>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
>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.
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.
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 moron, 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.
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.
The question isn't if we can do it
The question is if we should
What the frick would even be the point of this thing >would be heavy as shit and guzzle fuel like a b***h >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
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.
>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.
>would be heavy as shit and guzzle fuel like a b***h
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
>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.
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.
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.
The width of a HIMARs munition alone is more than double the width of a shitknock, even before taking into consideration the launcher.
Would it make multiple barrel rolls in air if all of those were launched at the same time?
It would be split in half, and the pilots would be burnt to death before the crash.
Frickin worth it.
There isn't a lot of force imparted on rocket tubes, the back is usually open, like a recoilless rifle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)
IMO there's nothing stopping you from punting this out of a CH-47 or V-22 (especially) in cruise.
>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
what's wrong with using cargo planes
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.
>t. dumb homosexual moron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider
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.
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.
You're a moron, 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/
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.
okay hear me out
instead of putting missile tubes onto the helo
you can just put VDV inside
and then throw them out
The question isn't if we can do it
The question is if we should
What the frick would even be the point of this thing
>would be heavy as shit and guzzle fuel like a b***h
>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
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.
Accurate enough to take out the foreign legion compound and FOG's core members
>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.
it would work, fund it, send it
>would be heavy as shit and guzzle fuel like a b***h
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
>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.
You don't need the standardized box, just the gmlrs rockets in a single tube.
No, however making the Chinook a missile bus is a neat idea. Just imagine how many brimstones it could carry.
I always wanted to make a Walmart-AC130 out of a Cessna with and M60 and some home-made rockets
a sikorsky skycrane could carry 4 gau-8 and all the equipment and ammo necessary to use them and have some capacity to spare
?
please post proper resolution
We quite literally wanted to do this during Vietnam and for a short time afterwards.
Got very close to being real too
God damn did they ever have a hard on for whirly birds at that time
A heavy lift turbine helicopter can make a man go mad with power
that's like thirty tons of shit
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.
they already do this with normal rocket pods
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.
Rocket exhaust would probably destroy the rotors on launch. I think you could physically mount the pods, but not have a stable launch platform.
Not that exact design which looks like it took over 9000 hours in MS Paint, but heliborne MLRS does seems like a good idea.
ARA (aerial rocket artillery) was basically that.
They killed it off after Vietnam