72 Missiles At Once! - 747 Cruise Missile Carrier

[@sonnyd.6777]

" Where would you want your missles? Economy or first class?"😄

[@Hyu249]

Lol nice pun

[@Danster87]

Depends, is it business or pleasure?

[@hibco3000]

First class of course

[@trevorhart545]

Left at the airport with half of my luggage?

[@sonnyd.6777]

@@trevorhart545 well, you just have to destroy half of Moscow!😜

[@seahydra3108]

- Unknown aircraft entered your airspace : "Panik" - It's just 747 : "Kalm" - 747 launching cruise missile : "PANIK!"

[@joshuahedges8806]

yes

[@gelinrefira]

Which is why a militarized commercial jet-liner is a bad idea.

[@Shinzon23]

*screen absolutely filled with inbound blips* "FUUUUUCCCC-"

[@donald8066]

@@gelinrefira No, one of the best .

[@sonnyd.6777]

U.S. 747 Missle carrier: " I will destroy Moscow with my deadly payload!!" Russian Ekranoplan: " I was built " 😛😛

[@captain_commenter8796]

“TRIGGER! ITS UP TO YOU TAKE DOWN THE ARSENAL BIRD!”

[@erridkforname]

Trigger: oh so this is the arsenal bird. Oh well time to shoot ot

[@Orinslayer]

Jeff Bezos' Amazon Drone Mothership.

[@hexaltheninjawow9531]

Why is the Sky speaking Latin?

[@rarityadf11f]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/h6nVfGSqZ7ibrdk

[@joshtiel2980]

Bingo 👏

[@DocWolph]

A Giant missile carrier/launcher that looks like a passenger liner because it was built from one of the most popular and well known models ever... WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?!

[@RedWolf777SG]

Well you know the old saying, the best way to hide something is in plain sight. Like you said the 747 is a popular and well known passenger aircraft which is why its perfect. It would have been the last aircraft you would least expect to be a airborne missile carrier. 😅

[@DocWolph]

@@RedWolf777SG And the first any hostile nation would open fire on if the slightest thing went ever so slightly off. Bombers and the like are made of specifically designed platforms not only to better fulfill their roles but also civilian passenger aircraft are not targeted. It only takes a little foreknowledge or experience and "the jig is up". The guy explains as much in the video.

[@RedWolf777SG]

@@DocWolph True. True. It was a promising idea, that sounded good on paper. But ultimately it never fan out in the end. Just let every other experimental aircraft and weapon systems.

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

Yeah you could make a proper missile carrier and base it off a civilan model if you want but you need it to be distinguishable at a glance of the radar. Because your sneak attack is going to work exactly once and then expect every single 747 to be SAM'd just in case one was a missile carrier. Plus, it's cruise missiles, just like how the B-52 still operates despite having all the stealth of a flying barn is because you can launch cruise missiles from further than any AA system can target you. A dedicated missile carrier could be blaring enough radar signatures to give everyone nearby a free radiotherapy and not actually be in any danger itself.

[@RedWolf777SG]

@@mobiuscoreindustries Yeah. But I suppose nowadays nuclear submarine are more suited as missile carriers.

[@TheSDB13]

Speaking of the B1, there was a variant proposed that would be an AAMRAM carrier with AESA radar that could carry and launch a dozen or two of the missiles from what I remember

[@timwf11b]

I'm skeptical of that idea (although a B1 would work better than a 747 for that job). It only works if your missiles are much longer ranger then the other guy. Otherwise they can shoot you down before you get within effective range. Effective AAM range is longer against a slower and less maneuverable target (like a bomber compared to a fighter).

[@TheSDB13]

@@timwf11b From what I remember, the concept would use the r as a missile carrier and stealth fighters would relay info to the carrier so that it can fire on the target.

[@timwf11b]

@@TheSDB13 - I understand but if they are fired from the B1 you still have to be in missile range to your target, which means you are also in missile range from your target. Yes the fighters can protect you to an extent, but they can only strongly protect you if they keep the enemies away from you (chase them off or shoot them down before they get within range) in which case none of your missiles are going to be useful against the enemy. Fighters out ahead of you can detect targets for you but they don't increase how far your missiles can go.

[@TheSDB13]

@@timwf11b I remember that being discussed in the Dogfights of the Future episode.

[@TheKrstff]

There's also the P-8 Poseidon. A 737 modified to perform submarine hunting duties. It is currently in use today.

[@idahobeef]

yeah and it SUCKS, mainly because it is 5-10 times more expensive than its predecessor (the P-3 Orion)

[@killman369547]

@@idahobeef Except the crews love it because it's infinitely more comfortable than the P-3.

[@willv2746]

@@idahobeef cost doesn’t make it suck. It is by far the most advanced system for anti sub.

[@AaronShenghao]

It’s not like a 737 launching a few torpedo on one of those Chinese island or cities will be very damaging…cruise missiles are on whole different level.

[@matthewk4930]

I can’t think of a worse idea for a platform. After accidental shoot-downs like Korean Air 007, Iranian Air 655, or (most recently) MH17, using a civilian airframe as a strategic strike aircraft would make EVERY 747 a target in the event of hostilities. EDIT: LOL - posted this before the end of the video {narf}

[@manticore4952]

I think that's the real reason they didn't use it.

[@cucuawe465]

I guess they mistook mh17 as air force 1 and the similarity of the flag

[@witoldschwenke9492]

"accidental" mate those were on purpose! anywho, who would fly their passengers planes in the event of a large war anyway, nobody would.

[@robertwright7937]

Was that {narf} from Pinky and the Brain?🤔😄

[@nocturnal0072]

Not a passenger plane but the ac130 is based on a commercial plane.

[@jocax188723]

"-A nuclear powered Arsenal Bird." TRIGGERED

[@flaviomonteiro1414]

@@Attaxalotl [VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM]

[@maxtube444]

@@Attaxalotl man the lyrics of daredevil are fr amazing [[MISSILE MISSILE MISSILE]

[@IAmTheAce5]

Imagine these standoff weapons being deployed from honest-to-goodness airborne _warships_ with the endurance of conventional naval warships.

[@appa609]

just need a nuclear reactor

[@chasetoyama8184]

*Project Wingman intensifies*

[@johngreenbeck829]

Nasa had a design of an aircraft that could fly indefinitely powered by solar power did it not? If I recall it was very difficult to design and had to be made of space age light materials with a massive wingspan. Now what if you made weapons that were lighter and it could carry super light weapons. I wonder what the least dense explosive is, or if its possible to design explosives out of aerogels. I'm a bassist not a chemist though, so maybe this is inplausible lol

[@IAmTheAce5]

@@johngreenbeck829 i was thinking more a properly designed and handled _airship_ that can float on-station like a cruiser on water.

[@tuaninhanh7985]

*Afghan music blares* Tarkhan, it is time

[@ge0arc244]

I am 100% SURE that Air Force One and it's back-up has a low capacity version of this system taking up space near the rear of Her. Makes sense since it was developed for that exact style of plane could launch an array of different types of Air to Air Missiles for Defensive purposes! Imagine some enemy state coming after her and she lauches a dozen Missiles at them in rapid concession will streaming a wall of flares!

[@simula152]

Don't think she could even maneuver behind an enemy fighter to launch the missile

[@daweedabest2085]

@@simula152 nah fam it probably got missile turrets or smth or rear facing missiles so it won’t have to get behind a plane to launch a missile.

[@ge0arc244]

@@simula152 With the technology they have all they need is a positive blip on the screen. The missle could be launched upside-down and side-ways as long as the missle is advanced enough has good tracking and proper range you can knock down a target behind you by shooting a missle (Advanced enough) in front of you.

[@mopar_dude9227]

Doubt it, there isn’t enough room for such a system. Air Force One is packed full of electronic counter measures and tons of communication equipment. Besides, now Air Force One doesn’t travel anywhere without fighter escorts.

[@pawewysoczanski1884]

There was also an airborne aircraft carrier variant concept of the 747. This + the one in the video (if you divide the fuselage modules 50/50) and we've got a real life Arsenal Bird

[@p0tatoxd350]

CL-1201 is already an arsenal bird lmao 1 CL-1201 2 CL-1201-3 3 747 AAC 3 747 Cruise missle carrier Unlimited fuel from belka And you rule the skies

[@pawewysoczanski1884]

@@p0tatoxd350 I know and I agree 🙂 I'm just relating to the topic of the video and the 747 subject

[@p0tatoxd350]

@@pawewysoczanski1884 yeah.. justade the reply, felt necessary

[@anno-fw7xn]

Mustard has s gread video about it.

[@kerbodynamicx472]

@@p0tatoxd350 unfortunately, CL-1201 is the largest aircraft NEVER build… besides that, I’m certain the arsenal bird drew inspiration from CL1201.

[@keshvinkumar5770]

I'll be interested to see a video about the G10 Fugaku, the intercontinental bomber thought up by Imperial Japan

[@riliryrimaddyvia9630]

Everyone who suggested "do 747" probably is jumping around in joy.

[@nooblangpoo]

I was actually asking for this very 747, the CMCA.

[@EmbeddedWithin]

I got the ideas to review tanks for this channel. Nobody cared about me. I gave the concepts to him personally on the discord. Not even a mention

[@shadowcat1070]

Nazi!

[@Slemoster]

My only issue with this is the bay door locations. It just takes one tiny fuck up for one of those cruise missiles to impact your own wing and then you get yourself a very expensive clean up job.

[@Mgl1206]

i feel like a drop down cargo ramp like how they deploy the MOAB deploys would be a better idea. Less mechanically complex as well. Though in hindsight I can see some issues with moving systems that run through the floor since it'd increase cost.

[@Shinzon23]

I suspect that the missiles would have probably, if it had ever been actually done,simply been ejected out the door, probably with either a pyrotechnic launcher, or via compressed air, on a timer of several seconds before the engine ignites; the missile doesn't need to be pointing at the target when fired, its more than smart enough to know where to point and maneuver.

[@Make-Asylums-Great-Again]

Deployment from the bottom will cause the cruise missile to either impact the tail or ride the wake the aircraft(chasing it's plane).

[@sudonim7552]

@@Make-Asylums-Great-Again The Pegasus rocket is launched directly below a L-1011 and has had no such problems. Why can't a Boeing 747 launch cruise missiles in a similar way? It could either mechanically lower the missile to a similar position as the Pegasus and launch it, or simply drop it, then have the missile's engine activate once it reaches a minimum safe distance from the aircraft.

[@danielhandika8767]

Yea, why don't just put the door at the bottom

[@AsbestosMuffins]

I like how one of its problems was it'd be carrying around 1/4th of the Airforce's deployable nuclear arsenal at any given time, in a single, crashable, plane. One time where too much capacity hurt the thing

[@JachuJustyDriver]

Shooting down commercial 747s by mistake, or as the precaution, was the first thing that came to my mind. I think it was the biggest concern and reason to pass on this project.

[@watintarnation9801]

Agree. 707s are too old that its military derivatives won't likely be confused with actual airliners today. P-8 poseidon is relatively new with 737, but has a very specific mission: anti-naval warfare for Navy.

[@alkatiawri3741]

this thing would have been the real life arsenal bird and would have give ace combat vives!!

[@ballsdeep7056]

Give it some amraams and drones and boom, disintegrate russua and china in 2 hours

[@alkatiawri3741]

@@ballsdeep7056 hell yeah!!

[@Robert53area]

@@ballsdeep7056 and civilian planes would be shot down all over those countries. And nukes would fly for violating Geneva convention article of hiding forces inside civilian objects. This is a horrible idea.

[@killman369547]

But without a fancy energy shield it would be a sitting duck.

[@SephirothRyu]

The arsenal bird has a 1.1 km wingspan. So calling this dinky little modded 747 a real life version of it is like calling a kiwi chick a fully grown ostrich.

[@FoundAndExplained]

First... damn not even to my own video!

[@miku_hoshino]

Lol

[@rayhatton7683]

With a great video and content thank you. For this monster project, dam. Let's be real here for a minute. With in flight the punch out of said missle was basically opening up to the air flow would be very cold if this delivery system failed. Man what a beastly idea. Look it's a......oh #@#&!

[@raymondyee2008]

Next thing you know it'll be used as a reason to explain why fighter pilots had to shoot down a Jumbo jet that "violated restricted airspace".

[@eddielung31]

KAL

[@shaider1982]

@@eddielung31 yup, KAL 007.

[@pahtar7189]

One significant advantage of the 747-based plane is that its mission capable rate would be about 99% rather than the 60-70% typical of bombers, meaning you wouldn't have to buy as many of them to get the same number of weapons in the air.

[@timwf11b]

Maybe a bit lower than that with the extra equipment to launch the missile, to refuel in the air, some ECM, military radar etc. But still probably higher than a normal bomber.

[@swety2962]

@@timwf11b why would you need a radar, if you have datalink, you can just use GCI I guess.

[@timwf11b]

@@swety2962 Ii suppose you wouldn't absolutely need it, but if its going to assume that role you probably want radar.

[@tonynavarro8375]

First, the idea would have worked effectively as long as the launching 747 stayed well outside of effective SAM and or immediate interceptor range. Addition of a few escort fighters would also improve the situation. Second, the side launch concept is a risky idea. From the video, the missiles could easily hit one of the 747's engines. A better idea would have been an aft missile ejector located in the rear belly of the aircraft with the missiles being ejected at a shallow downward angle in freefall before deploying it's control surfaces and igniting it's engine. Third, such a military delivery system could be used to augment sea borne cruise missile barrages thus overloading an enemy's anti air defense system. The Us military missed out on an outstanding idea for an affordable force multiplier.

[@ChevTecGroup]

In reality the missiles would have dropped a lot longer than shown in the simulation. I doubt there would have been a risk to the engines and airframe.

[@ChevTecGroup]

Also, putting weapons doors through the floor would take a lot more engineering and modification than just enlarging existing cargo/escape doors.

[@adastra7939]

I wonder how an A380 would have fared if it was a platform for cruise missile launches.

[@Robert53area]

You also missed the point of endangering thousands of civilian aircraft. You saw the US response in 9/11 the entire airspace was shutdown and all planes returned and grounded. Now imagine a nation who is already being threatened by the US, and the US deployed this. Every 747 would be a viable target now, because you violated the Geneva convention by using a civilian object as a military platform. You cannot use a hospital to store ammo, same principle. It loses it's protective status. Using any other non civilian plane is viable for example the ac130, it is a gun platform and it doesn't have a civilian counterpart. You also justify the enemy to use the same tactic, which he mentions. China could then take all it's 747 DHL planes load them with nuclear war heads and fly them into us airspace and detonate them.

[@isafmobius0465]

I suggest looking up rapid dragon, it's a similar idea to turn existing planes into cruise missile arsenal birds except using C-17s and C-130s.

[@UncleManuel]

Boeing: "We have a cost effective solution for a missile delivery system." US Air Force: "Nah dude, we want to upgrade our old stuff for gobs of money!" 🤪😁

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Also the US airforce: "If no zoom zoom no sell!"

[@hoodrat21]

Cost effective, till civilians 747 started getting shot at by SAMs, killing hundreds, since the enemy thought they're missile carriers

[@soccerguy2433]

As a KC-135R instructor pilot, thank you using correct stock footage. You won't believe how many times footage of the KC-10 (especially the refueling boom, which is diffy) gets accidentally used. Well done!

[@jolonsweeney8387]

I think the Boeing 747 CMCA is a viable concept specially in the days of terrorism. To be able to hit 70 plus tigers in one go is a game-changer and should definitely be looked at again. cheers

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

And wouldn't need a coast nearby... it would also be really nice in the pacific against China.

[@dunodisko2217]

This just sounds like a B-52 with extra steps

[@goofinshmertz5390]

Engineers in the 70's were straight up built different.

[@quontox9247]

I mean, it sounds impressive until you realise there are nuclear guided missile subs that carry over 150 cruise missiles each and could pretty much strike anywhere undetected. Of course, they cost a pretty penny thought.

[@The_Bird_Bird_Harder]

But, but. Big plane!

[@Ag3nt0fCha0s]

On the other hand you pay for those subs and their crews all the time. This thing sits on the ground when not in use and has a smaller crew.

[@witoldschwenke9492]

well a plane can be used over land, try that with a sub. plus the plane is much faster and the missiles get added range from starting in air

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

Yeh but this plane can arrive to fire missile in a few hours instead of weeks like a sub

[@staven512]

Creating such a high value target could be an advantage, similar to US aircraft carrier diplomacy.

[@utbdoug]

Slight correction on the reason KAL-007 was shot down.. The Soviets claimed that they thought it was an RC-135 that had been flying close to the airspace near the missile test range. Nothing to do with the cargo on board the aircraft. Sorry for being *that* guy..

[@Aniket2712]

They can do it now! … I hardly know an airline using 747 these days!

[@elmariachi2979]

This sounds like an ace combat load out

[@brianpaulson6534]

The scene of the 1st 747 was very cool my family was there to watch the takeoff. The plane rolled out and pulled up right in front of us . Too Cool.

[@SuburbaniteUrbanite]

Ah yes, cheaper in terms of “civilians expendable”. It’s always money vs human life, and usually money wins, but not this time

[@TheBludgutz]

Make a video on the B-1V Lancer, the Phoenix missile carrier.... Or the FB-111h!

[@X-JAKA7]

USAF: How many missiles do you want on your 747? Boeing: Yes!!

[@riliryrimaddyvia9630]

This would probably had of never gone well if it was actually built. Especially considering how paranoid the Soviet union was ,no doubt that they would be as paranoid and could maybe even shoot down any 747 without hesitation if it was too near or in their boarders.

[@tsubakiwelfare9120]

Yeah, but isnt there a procedure of identify the aircraft first? I mean, interceptors are surely to be dispatched and they'd see the huge "PanAm" letters on it, plus, arent military planes painted in military colours?

[@MTTT1234]

Well, they did? The incident where they shot down a Korean airliner as it crossed into Soviet airspace by accident, and they later claimed they confused it with a US spy-plane.

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

Nowadays, the US might use FedEx fleet of Boeing cargo aircrafts as a weapon!

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

@@tsubakiwelfare9120 I'm not sure what are the rules for aircraft, but for ship it's 100% OK to wear false colors, just have to put correct one, just before opening fire.

[@riliryrimaddyvia9630]

@@tsubakiwelfare9120 well I mean they could identify a civilian airliner by the beacons on the wings ,the beacons under the belly and much more

[@WolfeSaber9933]

The Boeing 747, the multi tool aircraft of the world.

[@classicgalactica5879]

It's an amazing aircraft. Truly remarkable.

[@almerindaromeira8352]

The last part doesn't make that much sense when applied to real life: As mentioned the aircraft would be so important/ high value that it would for sure have an escort fighter if not many. I don't think that is mistakable on the radar screen.

[@datathunderstorm]

Or escort drones, like “Tin Man” from the movie “Stealth”…….oh wait…..😧

[@witoldschwenke9492]

not to mention that you wouldn't see passenger planes cross into an enemy territory anyway in war times

[@EyeTech21]

This channel is so underrated. Love it!

[@SpaceMonkeyBoi]

You can make a 747 into pretty much any kind of weapon

[@Divynture]

Welp, I guess people will use the boats as a means of transportation to have a vacation to other countries.

[@congnghequansuvn474]

I really want a flying warship like this, but armed it with early warning radar and air to air missile and also ASW bomb

[@mikeaustin4138]

Also, an air-to-air version with an AWACs radar could carry hundreds of missiles and modified CWIS turrets like the B-17 had.

[@Ag3nt0fCha0s]

Might as well bang old F14 radars front and rear on a B52 and hang Phoenix's off the wings.

[@DrMario-]

Just the other day I was thinking about why they don't use a 747-8 to act as a bomber since it has an MTOW of almost 1 million pounds. Imagine how many MOABs or other large bombs you could load on that thing.

[@thepolishtech1552]

Gonna take railguns to destroy this thing Like stonehendge

[@myplane150]

Would love to see a C5 Galaxy kitted out like this. I wonder how many missiles it could hold?

[@goldiegolderman1842]

The premise of the 1984 film "Red Dawn" was actually the Soviet Union using military planes masquerading as airline passenger planes to move soldiers and equipment into the United States as part of their invasion.

[@roroliaoliao]

reality is that the Soviet Union lack any willpower to do that, like the US they only prefer to fight wars they can win unless invaded. A European War is not winnable, they tried to win small war in Afghanistan but ended up being bloodied by the combine force of US, Pakistan and the Afghans and was forced to retreat for good. I am glad that US get the same bloodied nose by the Afghan Talibans supported by the UTiM, like the Soviet Union. Beautiful to see US were beaten by the Afghans.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

@@roroliaoliao You mean beaten by the Taliban a group as bad as ISIS defending the Afghans one of the very few functioning presidential democracies. And without the US policing the world petty wars over water, China, Russia, Iran conquests...ETC... Means Peace died when the US left its allies to sink to a single province.

[@johnecoapollo7]

I've so many ideas about using the 747 in different ways. It must be an engineers dream

[@MrGrimx1]

Interesting concept from the early Air Launched Cruise Missile program. There were numerous proposals for different ALCM carry/delivery concepts. The original ALCM, AGM-86A was a drop in replacement for the AGM-69A SRAM. The A didn't have the legs the Air Force was looking for. Therefore Boeing proposed the long range AGM-86B. The A could fit on the SRAM rotary launcher whereas the B required a new launcher be developed.

[@alkatiawri3741]

4:35 please found and explained!please make a video about this lockheed aircraft

[@marsaustralis6881]

Given that the B-1s are being retired, as well as the 747s in most air fleets in favor of smaller twin-engined Airbus or Boeing variants, the idea is worth revisiting; especially now that the US government wants to reduce some cost by using existing tech, and also given that they're working on launching missiles out of transports too since they need more cruise missile and drone carriers, not old-fashioned bombers. A modernized, militarized 787-8 CMCA could make use of newer ejection technologies sending the missiles out the aft through tubes/racks using a simpler launching system. Given the increased range of modern cruise missiles and the advent of hypersonics, a 747 CMCA could loiter well outside the combat area near a friendly AWACS or tanker, just dropping the missiles as the orders come in for missile deliveries, leaving the BUFFs for more dedicated/specialized weapons deployment given it has a proper bomb bay. In parallel, having the US military operate and maintain more 747s would aid them with the service and maintenance of AF1 and other active military 747s (such as the E-4 "Doomsday Planes"), and could see the old E-4s also further updated to match, given their age. A few 747s could also be made as dedicated drone carriers, realizing another Boeing dream project, and help with forward deployment of such assets into a combat zone. Of course, it doesn't have to be the 747, the military-specific C-5 Galaxy from Lockheed would work just as well, given its equally cavernous hold and the US military's rack-mounted, rear-deployed, palletized cruise missile launch systems they were testing recently (capable of being dropped from a Herc, Globemaster, or Galaxy).

[@user-dq1je7zy3p]

777x

[@classicgalactica5879]

The B-1B isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It's currently being upgraded and is slated to serve until approximately 2036, being gradually fazed out as the B-21 Raider is fazed in. The B-2 Spirit is slated to be fazed out by approximately 2032 in the same fashion.

[@mr_beezlebub3985]

The B1 Lancer can do this if equipped with missiles or small diameter bombs.

[@joselitostotomas8114]

But how many can it carry?

[@mr_beezlebub3985]

@@joselitostotomas8114 A fuckton, or 10 butt loads

[@richardmillhousenixon]

@@joselitostotomas8114 at least 2

[@ge0arc244]

Hmmm watching that last part made me glad they didn't adopt this. Flying Commercial would have become extremely dangerous during the Cold War and Now. Russia, China, North Korea and any Country with Dislike for the U.S. would be tempted to use the excuse (they thought it was a Missile Carrier Plane) to justify shooting it down! All those Flights ✈️ over Europe, Asia and the Middle East would become NIGHTMARES for the Crews and Passengers! I sure the Heck wouldn't fly anywhere near Russia in a Passenger Plane if they even suspected it was loaded with Missiles! Russia has a Very Heavy handed approach to any Threats to it's Country.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

It would make the shooter look more evil though which would, in the long run, be a good thing... besides they don't go shooting every hummer, Toyota, Mercedes Benz because there are military versions now do they?

[@ge0arc244]

@@GreenBlueWalkthrough Big Difference between a Truck, Car or Commercial land based Vehicles compared to a 747 Airliner. A 747 loaded with a Hundred plus Cruise Missles is on a scale of Destruction Vastly higher than a Truck.or Car loaded with Explosives! Plus the number of vehicles in Russia from different countries makes it hard to regulate.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

@@ge0arc244 Moving an army through your territory is less a problem than a few missle trucks?

[@mopar_dude9227]

Most of the surface to air kills don’t involve a visual contact, only radar contact. They see nothing but a blip on the screen, so that excuse wouldn’t work. Although that has been the excuse in the past for countries shooting sown commercial airliners by mistake. The only time there is visual contact is when a fighter gets close enough to see the plane, in which case, they would see the airlines marking. So they couldn’t say they thought it was a military plane. So it wouldn’t have made commercial flying anymore dangerous than it already was.

[@StarFoxZX315]

Modified 747's loaded with AI drones... Terrifying? Yes. But also really cool. Ace Combat's Arsenal Bird in real life.

[@linecraftman3907]

There's a 747 sending rockets to space with virgin orbit today! You can definitely stick a nuclear warhead on that Rocket and do some military launches, or launch surveillance satellites

[@StruggleGaming]

Reminds me of the future development of the parasitic fighter 747 airborne aircraft carrier. Imagine a strike group of one of these missile carriers and one of the aircraft carriers or even better, use drones and fit even more aircraft. And have such a massive and disposable flying wave tactic would certainly overpower any peer air defence in combo with stealth and electronic warfare aircraft.

[@mrzyrhk7960]

putting a mini CIWS in that plane it would be a nightmare! just imagine a commercial plane turned into a heavy flying fortress lol

[@eddielung31]

it would be a perfect reasonale for the Soviets to explain the KAL shot down

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

And make them shelves look evil... the optics would only get worse for them.

[@ace7843]

Happy trigger noises

[@pitrilittlefoot9503]

I believe the TU-160 has such a operational role, just it’s 3x faster and has 5x the range

[@bocahdongo7769]

Also absurdly more expensive to operated. If not more than B1

[@appa609]

not as much range

[@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis]

@@appa609 unless you use space for extra fuel, and consequently have fewer missiles.

[@4skintim962]

No lmao

[@materialdialectics]

6:55 love how the US military uses the same $30 Logitech joystick I have.

[@adityakhresnaputrayana2547]

Dang it, the opening music just hit right in the mood for this bizzare aviation idea

[@flyingbullet4454]

USSR: ****Turn military aircraft into commercial aircraft.**** USA: I like your idea but in opposite way.

[@PatrickNyc83]

America's military doesn't do "cost effective" it's all about lining the pockets of the military industrial complex

[@dave8599]

No, it is about defending our freedom from evil nations like slave owning red china, which has nuclear weapons aimed at our homes.

[@AaronShenghao]

4:36 Ace Combat devs: one step ahead of ya.

[@steffenrocktaeschel8015]

There are actually so many passengers aircrafts who could be modified now. Who says they wouldn't do that

[@mikeser3484]

You should make a video on the TR-6 Telos

[@riliryrimaddyvia9630]

Hey @Mikeser ,I recommend visiting the F&E discord server and making a suggestion in our #suggestion channel discord.gg/5Vp26T7pXV

[@Divynture]

The flying L

[@jaybee9269]

I do like all the airline decals on the 747 prototype.

[@rintae4021]

Only that the KC 135 is actually not based on the 707. It might look similar but it is its own bird.

[@blue280485]

Now imagine A-380 as CMCA 😀👌

[@saplingseedsaccrew3143]

The Boeing 747 was such a engineering marvel that there was so much plans for it to either be the next carrier plane for the US. To be made bigger to the 747x to become a flying aircraft carrier or a missile base

[@theworldwide96]

I needed to see this video

[@user-lz9hf2et8w]

This project is best put in the paper shredder right away. Since if it is embodied in metal, then any Boeing-747 is a legitimate target for air defense systems. Since the enemy will not take risks when determining that this aircraft is a Boeing-747, he will be attacked.

[@channelrafy]

been waiting for this video, thanks!

[@bradley772]

Thanks for the videos ! !

[@dystopianlucidity4448]

The ultimate missile truck!

[@americanrambler4972]

Boeing is currently building militarized airliner airplanes. The current airplane is the 737 variant called the Boeing P-8A Poseidon. It is a maritime patrol aircraft that carries a number of weapons. Among the weapons it is configured for are: Hardpoints: 11 total internal bay with 5 hardpoints and 6 external hardpoints for a variety of conventional weapons, e.g. AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER, AGM-84 Harpoon, Mark 54 torpedo, mines, depth charges, and the High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon system. And it is also being configured with additional weapons systems to support additional roles beyond just maritime patrol. I also expect at some point it will get air to air capability with missiles like the AIM-9 sidewinder. That is because these airplane have become high priority intercept targets for opposition forces and they now need to carry some form of self defense against fighters and missiles targeted at them.

[@seananlinjunxi868]

When the queen of the skies felt peace was not an option

[@FirstBornProtoType]

Sure this is a strange concept. An aircraft that launches missiles. Can you believe it. Hype it up more. I'm blown away.

[@ItsRawdraft2]

You must be fun at parties

[@nigelbagguley7606]

This concept definitely looks like it came from the Curtis LeMay school of thermo nuclear destruction.Another of his "wild ones" came about after it was noticed that during the Cuban missile crisis,not one scheduled American airline flight into Moscow was interfered with.His idea was to retrofit a 707 as a one way delivery system,it would keep the regular airline paint job and keep the regular schedule.If deployed during a crisis and the Soviets got suspicious,any pilot sent to observe would just see a regular flight of "capitalist running dogs" come to pollute the Rodina before returning to base.At the height of the cold was LeMay would not have struggled to man such a mission and after the fall of the Soviet Union,Red Air Force commanders admitted the idea would probably have worked.

[@Sergeantgrunt]

Sounds like a Dale Brown novel. I'd read it!

[@Yacht.46]

747 City Destroyer.. wow

[@rarityadf11f]

Trigger Using 747 Missile Carrier* Mihaly : "I shouldn't have appeared in this game"

[@Hyu249]

I see you man of culture as well.

[@runforestrunfpv4354]

Weaponised civilian transport platform will increase incidents of friendly fire against 747 that airlines uses.

[@soccerguy2433]

No way and even less likely now. Transponders, ADS-B, would effectively differentiate between civilian and military 747s

[@runforestrunfpv4354]

@@soccerguy2433 I assume they can be faked.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

@@runforestrunfpv4354 That's a war crime then.

[@TicTac-g7m]

@@GreenBlueWalkthrough How is a fake transponder a "war crime"?!

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

@@TicTac-g7m Same way a fake/no insignia/patch is a war crime. You don't know who to shoot at. It gets scarier than just terrorists and spies... When no one used IDs. Why do you think in WW2 Japan put "meatballs" on the sides of their planes? It wasn't to get shot at it was to above being shot by friendlies. So that's why the CMC was fine because the US can't fake its IDs not even paint hence why it's white with a clear blue stripe like the USAF command Boeings have. If Russia banned all 747s from its territory it would be seen as paranoid. At best and at worse if she shot down every 747 she would have been seen as a vile villain which everyone would avoid working with like North Korea and Cuba today if not worse. I don't see how the US loses in this situation.

[@Hey_MikeZeroEcho22P]

I (B) TOTALLY (B) remember this project, back in the early/mid 80's!!! When I saw this article on a "Air & Space Technology" magazine I believe, was Quite excited about the idea, but your counter-points are Quite valid, so the project was never put into motion!! Your Posting of that article was put together Very Well.....Good Job!!

[@Hey_MikeZeroEcho22P]

Now an update of using OTHER civil airframes for the CMA carrier?? L-1011, DC-10, etc. --- Now That was shocking to hear!!

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

*I read a lot of useful information in the video !!! Liked and Subscribed*

[@satvikkrishna145]

The 747 was too good to be a plane. Sorry, a revolution!

[@risingmoon893]

You know it’s official that the Soviets knew and how both command and the pilots wanted to shoot it down for the fun of it right?

[@classicgalactica5879]

Wrong. The 747 as a cruise missile platform would have released it's payload from standoff distances. It would never have been used in heavily contested airspace.

[@risingmoon893]

@@classicgalactica5879 I am talking bout the civilian 747 that got shot down.

[@bthsr7113]

Compared to some of the ideas of the cold war, this is downright sane.

[@CaptChang]

Seems to make more sense to drop it below the tail, no ejector needed.

[@SeaGoingLizabeth]

it's not even 3 in the morning yet and I'm already here.

[@miketan8190]

I remember reading that the cruise missiles were on a rotary launch system and launched through bomb bays at the bottom of the fuselage, not through the side

[@joki1937]

I absolutely adore how you casually mentioned the Arsenal Bird.

[@Gigachimp]

Ace combat is coming to life!

[@lostpony4885]

There was also a Star Wars program plan to carry a laser and alternately a reflector for a ground based laser.

[@mazdaN-A_26b]

I recommend the cx hls concepts of lockheed boeing And mcdonald douglas they were concepts for cargo planes but lockheed won and made the c-5

[@user-ms8qg2rz5s]

Should have use something like c130 as middle carrier

[@nguyenhoangan-matt]

Maybe something faster

[@user-ms8qg2rz5s]

@@nguyenhoangan-matt Then C-141, jet power, fly faster. Build in airdrop feature, take off form war time air field.

[@nguyenhoangan-matt]

C-17? Even faster and more payload capacity.

[@user-ms8qg2rz5s]

@@nguyenhoangan-matt c17 is more expensive?

[@lemowonderswhat3717]

“AAH! THE FUEL TANK EXPLODED! IT’S JUST A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL THESE BOMBS EXPLODE! I CAN’T CONTROL THE PLANE! WE’RE GOING DOWN! AAAAAAH!”

[@muddgrub4402]

"Let's fire our heat-seeking missiles at our engine exhaust! What could go wrong?"

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

I mean that sounds really good right about now you know with an intervention when China goes a conquering. Also what about the P-8, AC-130 they're armed? And massive targets means deterrence and splitting up of the limited enemy forces which you can then hunt down and it's not like mid air refuelers are not that anyway.

[@MachineMan-mj4gj]

There's a bit of a difference between "dedicated submarine hunter," "dedicated CAS platform," and "an Ace Combat boss disguised as an airliner."