The Boeing 747 Cruise Missile Launcher
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2022
- With the Rockwell B-1 Lancer program out of the picture thanks to budget cuts, aircraft manufacturers began scrambling for ways to become the United States' premiere missile platform.
Facing bankruptcy, Boeing attempted to do what nobody else had done: modify their aircraft to fit as many as 72 air-launched cruise missiles, more than three B-52 bombers combined.
The effort would transform their commercial airliner into a lethal force capable of wiping out enemy targets from hundreds of miles away.
The ambitious plan was good enough, but things didn’t go as expected…
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. - Авто та транспорт
We will be arriving in Paris from Heathrow soon but will be taking a brief detour through Leningrad. This is how we keep prices low!
Nice thought but you misspelled Petersburg.
It is spelled "Leningrad" comrade.
Unless he’s talking about St Petersburg, Florida US
@@houndogjohnson4013 fixed
@@dosenkohl564 Da! Fixed.
1981 - “The aging B-52 received upgrades…”
2022 - B-52’s are expected to serve into the 2050s… what a legend
BUFF
3:24, I understand that the B-52 is an old design, but the BUFF first flew in 1952, well after the end of WWII. The design was based off of studies done in the late-war and post-war however the aircraft itself is a post-war design with the earliest design and performance requirements being issued in November of 1945 a full 2 months after the war ended and Boeing's design went through many iterations prior to the final design which was decided on around 1949-50. If anything you can call the BUFF a Korean War era design.
And the Boeing B-54 was a direct descendant of the B-29 that was ordered because they weren’t sure about the B-52…
The Tu-4 derived from the B-29 was developed into the Tu-85 and then the swept wing Tu-95 still in use.
Thanks for pointing it out. This guy talks so fast it's easy to miss big fuckups like that
The B-1 hasn't been retired, 45 are still in active service, they retired some of the oldest airframes not the entire fleet.
Yeah I was thinking the same. Also correct me if I'm wrong but isn't comparing this to the B1-B apples and oranges? I was under the impression the B1-B was never designed to fill the same role as and replace the B52 and its also far smaller. Wouldn't have thought their designated roles would overlap much with a 747 missile carrier or a B52
@superofca Damn, that much more than a B52? Pretty impressive, it looks so much smaller!
@@thedigitalrealm7155 I think intially it was designed to replace the b-52, but ended up complimenting it.
@@sheilaolfieway1885 Ah okay. Damn I can see why it never replaced it, cost difference is insane
@@thedigitalrealm7155 As I recall, the B1 was specifically designed for high speed, high altitude penetration. When it was discovered that newer SAM missiles would make this extremely dangerous, they changed the mission to high speed, LOW altitude penetration. Kind of a kick in the teeth for an aircraft already having been built FOR high altitude, but they made alterations and thats how the B1B came about.
I'm kind of surprised they kept them for so long. Despite the fact they actually carry more bomb load than the B52, they're just so damned expensive to maintain.
And the whole reason they were acquired in the first place was as a stop-gap measure to fill in a blank before the B2 was produced, to ensure the US had *something* that wasn't a B52 if they had to go to war with the Soviets. Since, as they found in Vietnam, the B52 (regardless of which version, even though had better EW capability than others) would suffer high losses in areas with SAMs, and especially with contested airspace.
I'm a bit surprised that the story makes such a glaring error in stating that the B1b has been retired. That would be news to the unit at Dyess AFB.
The Carter Administration canceled the original B1A Lancer program. President Reagan promoted the B1B, which was modified with a redesign for better low altitude performance and had newer electronics.
@@ronmaximilian6953 …which was an expensive Hail Mary play to try to make use of the Lancer after it had become obsolete.
Shhh 🤫 that’s what they want our enemies to think.
I stopped watching this channel because of the blatant mistakes. Figured I’d give it one more go…nope.
If you came for accuracy..... spoiler! Wrong channel!
Pretty sure the B-2 isn’t an air superiority fighter…
Dude it’s a fighter jet
will be interesting to see the B-21 raider though.
@@Jermo7899 The B-2 is a stealth bomber, look it up.
@@sheilaolfieway1885 I know… it was a joke
It's actually a torpedo strike fighter
Ah yes, my favorite WW2 bomber, the B-52.
A yes the 70s when the b52 was geting old
6:05 Okay, please don't get me wrong. I love your channel and your production values are awesome. But seriously, fact check stuff. The B-2 was in no way ever considered to be part of an Air Superiority Fighter program.
He ALWAYS has these weird GLARING errors. Every time. It’s like he knows what he’s talking about and doesn’t know what he’s talking about at the same time.
If intended, he sucess that you hit the reply...
Also the B-52 was not a WW2 era aircraft.
Ya but a couple minor errors gets comments and that ups engagement. And that does help. Might be a marketing genus.
Yeah that is a continuing problem with this channel, mostly accurate but then massive glaring errors.
B-52 was first used in the Vietnam War not the Second World War.
One of the best planes ever built!
No it would cause adversaries to start targeting civilian aircraft.
@@stinkymccheese8010 I think they're referring to the 747. Especially since the missile carrier was never built.
@@Russo-Delenda-Est yea the 747 was the dominant civilian transport at the time, had it gone into production all of them would have been targets.
Boeing: We could even disguise them as civilian airliners. What could go wrong?
Literally every passenger 747: *laughs* I’m in danger!
Tankers and AWACS are already based on modified civilian passenger aircraft. The US Air Force E-3 is based on the Boeing 707.
At stand-off distance how would an enemy radar operator know what the flying object is. Most likely he would be more concerned by the 70 .. 100 cruise missiles (per launch platform) heading his way and overwhelming its air defensive system.
3:26 B-52 a World War Two era aircraft ????
The B1 is still in operation flown out of South Dakota, I saw them still flying in November 2021. Even the retired ones in air museum's can be reactivated quit quickly. Parts from museum aircraft were scavenged from some units on display for Iraq/ Afghan conflict. Like the A10, there end has been greatly exaggerated yet again!
Didn't know the B-52 was used in WWII lol
They had a tough time over Germany fighting off the Messerschmitt MIG15's and the 88mm SAMs
@@StoRmwarnung94 those damn soviets with their t-14 armadas in WW2
*Living a life of luxury is like a dream for some people and for others it's constant reality, the key is having financial stability and strength but the question is how to*
Yeah!! Due to the fall in the stock market, I don't think it's advisable holding, it would be more beneficial and yield more profit if you actually trade on cryptocurrency I've been trading since the dip, and I've made so much profit trading.
@Alice Spencer that's why you need the help of a professional like Mr Edward Martin's who trade and understand the market more to earn good income, these professionals understand the market like it's there own farm and make s maximum profit for investors.
I heard that his strategies are really good
@@Sanlee578 Yeah, My first investment with Mr Edward Martin's he earned me profit of over $25,530 US dollars, and ever since then he has been delivering
He has really made a good name for himself.
There is a chance that the B-52 could become a "Century Bomber" - a plane that would see 100 years of service.
Depends on how long Americans stay war hungry....
@@Triggernlfrl Ah yes, were the war hungry ones while Putin eyes Ukraine with malicious intent.
@@Triggernlfrl American politicians... Not American citizens
a chance? no, it is.
@@Triggernlfrl BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, SKULLS FOR THE SKULLTHRONE, TP FOR MY BUNGHOLE
8:16 - During the Fall of 2021, the U.S. Air Force completed the retirement of their B-1B bombers.
Where do you guys get your information??
The B-1B has NOT BEEN retired! Between February and September 2021, USAF retired 17 of their B-1B Lancers for various reasons that are not germane to this post.
There are 45 examples of the B-1B still very much in service (though they are all hangar queens who have an abysmal record of mission preparedness). Maybe instead of skimming Wikipedia for your “facts”, you might look to actual, verifiable sources before you release this stuff to an unsuspecting public. For the record, as it stands, the United States Air Force is planning to keep the B-ONE in service until at least 2038. Much of its future depends on acquisition of the B-21 Raider and implementation of the NGAD family of assets.
I’m not even going to bother picking apart any of the balderdash you shared regarding the US Navy’s imminent loss of capabilities. Suffice it to say, with respect to the navy, your facts are just not accurate or are presented in such a manner that they could be easily misconstrued.
HIRE A FACT CHECKER WHO HAS A BACKGROUND IN MILITARY AVIATION HISTORY.
Plus the B-52 is WW2 era?! (3:25)
@Guido R. yeah that should've been post WWII aircraft.
@@guidor.4161 see my other comment here about that little nugget of B.S.
I want this channel to do well SO badly, but as I have stated far too many times in the comment section in the past, they haven’t released a single video to date that didn’t have at least one glaring bit of bad info. I promise you guys, I don’t get any joy out of pointing these mistakes out, but it is almost universally something that is easily looked up with a cursory search on Google or Duck Duck Go.
I think part of the problem is that these guys try to crank out so many videos on all of their channels and that for whatever reason, they either don’t bother fact checking their own stuff or they just flat out don’t care and are content with being “close enough”.
Well I happen to be of the opinion that when one is attempting to relay information, particularly historical information, that DETAILS MATTER. So I am going to keep watching their videos and I am going to continue to bring attention to any and all errors that I can catch. This subject matter is near and dear to me and it deserves to be presented accurately and in the proper context. To date, this is one of the most factually error-ridden videos that they have released. I suppose the production team either 1) figured that since not many people know about this program (turning 747’s into missile trucks), even fewer will catch their mistakes or 2) the producers are more interested in churning out content and getting views to make a buck (something I certainly don’t fault them for) at the expense of accuracy (which I cannot abide).
So Dark fellas…time to do better. Because you absolutely can do better.
@@FloridaManMatty 90% great archive footage, 8% wrong footage for the voice over, 2% factual inaccuracy or bad script editing, I cant decide which. I watch these vids, but I never click the like because of the painful inaccuracies.
I regularly watch his videos, but he's got a pretty long history of misrepresenting facts and using outdated or outright incorrect info. Usually stuff you could figure out in 5 minutes on google
Cruise missile truck carrying 72 missiles is a lot of stand-off weapons.
Yeah, I don't see how they would have been any use in Afghanistan. Not enough targets.
This April 1st, these guys should edit a mashup reel of some hypothetical supersonic aircraft, and edit in every single aircraft identification mistake possible. Just have fun with it, include pedal-driven bicycle-planes from the 1800's falling apart, pogo sticks, etc.
How would that be any different from a regular video?
@@edfrawley4356 Lol, you're right! What was I thinking?
This is an idea that could be revived and easily integrated into the modern cost conscious battlespace. Payload, internal space and endurance being their speciality. Looking forward to seeing these in the sky.
It would have been a bad Idee, rembember korean flight 007, if this Programm would have been made, simple the fact that it was a 747 would have put the soviet in high Alert. You could after all simple Repaint the missile carriers to Look like civilian Versions. In short it would have put a big fat target on EVERY SINGLE 747 IN THE WORLD
I was thinking that same thing, there would have to be something in place to ensure a military and civilian one couldn't be confused.
@@arohk1579 or just create an aircraft that is strictly for military use and not convert a civil aircraft to a death machine .
From far away (200km) an AA operator can be happy if he is able to track position and velocity to a satisfactory degree. He has no clue of what aircraft is coming regardless of it being of civilian or military origin.
With cruise missile ranges of 1.000+ km he’d only see a storm of 60 … 100 cruise missiles / carrier aircraft overwhelming its AA defense capabilities. If he then shoots down a civilian aircraft with transponder online and flight registration on screen he is not only a serious idiot but also a war criminal.
Exact same thoughts here
3:25 - “…the B-52 was getting old. And while the World War II era aircraft acould only carry 20 of these air-launched cruise missiles…”
Okay. Where to begin? WWII ENDED in 1945. The RFP for a large strategic bomber/nuclear armed deterrent meant to be a direct threat toward the Soviet Union that ultimately led to the awarding of a contract for the B-52 didn’t come until June of 1946, and even then, the initial proposals were for a straight winged, six engine turbo prop design. It was changed drastically and eventually became an 8 engine turbojet powered contraption with the swept wings and a side by side bubble canopy. The YB-52 didn’t make its maiden flight until
April of 1952.
At no point in its design or decades of continual service and operations was the B52 a “WWII era aircraft”.
I have to hand it to you. At least you guys are consistent. I know that just based on the law of averages, one of these days, you will produce an aviation related video that doesn’t contain any errors. I have faith in you!
Maybe you should learn the difference between "WWII *ERA"* and "DURING WWII". 1946 was still the WW2 era. Sorry if you don't agree, but that doesn't change the facts. And if the contract was given in 46, then obviously it was in development before that.
@@twizz420 I don't know the details. But I think an RFP is not a contract. And anyway, as explained above, the RFP asked for something quite different in design than the B-52. If you want to sort of say WWII "era" jet bomber I'm not sure if it might have been the B-47. Or what was the name of the one that was pusher propeller driven with a couple of jet pods stuck on for good measure? That was much more "WWII era".
@@twizz420 Just to be clear, you would consider an airplane that wasn’t designed until the war had been over for a year and didn’t make its first flight until nearly seven years after the Axis powers surrendered to be “WWII Era”?
Even if 1946 was universally agreed to be “WWII era”, the initial designs submitted in 1946 was a straight winged turboprop design called the Model 462. It was rejected and further development was requested with some fairly respectable money made available to do so. This period resulted in the models 462-29 and 462-35 respectively. Each of these were still powered by turboprops, something that Curtis LeMay was not interested in. He was a forward thinking leader and demanded that among the latest innovations to be incorporated in the next strategic bomber, first and foremost it would be powered by Turbojets.
The turbojets were incorporated into the design in early 1949 in the model 464-49. The added power and speed required a radical change in wing design. The most obvious difference was the change from the standard straight wing to the now easily recognizable swept wing. Further changes were incorporated into the first prototypes, the YB-52 and XB-52 and then, ultimately into the first production B-52 strategic bombers in 1952.
Without splitting hairs, I think it’s safe to say that the fact that we were already two years into the Korean War by that time, the term “WWII era” would no longer be an appropriate descriptor of the times.
Another example that supports my point is the Convair B-58 Hustler, a delta winged, Mach II strategic bomber that was the result of the Generalized Bomber Study (GEBO II) which was officially begun in 1949, a full three years before the B-52’s maiden flight. Would you consider the Hustler a “WWII Era” product? I ask because it developmental timeline is nearly the same as the B-52. Furthermore, the XB-70 Valkyrie, our only Mach 3+ strategic bomber was also proposed and had early design proposals submitted less than a year after the B-52’s first flight as a part of the USAF General Operational Requirement #38 which was a desire to mix the payload of the B-52 with the scalded ape speed of the B-58.
So as you can see, some of our most impressive and capable strategic bombers were all conceived, designed, tweaked, built, and flown within several years of one another. To my mind, it’s similar to trying to decide whether someone is a Baby Boomer, Gen X, Gen Y, Gen Z, or a Millennial. There is quite a lot of overlap when one generation ends and the other begins, but ultimately, it isn’t hard to look at someone and determine if they are a Boomer or a Millennial. A swept wing turbojet powered airplane with 136,000lbs of thrust, a max takeoff weight of 488,000lbs, and a SEVENTY THOUSAND POUND PAYLOAD, that could travel 8800 miles at 650mph at 50,000 feet doesn’t even remotely qualify as a World War II era anything. The closest anyone ever came to the B-52 during the war that actually went into production was the B-29. Take a minute to go compare just the numbers that I shared above and you will see what an insane leap in capability the B-52 was compared to the most expensive single program of WWII (Fun Fact: the B-29 cost more than the Manhattan Project!!).
I stand by what I said in my original post. The B-52 was no more a WWII era project than the F-117 Nighthawk was a Vietnam Era airplane. As far as I’m concerned, “WWII era” and “During WWII” mean essentially the same thing. For the sake of argument thought, and for my own edification, when would you yourself consider the WWII era and the Korean War era to be clearly definable and distinct from one another? If I AM wrong (and I often am), I would actually be very interested to learn where my argument falls apart. Learning where my logic is faulty has taught me some VERY helpful lessons in the past. So if I am wrong, I would actually be very grateful to you for demonstrating how. And if you can do so, I would be proud to admit the fault in my thinking and will offer you a public apology with every ounce of humility that I can muster.
A 747 would probably work wonderfully.
But it could make all commercial 747s a target.
Great doc man. Keep it up!!!
That was a hell of a story, thank you. 🇨🇦
So that would make every 747 in the air into a legitimate Military Target. Great Idea!
Dude, you gotta give up the coffee binge!
Just awesome man I love these vids!
Needs a script proof-reader.
Thanks👍✈️
Is it possible that China is starting a project similar to this one? If Boeing thought of a cost-effective, revolutionary idea such as this then who's to say China isn't thinking of something similar?
Nah, China prefers to copy. While India has had significant experience in frugal engineering by way of their space program and many other military complex projects. It would come as no surprise if India unveils their CMCA tomorrow. And arm them with India's very competent cruise missiles.
Just wondering why the thumbnail for this video shows neither a cruise missile, nor a 747?
The interior shots are not of an CMCA, not surprising as it was never built, but why show this?
Many shots of random multi-national cargo aircraft that have nothing to do with this subject.
There seems to be very little video of ALCMs throughout, although a few HARMs every now and then.
Your B-2 at 6:09 is the Northrop YB-49 from the 1940s.
A CMCA with JDAM or smaller conventional iron bombs would have been horribly vulnerable in any but an air superiority environement. Not every war will be like Afghanistan in the 2010s.
The B-1B staunchly remains in service! Similarly the Ohio SSBNs are expected to remain in service through 2030, from which time they will be replaced by the Columbia class; given they carry the US strategic deterrent as well as a secondary GLCM role I think we can guarantee there will not be a capability gap there!
Will the idea be resurrected? Who knows. As I understand it there is no funding at present.
I believe that's a shot of the CURRENT CMCA program, or of the similar program to launch cruise missiles from a C130.... Rapid Dragon
@@StromBugSlayer I won't say no, and the chute rig does look like RAPID DRAGON. But if so that's not a payload I'm familiar with.
@@timgosling6189 It looks to me to be the program where they experimented with dropping a ballistic missile ( a modified LGM-30 Minuteman I ) from a C-5A look up "Air Mobile Feasibility Demonstration" very interesting reading.
In the description he explains why the video doesn't match the information...
Pretty sure the B-52 wasn't flying during World War II
The B-52 gets old, but never gets tired...
A missile carrier primarily based on a civilian aircrafts is kind of a recipe for disaster. Any nation can take the civilian aircrafts considering them military. Since they are long range stand off weapon delivery platforms visual identification will never be possible in a crunch time like these where hostility and fear to be attacked are rising every day. Primary example is Flight KAL007 which USSR shot down cause US has been using reconnaissance aircrafts based on civilian aircrafts closer to the restricted areas. In this case when the aircraft can launch from more than 1000 miles from target, countries will be very easily triggered to take down any thing that they will feel looks hostile.
You made a great point.. It very well could put civilian Air Traffic right in the crosshairs.. A recipe for disaster..🍻🍻
The B-1B is currently being used as a "missile truck" at some level...
With the arrival of the AGM-158C LRASMs the B-1B will tip the balance in Naval power as well.
Very interesting video 👍👍
I agree the low per unit cost and cost per hour the 747 or 777 would be a great carrier
The Advanced Tactical Bomber program (which led to the B-2) had nothing to do with the Advanced Tactical Fighter program (which led to the F-22). Furthermore, I don't think a slow bomber would ever be considered an air superiority fighter.
No one from Boeing would have believed you if you told them that the B-52 would still be a very viable bomber in the year 2022 and still in 2025. There are pilots flying the B-52'S today who's grandfather's flew the B-52'S in Vietnam in the 60's , that is a aircraft design with true longevity. In my opinion the BUFF is still an aircraft that scares the hell out of any country. Look what it did in Desert Storm, and many other campaigns since Kuwait.
So my personal opinion is that virgin galactic launch platform for its rockets is what is going to be used in a near term war. The rocket is absolutely massive. It can theoretically deliver so much ordinance while being mounted to the engine bracket of a 747 that it’s obvious this is the purpose of this program. With 2 rockets that can break through the atmosphere mounted to a 747 and 100 cruise missiles. They would literally be able to take out vast amounts of territory and terrorize the sky. Escorted by a dozen advanced fighters with a tanker. They could blanket the sky in death. No ground, air or naval forces could take on that type of formation. We’re retiring hundreds of these airframes. I think it’s logical that these should be used for this type of tactical approach.
I still see the B-1b Lancer flying still all the time here in Vegas out of Nellis AFB
They're now considering a similar concept to this for their C-17's.
Reaaallllyy wish they built these. Imagine the 747-8 now oooof.
Can you imagine two 747s launching 100 missiles each from 2 different vectors at a carrier fleet?
I’ve never understood why they didn’t move ahead with this plan, as it could have easily and cheaply created a small number of highly useful launch platforms. Of course I’ve long said a similar thing about naval vessels, as there is no reason a destroyer or frigate should be limited to their own fairly anemic weapon stocks, and instead we should add a good number of lower cost escort vessels, which are basically just weapon stocks for the destroyers and frigates, and I’m not talking spares, but ready to launch missiles that can be controlled by various ships within the carrier battle group.
Imagine a scenario where us uses one of these. At first you think wow thats awesome, that is until you start hearing news that other nations are shooting down civilllian 747 left and right, and all they need to say to get out of punishment is that they thought it was one of american military versions
@@overlord4404 hate to break the news to you, but the military already has military versions of 747, and military versions of countless other civilian aircraft, so following your logic civilian aircraft should get shot down daily.
The idea for this system, was to allow air launching missiles, well outside the borders of the targeted nation, so basically if this jet was flying over your country, you aren’t the target, assuming it’s heading for one.
@@johnpatz8395 while yes there are military versions, all of them are heavily modified, for example the awacs has a giant radar on top of it and sends out noticable radar waves. Or the one that has a laser attached to its nose.they are relatively easy to recognize.
My surmise is that there was no constituentcy to lobby for this economical solution.
Make peace not war!
Si vis pacem para bellum
Platon already stated that in Greek antiquity, and looking at Ukraine now it may well be truer than ever. It may even be useful in everyday life…
No footage of a B2 just show them a flying wing! Haha
The trouble with using commercial airframes for this role is that all the commercial flights become targets. Its great for military disguise (and cost), but increases civilian risk. Civil aircraft have been shot down already, but this gives less opportunity for differentiation. Sure, AF1 can be disguised to appear like a business jet, but it's cover was nearly blown by a pilot looking out of his window.
Great stuff as usual. though couldn't get to see the 747 cruise carrier variant.
Makes sense.
The 747 was build because Ron Tripp wanted a passenger plane, that would hold more than anyone else.
That went about as far as a brick. If we armed 747's then any 747 became a target, even civilian aircraft. The picture of the air drop was that of one of the 436th Air Lift Wings C-5A setting the heavy lift, air drop record by air dropping a Titan ICBM missile out the back. The first loaded with weight to test the idea, it set the drop record, then later the full drop, and firing of the missile in a test, that worked, but never used. It tied up the limited number of C-5A's for cargo movement.
On paper, great, but in reality, such a bad idea. Making a strike version of a civilian passenger air liner. Basically if any of these entered active service it would be painting a target on ever civilian variant in the skies. We have already seen civilian air liners downed in error, this would just exacerbate the problem.
That was my first thought. If these was even on the table as something the US could use it would have been devastating for civilian air traffic.
Many tankers and some AWACS are based on civilian platforms and god knows AWACS are one of the first aircraft in any potential conflict to be targeted.
The US Air Force E-3 Sentry is a Boeing 707 f.e.
No it’s not such a big issue. Many tanker and AWACS aircraft are based on passenger airliner. The US Air Force E-3 Sentry is based on a Boeing 707.
And AWACS aircraft although operating at stand-off ranges are a clear targets as they provide radar surveillance.
A cruise missile carrier aircraft would strike at stand-off ranges, and could even carry active protection systems such as LASER and AA guns making it hard and costly to take down.
@@stephanvelines7006 Those aircraft have obvious military silhouettes. That looks like a 747. That can be painted with Delta livery and pass as an airliner. That being the case a foreign country or origination can shoot down airliners are say they thought it was a bomber.
@@rotary7372 when looking at them with the naked eye (wavelength of visible light) those aircraft might have a distinct “military” silhouette. A radar air defense system at distances of over 200 km doesn’t have a clue of differences of any aircraft types. If anything it can track position and velocity in clear skies (no jamming).
With cruise missiles have a range of over 1.000+ km, during war the only thing a air defense operator would see is a battery of 70 … 100+ cruise missiles (per aircraft) completely overwhelming its defense capabilities. It would most likely never see such cruise missile carrier aircrafts. If instead of defending against the storm of cruise missiles heading his way, he decided to shoot down civilian aircraft flying overhead with their respective transponder online and flight numbers on screen he would not only be a massive idiot but also a war criminal.
But you still point out an important point: AA systems operator must monitor civilian traffic not primarily because they may mistake a civilian from a military jet but because during the stress / fog of war a trigger happy operator can commit serious war crimes tarnishing any countries reputation.
Sure a large aircraft from Boeing would make a great 'Missile Truck' for future conflicts.
The 747 would make an awesome ordinance truck.
"How do you get Iran and North Korea to fire missiles at civilian airliners, summed up"
Imagine a 747 Spookie and all the havoc it could of made.
I imagine if the CMCA had been put into service, there could've been an incident where a jumpy air defense system shooting down a civilian 747 that wasn't responding for some reason and thus was assumed to be a hostile CMCA. It wouldn't be the same as mistaking a 707 with an E-3 AWACS, since AWACS don't go in by themselves and are non-lethal even if from a hostile force.
You mean like Korean airlines flight 007?
@@kdrapertrucker Amongst others. I was also thinking of Iran Air Flight 655.
The problem with a 747 launched cruise missile, is every civilian airliner could be a target as well.
That was an interesting episode.
Too bad that it full of BS and mistakes, useless
They should be diverting all of that B-52 re-engine money into this platform.
Well, doesn't the cruise missle revolver idea make the GAU-8 look like airsoft tech.
WWII it's full of "What if's", the Allies and the world in general have been really lucky
747 - Air Carrier / 747 - Missile Carrier....and now ??? - Drone Carrier!!!
Boeing 777 is a solid platform.
This actually makes sense.
Missile being loaded into the transport is a Minuteman II ICBM. It could only carry one and deployment / loading was done at a very slow pace.
Load em up boys, load em up.
The B-1 Bomber was NOT retired in 2021. It’s scheduled to be in service well into the 2030s. I’m not trying to be a dick but seriously dude research this stuff.
THE IRON MAIDEN 747 WOULD BE COOL TO ARM WITH ALL SORTS OF SHIT..
A yes the 70s when the b52 was geting old
One way to take out the competition
Additional Corrections:
• What we know as the 747 wasn't technically "a failed military plane" (CX-HLS) but was a derivative of the CX-HLS that was designed from the start as a commercial passenger plane. A key difference between the "failed military plane" -- CX-HLS and the 747 includes lower wings on the 747 as compared to high wings on the CX-HLS like the C-5A.
• The 747-200 is retired, but the 747-8F is still currently in production in Everett, WA with the last one currently scheduled for delivery in October, 2022.
• The 777-300ER suggested as a current alternative is being phased out and is being replaced by the 777X still in flight testing. So the 777-300ER is not an alternative.
Totally insane.
Hm. Perhaps a new definition of "First Class Airline Service". ;-)
Having the CMCA would have made every 747 a target.
Yup. Cannot use civilian transport planes as military strike aircraft. I believe this was the deciding pucker moment factor.
*a legitimate target
Let tge enemy deal with the bad pr of shoting down civs
@@fredericoeusebio9770 What 'enemy'? How about not using national resources to fund private company's insane ideas that would threaten countless innocent lives simply by existing as a part of the inventory. How about that.
Same with the boeing 777 (triple seven) dont say seven seven seven thats too much work and triple seven sounds alot cooler.
Correction: B-52s were NEVER a World War 2- era bomber. It was introduced shortly some time afterthe Korean War.
Holy crap biscuit!
Para mi es la única solución posible en la guerra moderna. Una flota de estos aviones repletos de misiles que saturen las defensas enemigas a bajo costo.
I think it's a viable option for deployment of cruise missiles. I see a lot of people making comments about how it would put civilian aircraft at risk, but that's inevitable no matter what during a war. I also doubt that the USAF would paint the aircraft to look like a civilian aircraft on purpose because that's equivalent to dressing like civilians (removes a lot of protections under the Geneva Convention, amongst other agreements). We could sit here and say "Well I wouldn't put it past them" or "They already do that," but at that point in the argument, you might as well just say there's no point in military paint schemes or uniforms and every aircraft, ship, and person should be shot just to be safe
A cruise missile carrying aircraft would need to be shot down before visual contact could be made, so paint scheme would be irrelevant.
Also would it really put civilian planes at risk? There would still be so many more civilian planes that any enemy state would be far more likely to shoot those down and thus at an insanely high risk of generating international outrage, condemnation and potential loss of allies. So assuming they have no reliable way to tell the difference between military and civilian, the risk would be almost certainly too high to take the chance.
Plus yes, as you've pointed out, there have been many, many examples of regular civilian planes with no military variant shot down mistakenly...
we should do this
Now imagine a 747 converted to a gunship like the AC-130. Just FYI, the Virginia class Block 5 submarines will be able to carry up to 65 Tomahawk size weapons.
The B one is not been retired.
Take a look at rapid dragon. instead of Cruise missiles on a 747, they are gonna drop pallets of them out the back of Cargo Planes like the C-17.
Sadly an opportunity missed.....go for it now !
In other words, the Air Force version of a Navy arsenal ship.
8:22; About to decommission the Arleigh-Burke class DDG? Where the heck did you hear that? The Navy is building more of them and has plans to continue upgrading and refitting vessels currently in commission. Please fact check this stuff before putting it in a video.
Elephant in the room... the freaking thumbnail: not a cruise missile, not a 747 (rather a minuteman ICBM launched from a C-5...?)
USAF: We would like an airborne aircraft carrier that can deploy parasite fighters.
Boeing: Lets modify a 747.
USAF: We need a bomber/cruise missile carrier aircraft.
Boeing: Lets modify a 747.
USAF: We need an Air Force One...
Boeing: We got you covered :)
Yeah…… Why not!
The Brook class was a guided missile frigate
This was going to happen in the U.K. there was a proposal to use a trident airliner as a sky bolt carrier and drawings exist in a book I own called U.K. projects cancelled ,nearest we got was the nimrod based on the comet that dropped mines so using an airliner is in a military role is interesting ,but a 747 bomber imagine or even an A380 ,all the best
Is it possible the US has a few of these currently operational? I love the fact they can just blend in. Reminds me of the MX missile system. You never knew which silo the missile was going to be in.
If they have, by using even one of them for real would potentially endanger thousands of lives by giving other nations an excuse to shoot down passanger planes.
@@overlord4404 Many people fail to understand that these weapon platforms are designed to never be used. The entire purpose of their existence is deterrence.
We are on the bink on world war 3
72 cruise missiles per plane......
imagine sending 10 of them against a naval fleet.... thats 720 missles no missle air defence could stop all that missles. imagine the carnage!
747-8 stacked with Tactical Tomahawks, ALCMs and JASSM-ER/XR....
The B1-B is not retired, the B-52 has a lot more mission requirements than just launching missiles, and I'm more than confident that the Navy is no less vulnerable than they were prior to upgrading their fleet platforms. This episode got just about everything wrong.
A civilian aircraft with the capability of carrying close to 80 cruise missiles that is a nightmare for Russia and China and gives a completely new definition to the word bomb truck and with Boeing's experience and military aircraft they could easily pull it off. Now that is versatility and getting more than your money's worth out of a passenger jet another major salute to the 747 and we may possibly see the same thing from the triple 7X. There was a product years or decades ago their slogan was the possibilities are endless I wish I could remember the company name
I get the argument for not using modified civilian 747’s, due to the potential civil/military confusion during any hostilities. But we’ve been using civilian based airframes for years now. 707, 737, DC-10, A330 are just a few examples that are currently in service in various roles, and many more over the years, have been converted into military based assets.
16 months to design, develop and build the prototype 747? That is very, VERY quick.