Why isn't mid air rearming a thing yet?

>>33896555
At that point might as well have airborne carriers

>>33896555
Because trying to fit a 1 million dollar high explosive robot filled with rocket fuel on the wing of a jet that goes several hundred mph using a huge telescopic stick that is bolted on to another bigger plane is hard.

DARPA already released a some request for proposal, or whatever they call it.

It'll probably be some sort of c-130 with a bomb-bay door.

That's a hell of a concept. Imagine being on the other end of this, where all of your pilots, as skilled as they are, can't carry out nearly as many operations as the Americans, because the Americans land only to sleep.

Also, reminds me of multi track drifting

What if the fighter docked externally to the mothership? The fighter still provides lift and thrust not to exert too much stress on the frame of the mothership and it would be a much steadier platform for robotic hands to mount missiles on

>>33896555
Pilot here

If your want your ass puckered tighter than a titanium balloon knot then you would want this

>>33896621
"O" level ordnancemen here

I don't even want to think about the bullshit processes that would be behind something like this.
Nothing would go high order

That's just silly. The supply plane may as well serve as the arsenal plane.

>>33896555
in-flight refuelling is already pretty difficult, let alone this bullshit

Because it's easier for an aircraft to send targeting information to another platform than it is to safely attach weapons to a jet mid flight.

>>33896573
This.
Fuel is cheap.
Ordnance are expensive.

>>33896555
What happens if the rearming goes wrong? The ordanance drops remember refueling some times goes wrong


I think the better thing to have is like a carrier like this guy said>>33896561
A sspecial kind of carrier that the plane gets atrached to in mid air the jet turns off it gets rearmed and refueld any damage gets fixed the jet get droped as it drops it resstarts engine some cool anime theme staarts to play lkke kenny lodgenings dangerzine

Pilot endurance might become a problem at that point already. They will probably become a thing when we rid our aircraft of these unwieldy humans.

>>33896555
One wrong move and boom, no mor chinese laundry

>>33896632
>>33896621
E&E here. fuck you both. Pilot, you fly. Ordo, we are going to hand you and three other guys a single AIM-9X as part of a test. A cargo craft will throw you out the back with said missile strapped to your back. You and your companions will be tethered to the mothership. Via suction cups, wingsuits, and stupid luck, you will maneuver to the jet and reload it in flight.

This will set the precedent for in air hydraulic servicing and light bulb replacement.

Eventually I can finally die and be free of this nightmare.

>>33896818
Well...

Can't be worse than the carrier I guess..

>>33897051
>honest to god naval fighter pilots on my /k/
i refuse to believe it

>>33897051
I want to take of from a carrier, some day before i die

>>33896818

Sounds like a hassle, to save money and time I propose the following: the ordo's are attached to the upper flight surface of the jet on takeoff with the reload strapped to their back, then all they have to do is crawl under the wing and slap it on when the pilot needs it.

>>33896621
What do you fly?

>>33896801
What about mid air pilot swapping?

File: article-2289541-00E09096000004B0-860_964x825[1].jpg (191KB, 964x825px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 964x825px

>>33896578
You're thinking of the Gremlins program; those are drones that (although this wasn't the original requirement) can apparently launch and recover from pylons on wings (the original expectation was just from a C-130's cargo bay).

>>33896555
There's already a ton of danger involved in just releasing things from wings; having them re-attach mid-flight has an extreme puckerfactor as >>33896621 says.

With lasers and micromunitions becoming more prevalent in the coming years / decades, aerial reloading of ordnance on fighters, etc will probably never be a thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if specialty payloads like the Gremlin get integrated with F-15s, etc as a way to extend their usefulness.

>>33897163
Been there done that

>>33897184
>>33897163
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGphGbJool4

a core fighter?

>>33896555
Haven't you played After Burner? It's already real!

>>33897184
what's new with the f-35, dragon?

>>33896555
Probably because it highly impractical.

File: images.jpg (9KB, 321x157px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 321x157px

>>33897184
>>33897242

>>33896555
honestly not worth the risk

there are enough mid air refueling accidents already that adding millions of dollars worth of ordinance to the procedure is only going to make it worse.

>>33897062
>>33897072
I'm the ordinance bro not the pilot.
Sorry to piss in your pillowcase

What's the point of mid air refueling again?

Couldn't you just land wherever the ship refueling you came from, refuel, then take off without them ever bothering?

because airplanes don't have arms and hands yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv2xJBGsAtE

>>33898669

So that you can fly a plane from the US, refuel it in the air over the ocean, and land it in europe.

There are no airbases in the middle of the ocean for these planes to land.

>>33896581
Mid air refueling
Mid air rearming
Mid air burger delivery

Make it happen

>>33896617
Exactly mfw

Why can't we just use electromagnets to secure loads

>>33899130

Because if they fail, bombs away.

>>33898669
Because a B-2 can't land on a carrier.

Because landing and liftoff expose the plane to detection, fire, and damage

Because it makes a lot more sense to send a C130 400 miles from base to meet a bomber/fighter headed elsewhere, than it does to redirect the bomber/fighter to a base 400 miles away?

>>33899150
And that's a bad thing how exactly?

>>33899097
>Mid air burger delivery
My sides

>>33896573
why dont they just make a super big airplane that another plane can land inside the back of, then shut the rear cargo door and crews can load and repair like normal?

>>33896818
where do I sign up?

>>33899515
You can have fries and a soda too, if you insist. Fucking entitled pilotfags.

File: air refueling.webm (1MB, 656x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 656x480px

>>33898669
>What's the point of mid air refueling again?
More time doing useful shit, carriers can only service so many places in X amount of time etc.

File: 1456926907568.jpg (55KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x500px

>>33899513

You serious, or are you baiting me?

>>33899936
>dat smug RIO
on a slightly related note, I have been looking for a similar clip on the net for a while but so far been unable to find it...
>similar perspective
>two seater
>aerial refueling
>backseater holds camera (presumably) in one hand
>ps2 controler in the other hand
>"guides" plane onto boom with ps2 controler

anyone know or even have it?

>>33900181
Completely serious.
Just do it over enemy territory.
Does it works? Bombs dropped on the enemy
Does it not? Bombs dropped on the enemy

>>33900367

The problem with failure is that you typically don't get to choose when it happens.

>>33900367
>you are always over enemy territory
Well if you are ISIS Air Force, that works. Otherwise, consider the following:
You're at home.
Does it work? Bombs may or may not be dropped on the enemy.
Does it not work? Well shit, we didnt need those suburban houses anyway.

>>33900388
Then use one of those plastic bands to keep it together and cut them just before rearming

>>33900409

That defeats the purpose of elegant electromagnetic hardpoints, anon.

>>33899541

Lots of reasons.

Primarily, that nothing flying would be so big as to be able to negate the impact and weight increase of something suddenly landing on it.

Plus the fact that you'd simply have a big flying target to be shot down.

File: Aigaion.jpg (577KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 1280x720px

>>33896555
Yeah why isn't Ace Combat real yet?

>>33899541
"super big airblanes" are actually super unfeasible. They'd have to be like blimp-tier super big to actually fit something like a modern jet into them. And keep in mind that you got to suck it in on one side, and drop it out on the other, probably, so it might need openings on both ends...

And now consider the largest airplanes we have on this planet. Hard mode, consider only those that have more than single-digit numbers produced (I am looking at you An-225).

Can you fit a fighter or fighter-bomber jet into those? I am guessing not. And thats not even calculating any extra space on either side to deviate from the exact center. Now look at aerial refueling footage to get an idea how much of that you'd need because planes wobble from side to side.

Now you have a rough idea how big one of those mothership planes would have to be. "Big" as in dimensionally, as in fuselage dimensions. Now take an existing plane and scale it up to those dimensions, to get a rough estimate for wingspan and -area. Take that scaling factor to guess the weight of such a thing.

Combining that weight with your wing area, you can probably somehow compute the thrust you need to get this monster airborne. And all this is not even taking into account any fuel carried onboard to KEEP it airborne for any amount of time.

What you'll end up is something straight out of Luft'46 and similar forums, an Amerika-Bomber tier 20-engined 4sqmile manta ray THING with holes on either side to land and launch planes from, which through sheer movement causes weather disruptions in a 200mile radius and needs all of Siberia's oil to gas it up for half an hour of operation (during which it just about circles its airport, becaus it needs ~15 miles of runway to take off).

And then you notice you forgot the weight for fueling and arming those planes, and you realize either the idiocy of such an idea, OR that you should've been born 80 years ago to jumpstart Boing Skunk Works.

>>33900748
yall best appreciate this post. Apparently thinking about your post for 10 minutes and posting more than 100 words makes 4chan think you're a bot, and that you should solve FOUR captchas to be allowed to post...
>hiroshimoot was a mistake

>>33900362

Fighter Fling 2004 won't tell you which minute cause Tomcats

Enjoy the music

>>33900748

Blimps themsleves prove that aircraft that large are aerodynamically feasable, but the main issue is figuring out how to land /them/.

>>33900765
Appreciated

>>33900748

Why not have it nuclear-powered? At that size, it's possible.

>>33900786
>>33900362

Wrong one sorry,the one you are looking for is on the F-14 Wassup! video

>>33900786
nope, 2003. But thank you nonetheless.

or that >>33901008. good grief I forgot about the cancer of the early 2000s whazzaaaaaappp
some things are best left buried

>>33900803
Nuclear reactors need a never ending water supply to boil for spinning turbines and cooling. This is why nuclear plants are always built near bodies of water.

You can put a reactor on a boat, but not a plane.

File: test2.webm (208KB, 494x360px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 494x360px

>>33900362 (me)
>>33900786
>>33901008
Thanks to (both of?) you, now I have it back.

>>33900367
>Enemy Territory
>Not understanding that Air Force Specifically designates particular zones and areas where a bomb can be dropped

We call them precision strike missions for a reason. Collateral Damage is something that most nations try to avoid.

>>33900787
Blimps are not aircraft, and they do not fly because of aerodynamics. They are called, with good reason, "lighter-than-air"-aircraft. They rely on the gas inside them (He, H, or just hot air) to keep them literally floating. Whereas "proper" heavier-than-air planes fly because aerodynamics.

But thanks for bringing up aerodynamics, because if there's one thing that instakills any reasonable consideration of this project, its drag. So obviously that I even forgot to mention it.

File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (63KB, 461x427px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 461x427px

>>33901280
>Collateral Damage is something that most nations try to avoid.
Collateral damage is whats fun about having an air force.

File: Midairrearming(notscale).jpg (325KB, 5820x1584px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 5820x1584px

>>33896573
Whats the number for DARPA?

>>33901331

>not giving him a really long plank to stand on.

>>33900748
>you should've been born 80 years ago to jumpstart Boing Skunk Works.

I can only get so erect

>>33901204
Wrong. A closed cycle nuclear engine doesn't dump its coolant. In this case, the final coolant is air anyway.

>>33901331
>>33901346
>a telescoping cherry picker basket

>>33896555

US gov is slow to adapt and super fucking conservative with new technologies.

As a mechatronics Engineer, with certs in machine learning and vision, I 100% gaurantee it's possible and easier than anyone would make it out to be.

FFS, we have booster stages that land vertically for reuse. Only private sector can manage anything so ambitious and useful.

>>33903044
Hurr durr the military is like downloading moar RAM. Military equipment must be hardened and withstand abuse that will destroy your Wallmart ASUS toy in 2 seconds. The must have triple redundancies, ease of use and can be used in the dark by guys who failed 3rd grade. They have to last at least 10 years or so until the new budget comes in. No shit the military is tech conservative. Even then you get the Skunkworks and god knows what black projects.

>>33899056
when would you cross the fucking atlantic with a fighter jet

>>33896555
Cost to benefit ratio

File: 1494283603969.jpg (285KB, 4885x1381px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 4885x1381px

>>33901331
Be a little realistic

File: 1494206626195.jpg (613KB, 1723x1189px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 1723x1189px

what if we instead try that by developing parasite fighters, or have the aircraft dock to the munitions tanker like a parasite fighter?

>>33896561
I know that there are some people on /co/ who have some very strong options about what you just said...

>>33896555
Armament Systems Technician here and that's just retarded. Go to YouTube and look up an F-16 load comp. Now realise that you want to do that mid air. We have rapid deployment force's that can accomplish the same thing but in a not retarded way. We load everything on a C-17 maintainers and all and we follow the jets. When they blow their load we all land at the nearest uncontested runway. Booger hookers refuel the jets from the C-17's tanks with an adapter. Weapons troops push the munitions trailers out and immediately start loading. In theory we can be fully greened up to take off in a couple of hours.

>>33901331
https://contact.darpa.mil/contact

fucking do it, I wanna see their reactions

>>33903372

That happens all the time, and...there are planes other than "fighter jets"

>>33900608
A plane that big would prob be nuclear powered, with electric turbine and it would prob be doing the refueling.

I cant imagine the nightmare that it would be to link up those six planes 80 feet from each other.

>>33896581
Mid air crew change

The only limiting factor then is aircraft structure fatigue and component failure

>>33901314
Sure, you should try someday then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSzBCgbicbA

>>33897184
Actually not thinking of the Gremlins program.

I think the centerline hardpoint could attach to an extendable boom so a mechanical arm can orient and attach bombs to the other hardpoints. Any other system would be far more complex.

>>33901295
>Blimps are not aircraft, and they do not fly because of aerodynamics.
They are not /aerodynes/, but they most certainly are still aircraft.

File: flying rearming bathtub.jpg (2MB, 2848x2136px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2848x2136px

Although OP is a HIV infected homosexual, his question is not entirely retarded.

Correct me if I'm wrong:
New USAirforce planes have limited load due to stealth requirements compared to older models.

USA still needs a display of force capabilities, but it's area of influence is shrinking, with the growth of Chinese influence, they are slowly loosing allies, especially in Asia.

That means they are loosing friendly places to land & refuel & rearm their assets.

So I took a minute and draw something, that in my opinion is slightly less retarded - tell me what you think.
The Idea is this: It's close to impossible to rearm single rockets, so why not connect a frame to the entire jet, frame that has rockets, which it can safely attach to the fighter plane.

I worry, however, if it would not disturb the airflow around the airplane too much, making it loose

File: IMG_20160725_115551.jpg (503KB, 1078x1920px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1078x1920px

It looks pretty complex. Soldiers are very good at breaking complex systems.

>>33906546
>making it loose
....lift.

>>33906546
>New USAirforce planes have limited load due to stealth requirements compared to older models.
no. there is a stealth reduction if you mount ordinance on external pylons. the f-35 can hold more weapons than the f-16.

>USA still needs a display of force capabilities, but it's area of influence is shrinking, with the growth of Chinese influence, they are slowly loosing allies, especially in Asia.
no

>That means they are loosing friendly places to land & refuel & rearm their assets.
no

>>33906582
>no
Right, Turkey is still a great friend & ally of the USA. And Singapore.
Get the fuck out.

>>33906638
>Turkey is still a great friend
>chinese influence

>singapore
>aircraft carriers
>australia
>taiwan

there is no need for in air resupply

File: 57fd89972d718d63b32e1160934d9ec1[1].jpg (595KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 1920x1080px

I dont have anything to add to the discussion in this thread, but I wanted to post these.

File: rjFow58[1].jpg (108KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1920x1080px

>>33906695

File: 97DED15C8359FE308A5A2EF4C1100EF01D7C64EC[1].jpg (198KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1600x900px

>>33906724

why not just fly the fighter jet into the back of the plane? Speed is all relative. If you fly into the back of a plane that's going 5m/s slower than you, that's like touching down at 5m/s. Nice a slow, don't need no runway.

>>33906654
>>Turkey is still a great friend
Obviously you know absolutely nothing about geopolitics and whats going on in the world, but in your arrogance, you think you know everything.
No point wasting keyboard on you.

>>33906742
to name a few issues, the size of modern cargo planes (not big enough) the turbulence of air in the local area around/in the "receiving" aircraft causing changes in lift in the "landing" aircraft (crashing), taking off again.

>>33906754
>/pol/ telling people they're arrogant in an arrogant manner

File: 1452418276483.jpg (77KB, 597x714px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 597x714px

>>33906742

If the landing plane doesn't land in JUST the right spot the center of gravity in the receiving plane would get fucked. I can see all kinds of fun happening from that.

File: 17d149ef371bc8bb47e1f55e2fe3f1b0.jpg (46KB, 736x588px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 736x588px

>>33906742
>If you fly into the back of a plane that's going 5m/s slower than you
Turbulence would fuck shit up.

However, landing on THE BACK of the plane... that actually MIGHT work. I think. That's actually an even better idea.

>>33896555
You guys are forgetting that you can fly just behind the big plane,you fly at significant distance parallel to him,above or below him.

>>33906742
Why has no one in this thread mentioned airflow? Lack of airflow would cause multiple problems, such as sudden lack of drag and consummate acceleration, lack of aerodynamic lift, and engine failure. In that order. Followed by exploding.

>>33900748
>Now you have a rough idea how big one of those mothership planes would have to be. "Big" as in dimensionally, as in fuselage dimensions. Now take an existing plane and scale it up to those dimensions, to get a rough estimate for wingspan and -area. Take that scaling factor to guess the weight of such a thing.
That's a big plane

>>33906777
Now were talkin

>Modified c5 with a big flat runway on its back
>F35 flies in, lands on it
>reverse arresting hook snags a cable as it slows down
>mechanical arms extend up and load weapons and fuel
>take off procedure involves just punching the afterburner and getting away from the carrier

Bloody brilliant mates

>>33899936
Also takeoff takes a considerable amount of fuel, so refueling in the air increases range and loiter time. You can also refuel closer to the enemy.

>>33900403
itll "fail" over chads house

>>33906923
>Oven-6 this is Kike-12, I'm locked on and ready to begin docking procedure
>Kike-12 this is Oven-6, lock-on system engaged, you are green to proceed
>Oven-6 this is Kike-12, beginning approach

File: 1389239278625.jpg (15KB, 285x249px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 285x249px

>>33896617
>c-130 being fast enough to do any in flight stuff with a fighter

>>33906754
He wasn't arguing that Turkey is still an ally, he was arguing that they're not under chinese influence you fucktarded spergburger

>>33896795
They could add a self-destruct system that the operators could activate that blows the ordnance up mid-air, rendering it slightly less dangerous. You would need to deactivate the safety on the missile manually before loading.

>>33907412

Listen you can do hot rearming and refueling innaground,but fumbling with safety pins and equipment with something that doesn't stay leveled is a big nope.You don't load a bomb on a plane by just mating a couple of hooks,pylons have small access doors which partially secures them on it,then you have to lock down sway braces,close those panels,put the fuze,remove safety pins and so on.Pilot on board has to keep his hands of the stick then even if you find any given way to do so then you fucking need clearance and keep volatile shit away from intakes,cause even standing next to intake will be a safety hazard for you.Also switching pylons will not work cause you need something able to catch that and the aircraft who jettisoned them will have to make another approach,stay leveled,hope that nothing will get sucked into intakes etc.

Crap like this is only feasible if you find a way to troll physics

>>33896555
Arming a plane in mid-air would be like mid-air refueling but infinitely harder to do.

File: 1494003088026.png (307KB, 531x721px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 531x721px

>>33899925

>>33899541
Hi Estovakia

>>33907912
If the pkane was flipped upside Dow it would be easier

>>33907660
That sounds like pussy quitter talk anon.

>>33908098

Ok then if you ignore physics,safety and stall speed limits then sure you can rearm any given plane midair especially a B-52 or a B-2 cause they have more room,intakes are afar and a C-130 has enough room to ream 10 on them in a couple of minutes

>>33908129
Did nasa listen to such quitter talk when going to the moon?

File: 773px-NH43901-enhanced.jpg (69KB, 773x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 773x600px

>>33896561
>>33896795
>>33897051
>>33899541
>>33900748
>>33900787
>>33901295
>>33906082

Guys
we already did this
It didn't go so well, but the US has had two airship carriers before. It's technically possible, but not necessarily a good idea.

>>33900765
I don't know why it fucking does this, I use a pass and at three occasions in the past week it asked me to solve a captcha.

No captcha is the entire point you slant eyed kike!

>>33901204
The reason you can nuclear power a plane is because the shielding needs to be thick as shit so the pilot doesn't die in flight (or on the runway), thus with shielding it doesn't take off.

So you build an even bigger plane with a bigger reactor but the shielding isn't enough anyway.

The only realistic nuclear powered aircraft is an unmanned one.

File: Major_9c4ab3_6232623.jpg (84KB, 594x593px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 594x593px

>>33907660
that makes it implausable, not impossible faggot. In order to be able to rearm in air you would have to design a whole new system able to be removed and replace or something. No millitary problem can't me overcome with proper amounts of vodka and improvisation

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-09 at 8.14.36 AM.png (46KB, 294x372px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 294x372px

>>33905288
>>33896578
Who should I send my idea to?

>>33908348
Colonel sounds most important

>>33908362
Make sure to send him an archive link to this thread too, he'll probably laugh his ass off.

>>33908250
That's not true though.

Shit got cut because of budgetary reasons, and there are plenty of reactors that you can use in an aircraft.

File: 1460996595081.png (21KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 390x470px

>>33907343

i laughed more than i should have

>>33908433
Shielding is too heavy.

>>33908087
Nice job, dumbass, now it's even harder to do.

File: baby mfw.jpg (48KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 720x720px

Watching you fags talk about airplanes is like watching /a/ talk about guns. It's just so cringey, but so entertaining.

>>33908166

and Israel really exists,right?

>>33908484
Shielding is for pussies.

>>33905421
In Ace Combat 6 you get sent on a strike mission to shoot it down. At the start of the mission your squadron is only able to approach it because the radar is down while they refuel the flying carrier.

It ain't realistic but it sure as hell looks fucking cool.

>>33909741
That's right Anon, and if ur mum had just used her pussy shielding I wouldn't be arguing with you.

>>33908433
>there are plenty of reactors that you can use in an aircraft.

Nope.

>>33907380
>"fighters" can't go slowly
your ace combat is showing

File: 098E57C4F37689FAC12574660033DDEBT20.jpg (198KB, 550x375px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 550x375px

>>33907380
In the Spanish Air Force, we do mid air fuelling on the F/A-18s with a C-130.

How about a hook and lock system so the fighter become towed and then can be winched into the larger plane's slipstream.
Then magic elves change the weapons?

>>33906566
How the fuck?

>>33899097
I just imagine the pilot taking off his mask and opening his Whataburger bag to eat while at Mach 5.

Sipping from an extra large Dr. Pepper as he dog fights MiGs.

>>33908218
You need to log back on to engage your Pass. It happens to me when I flush my browser history.

>>33896555
If you equip airplanes with flamethrowers, then rearming could be done with refueling equipment.

File: fgsfds.jpg (32KB, 335x352px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 335x352px

>>33911607
>If you equip airplanes with flamethrowers

>>33906546
>controlled by operator
You wrote computer wrong

>>33909741
>Shielding is for pussies.

t.Reaver

>>33906695
Simon Stålenhagis a genius

File: 1494317557864.webm (894KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

894KB, 800x450px

>>33907380
>not going slow

>>33911771
At that point you blur the line between crop dusting potatoes and engulfing the earth in fire.

Muslims are retarded. That's the joke.

>>33900367
>ok over towelslavia finally
>lets rearm our escort
>whoops dropped one
>160 orphans dead, US has to pay 3 billion in reparations for bombing an orphanage for the criminally poor and blind

You tell me retard

>>33907912
what about electromagnets? a robotic arm with a full loadout could extend like in the picture, a fighter plane could attach the ordnance with electromagnets pretty easily, just use some kind of system to align exactly over the stuff to attach.

File: radusflxswtch.gif (5KB, 383x242px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 383x242px

>>33912275
flux-switching permanent magnet. That way they don't drop if the plane loses power.

>>33900803
Because I enjoy planes not irradiating an area the size of a state if they crash.

>>33896555
because once you have aerial refueling and aerial re-arming, the aircraft is capable of continuous combat service. Obviously, this is limited by the pilot, so we would need aerial re-crewing to really make aerial re-arming effective.

File: eyJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3MtbWVkaWEtY2FjaGUtYWswLnBpbmltZy5jb20vMjM2eC9jMS8xYS85Ni9jMTFhOTY3MWJjNTI4MzllMmQwNGEyNDhhMThkNWJjMC5qcGcifQ.T52HbQND7f-UzA60mMLKRvpqCDY.jpg (17KB, 236x252px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 236x252px

>>33913853
What are maintenance cycles.

>>33912275
>>33913588

I doubt that a high power magnet would have zero effect to the electronics in a missile system.

>>33913985
> not having aerial maintenance cycles

>>33911607
Okay this tome someone ACTUALLY call DARPA

>>33908348
Darpa is racist, where's Dr. Jamelloquan Washington and Miss Jeff Squirrelheart on the list. Ableist scum.

>>33910706
how do you get the smell of mexican food out of the american equipment?

>>33899097
10 keks

>>33896555

BBBBRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPP

>>33913985
What are turnaround times.

>>33911607
I'm imagining the dogfights right now, and they are glorious to behold

>>33896555
nigga just drop the bombs out of the on carrying them

File: Capture.jpg (124KB, 1007x795px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1007x795px

>>33908348
>>33908362
>>33908424
Third Guy on the list sounds like your guy

>>33914047
yeah main downside to the magnets is that all existing weapons would have to be modified. They'd all need ferromagnetic mounting points that are somewhat distant from electronics (specifically away from inertial guidance), and either have low hysteresis or be 'wiped' the moment it's dropped. Fortunately the electronics are usually in the nose with the sensor, and the wires would be unaffected by permanent magnets. Also I have no idea how the plane communicates with the weapons but it's also unlikely to be affected by permanent magnets.

>>33906695
>>33906724
>>33906732
Game?

Looks like homeworld but I thought that was space RTS...

>>33918329
Some mild googling gives me Deserts of Kharak, which is a homeworld spinoff

>>33918329
>>33918366
It is Deserts of Kharak. Such potential for that game, wasted by shitty AI and shitty follow-up development.