Why wouldn't this work?

>>32198175
What problem is this meant to solve?

>>32198186
Oh...didn't think about this

>>32198186
Well after deep thinking, it increases the range of the missiles so much and it can shoot down the hostile aircrafts without them knowing where the missiles came from.

It's a brilliant idea, if you think about it

>>32198175
Where does the fuel go?

File: 1446038467285.jpg (227KB, 2000x1234px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 2000x1234px

>>32198217
A manned stealth aircraft is already capable of shooting down hostiles without exposing themselves. However, a booster that carries two aim-120's in a compact form could actually be beneficial in terms of increasing the range and reducing the footprint inside the weapons bay. But then you could argue launching two missiles at once is a waste, because then you're making it impossible for the pilot to launch a single missile, for example in order to force the hostile into defense. At any rate I think bigger missiles would be the more economically sound option (along with bigger weapon bays, but these are all engineering problems and we can be sure someone thought long and hard about these issues, and possibly still thinking), or maybe missile slinging drones. Also, why AWACS? They're strictly non-offensive assets, them carrying long range weapons would be a waste of fuel, time and money as they'd still need plenty of escorting friendly fighter aircraft for defense.

>>32198175
We could always just bring back proper long-range missiles like the Phoenix. Everyone else has the damn things.

File: 1425685338110.gif (3MB, 260x195px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 260x195px

>>32198175
Sent a letter to the patent office, emailed darpa, called my mom.

Get fuckd nerd I'm making all the fat moneis off this.

>>32198217
this is kinda already a thing iirc, the USAF is working on something similar where an F-35 can find a target, designate it, send a launch order over to a variety of platforms (that's what they're aiming for anyway i think, at the moment they've just done it with a ship), and get the launch platform to launch a missile remotely. so an F-35 can see you and blow you away without even using one of it's missiles

i don't see the point of your proposal, though. you're carrying 150 kg missiles in a huge cruise missile type adaption for what purpose? if the entire point is the stealth, why not just use one of the 2,000+ F-35s the US is going to acquire?

>>32198373
i shoved my amraam in her first m8

>>32198175
Why couldn't a ground platform launch a multi-stage SAM? Or how is this different from a AAM capable drone? How often do you expect to need a AAM but not want fighter aircraft?

People are already developing A2A drones. G2A drones are of course almost mundane in their ubiquity.

>>32198408
Err A2G drones.

>>32198377
>>32198217
>>32198408

Correction: It wasn't a USAF F-35, it was a USMC F-35B in a test squadron. Lockheed had a go at using the MADL to transfer targeting info from the F-35B to an Aegis system, that worked, and just recently they had a go at launching an SM-6 at a target drone using targeting info from an F-35. This seemingly wasn't a thing they planned for from the outset, they just gave it a go and it worked.

I'm still pretty sure that the US wants to try and use bomb trucks and so on along with advanced data links to allow F-35s to shoot shit down without using their own missiles, but I don't know much about that admittedly.

Source: https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/video-successful-f-35-sm-6-live-fire-test-points-expansion-networked-naval-warfare

File: 1469831459783.jpg (27KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 604x604px

>>32198175
>Why no one thought about this before? Am I a genius?
http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

>>32198377
Well it will be faster and smaller which means stealthier than an F-35

>>32198280
In the sides or wings

>>32198373
WTF, I spent 40 minutes drawing this, Do it and I will kill you and ur mum