Why wouldn't it work???

Why wouldn't it work???

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The width of a HIMARs munition alone is more than double the width of a shitknock, even before taking into consideration the launcher.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Would it make multiple barrel rolls in air if all of those were launched at the same time?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It would be split in half, and the pilots would be burnt to death before the crash.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Fuckin worth it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There isn't a lot of force imparted on rocket tubes, the back is usually open, like a recoilless rifle.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      IMO there's nothing stopping you from punting this out of a CH-47 or V-22 (especially) in cruise.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >we're still using ancient bombers from the 1950s and our bomber fleet used up all of its airframe hours and we're too poor to replace them so we're just going to literally have someone push bombs out the back of a cargo plane like the third world african nation we're becoming
      lmao, the absolute state of amerigolems

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what's wrong with using cargo planes

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's third world shit. America is proving that it's becoming a third world country.

          >t. dumb gay retard
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider

          >smaller, less stealthy, less capable version of the B-2 that will be produced in fewer numbers than the current bomber fleet
          The B-21 is a microcosm of the decline of America.

          anon, B52s are quite literally indestructible and there's parts for another century just lying around from post cold war demilitarization. It would be a waste.

          Metal fatigue and 1950s electronics would like to have a word with you.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >t. dumb gay retard
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        anon, B52s are quite literally indestructible and there's parts for another century just lying around from post cold war demilitarization. It would be a waste.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Unlike using a technical or some other thirdy, there's not really any difference between using a C-17 and a B-52 to sling standoff weapons.

        That's third world shit. America is proving that it's becoming a third world country.

        [...]
        >smaller, less stealthy, less capable version of the B-2 that will be produced in fewer numbers than the current bomber fleet
        The B-21 is a microcosm of the decline of America.

        [...]
        Metal fatigue and 1950s electronics would like to have a word with you.

        You're a retard, the B-52 has life on the upper wing skin to operate until 2050, that's why they're spending the dosh for the re-engine still.

        https://www.airforcemag.com/article/new-power-for-the-b-52/

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The B-52 and F-100 were introduced within six months of each other. Imagine if the air force was still planning to use Super Sabers until 2050 against 6+ generation aircraft.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    okay hear me out
    instead of putting missile tubes onto the helo
    you can just put VDV inside
    and then throw them out

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The question isn't if we can do it
    The question is if we should
    What the fuck would even be the point of this thing
    >would be heavy as shit and guzzle fuel like a bitch
    >accuracy would be shit unless you use guided missiles or land it
    >if you land it what's the point of using this instead of a regular truck
    >either impossible to reload in the air or very difficult to do so with a limited ammo supply
    >probably expensive as shit
    >limited to use in air superiority conditions since it would probably be a massive *SHOOT ME DOWN* sign on radar
    >probably difficult as shit to fly widowmaker aircraft
    Why

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Being fair, the Russian gyro guided missile launching isn't that inaccurate and GPS guiding on top would make them pretty good.
      It would be better being front launched, and you could give it the helicopters speed.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Accurate enough to take out the foreign legion compound and FOG's core members

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >FOG’s core members
          So that’s what was hiding in all those shopping the Russians kept bombing. Sasuga Putin-sama, truly the tactical genius of our time.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it would work, fund it, send it

      >would be heavy as shit and guzzle fuel like a bitch
      doesn't matter, but it will greatly increase the missile range as it won't have to climb up, wasting its own fuel
      >accuracy would be shit unless you use guided missiles or land it
      of course it will use the guided missiles, that's the point
      >either impossible to reload in the air or very difficult to do so with a limited ammo supply
      what aircraft can be reloaded in air?
      >probably expensive as shit
      it's a chinook with tubes
      >limited to use in air superiority conditions since it would probably be a massive *SHOOT ME DOWN* sign on radar
      it will have like 500 miles range and you can use it from the depths of your territory - you load it, climb up, shoot, land to reload, repeat
      >probably difficult as shit to fly widowmaker aircraft
      not any worse than a loaded chinook

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >500 miles
        Maybe with ATACMS
        I would estimate about 120km with the missiles in OP.
        Besides, flying high in a chopper is basically asking to get hit by some AA missile, so really it's just a hypermobile low flying HIMARs that can go back to base faster and reload safer.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You don't need the standardized box, just the gmlrs rockets in a single tube.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, however making the Chinook a missile bus is a neat idea. Just imagine how many brimstones it could carry.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I always wanted to make a Walmart-AC130 out of a Cessna with and M60 and some home-made rockets

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      a sikorsky skycrane could carry 4 gau-8 and all the equipment and ammo necessary to use them and have some capacity to spare

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      please post proper resolution

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/bHjTsJY.jpg

        ?

        We quite literally wanted to do this during Vietnam and for a short time afterwards.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Got very close to being real too

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/pTnTELz.jpg

          Got very close to being real too

          God damn did they ever have a hard on for whirly birds at that time

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A heavy lift turbine helicopter can make a man go mad with power

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous
              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    that's like thirty tons of shit

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like it OP. Just one M240 launcher would do it too. Chinook should be able to easily carry it, and it'll have two more rockets then HIMARS, be even quicker in and out, fire from any direction and reload much more quickly. It would also enhance the range of the missiles quite significantly.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they already do this with normal rocket pods

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not really like a (G)MLRS platform. I reckon you can trade operational range (less fuel) and fit 8-12 M31 rockets. It would fly maybe at 800 feet max. Probably some challenges with strengthening the airframe but for one you don't need cargo space.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Rocket exhaust would probably destroy the rotors on launch. I think you could physically mount the pods, but not have a stable launch platform.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not that exact design which looks like it took over 9000 hours in MS Paint, but heliborne MLRS does seems like a good idea.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ARA (aerial rocket artillery) was basically that.
      They killed it off after Vietnam

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

Your email address will not be published.