a boeing 747 would definitely not be agile enough to avoid one of those. I think a military airfield in Taiwan with multiple squadrons of air supremacy fighters and anti-ship missile bombers would be more effective. Or, with sufficient range, just have the anti-ship missile emplacements in Taiwan itself. Use the Boeing 747 for resupplying.

What happened to using the B-1B as a missile truck? That's the idea I am curious about.

@deriodagreat2714

2 жыл бұрын

They're slowly being retired.

@colinhobbs7265

Жыл бұрын

Compare the cost per flight hour of a B-1B vs a 747 or C-17. There's your answer.

Recently found your channel and I am loving the content. I would love it if you could make a video on the proposed B-1R. I stumbled upon it a few years ago and thought it sounded interesting.

I agree, there will always be a need for cheap bombers that can be deployed in uncontested airspace, even if there is also a need for advanced stealth bombers for use in highly contested airspace.

Add one or more 747s, loaded to gills with anti-aircraft missile, anti-AAM missiles, some carrying lasers. The non-pinpoint nature of such aircraft means they could easily be robotic.

@HailAzathoth

2 жыл бұрын

Who needs carrier strike group when you can have 747 strike group.

@iplaygames8090

2 жыл бұрын

The civie nature of theese aircraft would also land you in the hague.

When the video starts talking about the 747 while showing a 787, that’s a good sign that The video is an utter waste of time. There’s no point watching beyond that. Every channel with this narrators voice seems to be of similar low quality. Come on man! Up your game! You can do it! I know it’s probably not your fault, but your producers who dictate your funding.

@scottstewart5784

2 жыл бұрын

shiny production, shallow domain knowledge, poor writing

@midnight4958

2 жыл бұрын

Finally someone who has the balls to say it

@k.h.1587

2 жыл бұрын

It's called KZread, And it gets even worse

@cartmanrlsusall

2 жыл бұрын

Scripts written about speculation and based on Wikipedia articles. They throw this shit together and monetize them dark skies and some Chinese page do the same

Reminds me of the twin AWG-9 Radar system Lockheed wanted to put in the Missileer version of the S-3 Viking. It was to carry six Phoenix missiles. Never came about.

Well it's nice to know that they made it anyway and we can always tell you how much it costs just so we can cover the black projects

You had me at Arsenal Bird

Now I'm just imagining how big the explosion would be if one filled to the brim with ordinance went down and all of them went off. Anyways, it sounds like a fantastic option.

@herbertkeithmiller

2 жыл бұрын

In an airplane crash it's highly unlikely that conventional ordinance would go off and extremely improbable that nuclear ordinance would. Conventional ordinance usually has safeties in place to keep warheads from exploding unless properly armed. Generally this involves disabling the fusing mechanism only arming it as the bomb is dropped. If the bomb were dropped with the fusing mechanism safed it would just hit the ground and do nothing. They'd have to sit in a fire before they start to cook off so wouldn't just go off on impact because again the fusing at mechanism is disabled. Nuclear weapons require a very controlled simultaneous explosion of many conventional explosives to create an implosion setting off the nuclear reaction. And again the fusing mechanisms to detonate them simultaneously are disabled until deployment. In a conventional fire those explosives could go off creating what's called a fizzle or just spreading radioactive nuclear debris across a wide area certainly dangerous but no nuclear explosion.

@OrigenalDarkMew

2 жыл бұрын

@@herbertkeithmiller Im aware, I wasn't picturing crash and instant boom, I mean like crash, whole plane in flames and it all goes off. Theoretically that could happen right?

@herbertkeithmiller

2 жыл бұрын

@@OrigenalDarkMew sorry I didn't mean to talk down. I don't think they would explode simultaneously However it happens it would be spectacular.

@OrigenalDarkMew

2 жыл бұрын

@@herbertkeithmiller no you're fine I appreciated the effort to educate in a well written reply, and I did learn more about the nuclear ordinance, so thank you. And yea bet it would be, I'd just hope if it ever happens the crew makes it out alright before any of it goes off. Would be one heck of a way to go out though.

"Dont worry comrade, it's just a 740-OH MY GOODNESS!"

Awesome idea for the Air Force to think about. We definitely need another cruise missile truck to be able to deliver a large amount of destruction against land and sea targets.

Yeah because making a civilian airframe that’s STILL IN USE a military target is a GREAT idea

@wape1

2 жыл бұрын

It has been done with multiple conversions from civilian to military and backwards. I'll give you an example: Think Boeing 707 derived military conversions like the KC-135 Stratotanker, RC-135 Rivet Joint, E-3 Sentry, EC-135 Looking Glass, etc... Quite a few of those are (or were) *primary targets* for any opposing force. Not saying that it's an excellent idea, considering what happened to KAL Flight 007, but it's certainly not without precedent either.

"It's just plane cheaper!" I get it!

@brrrtnerd2450

2 жыл бұрын

He was probably smirking when he uttered it.

You know, it could be possible a 747 modified to carry those cruise missile is actually constructed but it is kept in plain sight as a civilian plane, so one day when volatile situation with a certain nation reaches its final stages, the 747 flying to that particular nation parading as a commercial passenger craft, would unleash surprise fist strike on key targets while the main forces follow up later. And to remove risk to pilots, the 747 could be controlled remotely. Might work

Very timely video. The Air Force has just demonstrated a big advancement on this concept, cruise missiles palletized that can be launched from any cargo aircraft.

I was born in Seattle. My dad worked for Boeing, after WWII, for about 40 years.... until he retired in the 80's. He was a buyer, a "procurer" for the 747 project. ** HE BOUGHT THE TOILETS ** NOT kidding, I ain't shitting you.

FYI, it's SWEPT wing design not SWEEP wing design. No prob, just constructive criticism. Still enjoyed the video as always though. 😉✌️

@k.h.1587

2 жыл бұрын

Swept wing design does not mean variable geometry wing. You are both wrong I think. The term swing wing rather than sweep wing, is used to colloquially describe variable geometry. But he would be closer with sweep than swept actually since variable sweep also describes it better than swept, which just means the wings are swept back at an angle rather than being perpendicular to the fuselage. 747 is a swept wing design

Similar to this proposal, several years ago there was a proposal to turn the B1 into a dedicated flying anti-aircraft missile carrier.

Your videos are super well made - thanks!

I'm kinda glad this project hasn't come to fruition. It would have just give some countries even more excuses to shot down commercial planes.

i always imagined a b-52 loaded with aim120s and the like toe basically flood the sky with aa missles. they could even carry special xl range vatiants. big radar on board or slaved to an f22/35.

Good video, just one thing... Boeing's CX-HLS (C-5) proposal was not just a 747. It looked like a low tailed, big nosed Lockheed C-5. It even had the high-mounted wing. What Boeing did when they did not get the USAF contract for the C-5 was to use the engineering studies for the oversized cargo plane and from there develop an oversized passenger carrying plane.

@jtkilroy

2 жыл бұрын

In hind-sight, the military obviously made the wrong decision. The C-5 being a notorious maintenance shit show.

wow that was hell of a zoom climb at the start of the video! I have to find the full footage of that...

Pair one of these with an AWACs loaded with air-to-air missiles and 4 CIWS (nose, tail, top, bottom) and you've got some serious firepower. Convert some of the TLAMs to anti-radiation variants, send them in behind some stealth fighters/drones to provide targeting and you could launch these from 500+ miles away.

I love the idea. We should do 150 B-21s and 300 747s. Put the rest in museums.

Ground soldier: I have several strike packages to hit. Which targets will you be hitting? 747-MIRV: Yes

I love all these bombers and fighters. It looks like pretty soon we wont be able to afford to go to war. The cost of war is crazy!

Carter wanted to do away with the BONE? He's a monster.

A problem I see with this is that a commercial grade jumbo jet isn't really made to take hits. While the other bombers aren't meant to be able to take a missile up the tailpipe, a few stray rounds or shrapnel to a non-vital area won't take them down. In order to do this, it would have to be modified, which could impact its performance. On top of that, 747's are not known for their speed or maneuverability. In fact, compared to military jets, they're slow. They'd have to modify that, as well, which even if it worked, would also impact performance and cost. This WOULD be good for low-level conflicts like Iraq's insurgency and/or Afghanistan where the enemy doesn't have any sophisticated weapons. Although, this would not be good if we were facing a near-peer adversary like China, which is looking more and more like a possibility in the near future.

Makes sense. 🤔 An object traveling through air causes a wake regardless of “Stealth” Speed was the SR71 home advantage. Both the F-117 and U2 were downed.

If it can be equipped with really long distance missiles it could be very effective in combination with drones or stealth fighters scouting for targets ahead.

I wish this video was out sooner this is great

For the hundreth time; the 747 design WAS NOT a competitor in the CXHLS competition. The Boeing design to compete for what became the C-5 is readily available to anyone who is willing to do any research at all. (and it doesn't look ANYTHING like the 747) One other correction, another commenter said that a C-17 was comparable to a 747; it is not!

If the CMCA was and probably still on the drawing board does any think its a stretch that the VC-25 (Airforce One) which has the radar from a F18 in the nose doesn't carry any AIM 120 for self defence?

Thanks for this 👍

Great as Always !!

You missed bringing on the Virgin Orbit using Launcher One on a used 747 jet as an example. Recycling 747 for military use would be a great idea. But the military industrial complex will not allow that to happen.

@privacylock855

2 жыл бұрын

Right, you know more that the gernerals

That would be an awesome addition to any military force like Australia 🇦🇺

If only converting civilian airliners into military aircraft were this easy and straight forward.

My one problem with it and I think largely why the military never went that option is that it’s a transport not a bomber, the reason is it doesn’t have a designated/good bomb bay door area to release it’s cruised missiles . And this is important because when releasing it’s cruise missiles it’s going to really affect the balance of the planes. Meaning that it’s going to be really dangerous each time you released a bomb, and it’s even worse with a cruise missile because those in weight around 3,000 pounds or 1500kg

I would think converting a C-17 Globemaster into a C/B-17 UltraFortress Arsenal Ship would be a better idea. Especially with flight performance better than a 747. It could not only be used as a missile carrier, but just a regular modular heavy bomber with lots of loiter time capability. It also has a cost of flight operation around $24,000/hr.

I had this idea way back in the 1970s but without the cruise missiles.

Dale Brown came up with a very similar concept for the BUUF megafortress a couple of decades ago.

crazy idea time. do something like 32 missles on the 747, then add the same radar that is on the E-2 Hawkeye to have it's own specialized targeting system so that way it does not have to rely on another E-3 sentry for long range control

@paulpierce2051

2 жыл бұрын

The crazy thing is they don’t need to. You could have a stealth f-35 in enemy airspace getting targets for this to shoot safely from 200 miles away. This could effectively give forward fighting aircraft more like 75 missiles per sorty instead of like 4.

@Dylan_Rivas

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulpierce2051 My idea is better :)

@Dylan_Rivas

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulpierce2051 But i do respect your idea and will take into future considerations

@paulpierce2051

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dylan_Rivas I hear you. I’m in the middle of pitching my idea to Bowing and Congress because everyone knows if they are going to listen to anyone it’s going to be me. 😂😂😂😜

Wow a 747 like this would be ideal for the U.S. military. Especially because of the abundance of spare parts.

a lot of old/er equipment stores tanks planes fighters mothballed ships of all types may be needed sooner rather than later,, all manner of retoolers tech guys,electricians,metal refinishers are likely to get busy

The thing is, the type of country that cares for flight hour costs are the types of countries that dont have 70 cruise missiles to use let alone to risk them all putting than on one single target, if B1 can edge the 747 in other areas at the trade of flight costs this is a trade off the US airforce is more than happy in making.

Some of the most obvious best choices for America, like arsenal ships, arsenal 747, the f16EX, the super tomcat f14, are just passed up and overlooked. Even a gunship artillery 747..called Bertha

Repainting a civilian plane in Air Force colors does not make it a military plane. Miliary planes are designed and built to a different set of requirements. The KC135 is made of an entirely different aluminium alloy, it only resembles a passenger jet.

Rather than dedicated 747 weapons magazines might be weapons magazines that could be fitted into leased 747 or airbus air-frames. The 'subtle' distinction being the flexibility of the weapons magazine design. One being a more or less permanent fitment and the other being (rapidly) fitted in times of need to readily available cargo planes. Each 'magazine' could be in the format of existing air cargo pallets but with the ability to be connected via a conveyor mechanism to the loading/ejection bay/cargo door. (Obviously your Tomahawk cruise missile is not going to fit but JDAMs and such like, could.) The benefit is that a 747 load of JDAMs is only required during high intensity periods and the rest of the time, the planes can be returned to commercial service. Also, by using an existing air cargo pallet form factor, it can be deployed to a large variety of air frames.

Knowing that the 747 lost a military contract to the C-5 Galaxy. It makes me wonder just what the C-5 could carry in the AGMs

Stick an AWACS-type device on the top (which may be obsolete, dunno) and I am going to melt into a happy puddle of joy! Stealth will always be a part of things, and the US strategy calls for air supremacy. Once established, and even when not, a fleet of these could overwhelm when ammunition is available... and each can expand current interlocking and replacement CnC. And what these could do as the ultimate stand-off platforms is amazing. Plus, getting routine maintenance (without exposing much) may not always be restricted to bases and active/reserve mechanics. Unlike every other bombers we have, this could be mostly repaired and returned by non-clearance civilian crews.

This is off topic, and I don't know if it will work, but maybe they could have our drones loiter over our static positions and reconnoiter the terrain features our soldiers might need to have pointed out to them - dead space, rock formations, and whatnot. Maybe the drones could generate range cards for the CO's and platoon leaders of infantry companies. Maybe they could even put some of these range cards into the hands of our troops in the trenches. We would need document producing capability on the front lines, though. Maybe we could have drones reconnoiter the terrain our foot patrols are likely to encounter.

That seems like a great idea to me. Use long range missiles to take out air defense systems from 300 miles out, then establish air control. After that, the war is essentially won.

Excellent analysis!

Normally when plans like this are available to the general public, they have something that is 3,maybe 5 times better now, so this is obsolete tech, but as its new to us we love it... This would be a formidable MISSLE Carrier to have but would make the other planes of the same model (normal passenger planes) would be at huge risk, now now have the "Project Odin / Rods From God" Sandboxx, great videos, I'm a new subscriber, could you do a video of the "Project Odin", they looked at it once, shelved it and relooked at it again in 2017 (Space Force), I'm sure it's up there...

In the era of stealth craft a sort of long range forward mobile missile battery for the stealth craft to feed targeting data to make tons of sense.

How many "suspected" weapons carrying jumbo jets will be shot down with surface-to-air missiles? Will the 747s be stealthy, or just easy to spot and target with radar guided missiles?

That is a really good idea to counter an enemy's massive #'s also have airborne protection platforms to protect it!!!! Wow that is an awesome idea talk about complete air supremacy ✓, submarine supremacy✓,need more surface ships but you could use the same idea a great big weapons platform with defensive platforms all around it maybe call it the Pacific region defence,one for Atlantic,Arctic,Indian,and still use the fleets in support of them instead of massive aircraft carriers make them smaller but allow more resources for protection so we don't lose any