Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Live Fire • USAF

A U.S. Air Force MC-130J Commando II aircraft executes the first-ever European theater live-fire of a Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) during exercise ATREUS 2022-4 at Andy Space Defense Range in Norway on November 9, 2022.
Film Credits: U.S. Air Force Video by Staff Sgt. Izabella Workman, 352nd Special Operations Wing Public Affairs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a look at The Gung Ho Vids Amazon Store.
Military Style Gear, Gaming and More. Link Below:
amzn.to/3jq9vLx
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[@Trve_Kvlt]

This is the Rapid Dragon system. According to the wikipedia article "The size of the deployment boxes is configurable to fit mission or dropship dimensions supporting the launch; ranging from four to 45 AGM-158 JASSM-ER cruise missiles...", "Future development will generalize the system beyond the AGM-158 missile family to include JDAM bombs, sea mines, drones, and other missile systems as well as integrating the launch system into use on other supporting cargo and non-cargo aircraft."

[@ImperiumLibertas]

Imagine dropping smart mines over a hundred miles from a single C-130. That's amazing.

[@andrewmackemzie4565]

"Oh lookit me, my heads so far up my ass I believe wiki"

[@moosesnWoop]

@@ImperiumLibertas it's not revolutionary lol - it's literally dropping bombs out the cargo hold. The ONLY difference now and say WW2 is that the missiles themselves are smart and aren't dropped randomly over a city.

[@fortunatebum]

Great, now we gotta add cruise missile launcher to the long list of roles of the C-130.

[@TonerLow]

The real multirole fighter lol

[@ryanquinn1257]

At this point easier to say what it can’t do lol

[@fortunatebum]

@@ryanquinn1257 fighter, trainer, and crop dusting.

[@ryanquinn1257]

@@fortunatebum Don’t they also get used in firefighting? Can we consider an extinguisher dump as crop dusting? Haha.

[@fortunatebum]

@@ryanquinn1257 well that’s just flat out fire fighting, I don’t think you’d want to use a crop duster for fire fighting. Those planes will just fall out of the sky.

[@teddyballgame4823]

This reminds me of when the USAF launched a Minuteman I ICBM from a C5 in 1974.

[@josephbeels1511]

USAF launched a MM III out of a C141B in 1975. It was called Air Mobile Feasibility Demonstration

[@Jermo7899]

Too bad it was scrapped

[@timestampterrysassistant7638]

I remember The Warzone article that first talked about Rapid Dragon. This is a gamechanger 🔥🔥🔥

[@3.9L_V8]

Pretty neat, this can practically convert any aircraft capable of carrying these pallets into a weapons delivery platform. It reminds me of China's idea to use their huge fleet of civilian Roll on/Roll off ferries to potentially transport armor and troops for a landing operation

[@Hungry_Box]

The idea of using RoRo ferries for troop transport, is definitely older than China's...British did it in WW1

[@3.9L_V8]

@@Hungry_Box I see, guess I am not too familiar with my history. Makes sense, given Britain's traditionally strong navy and their need to move from island to mainland (or from various territories around the world) when conducting war

[@rockychang7595]

@@Hungry_Box and yet it’s still something some analysts choose to ignore

[@ytsks]

Using civilian ferries for military purposes is far from innovative...

[@smileydag]

This would sink 64 ferries with ONE plane.

[@billcarruth8122]

Next Top Gun movie will be about Tom Cruise when he's 72 flying a cargo plane that drops pallets over the ocean. He can get safely back home in time to have his diaper changed and watch the explosions live on T.V.

[@frank6842]

Tom Cruise is literally a child

[@jameshall1300]

That is friggin awesome. Being able to drop those from any old cargo aircraft has to be worrying for any potential enemies. Instead of just bombers and fighters, now a rickety old c130 is a threat to any surface combatant ships that may be nearby. That has to massively change the threat landscape they have to plan for.

[@benz9063]

These are standoff missiles. They can be launched outside of air defense bubbles and strike targets 1000mi away. Just need F-35B/C or MQ-4C to provide targeting.

[@jameshall1300]

@@benz9063 I didn't think standoff missiles had that kind of range. I thought they were closer to the 100-250 mile range max, but I haven't looked at the new generation ones much at all. Most of my research goes into older stuff that I'm building replicas of for models.

[@benz9063]

​@@jameshall1300 AGM-158C could reach 1000mi with a smaller warhead, and upcoming AGM-158D could reach 1200mi.

[@S300V]

Why? You tought that the B52 was a survivable platform?! XD And like P3s and P8s didnt exist...

[@S300V]

@@benz9063 AGM158C is LRASM. It has a 300 nm range (555km). What you are saying was a proposal. JSSM XR is a future programe and its land attack.

[@MROJPC]

For those wondering why this capability is such a big deal… the USAF has the world’s biggest fleet of cargo aircraft. Standoff missiles have turned legacy airframes that would normally be considered obsolete like the B-52 into long range missile carriers opponents dread… Palletized cruise missiles that can be launched from a cargo plane turns every C-130 and C-17 into a strategic bomber. It turns our fleet of “airborne cargo trucks” into airborne missile carriers that can strike from distance that keep them safe from air defenses and with numbers to saturate opponents. This is a big deal. It’s a capability meant to deal with the threat and distance of the Pacific.

[@johnnycab8986]

What's the point though? The US has no shortage of aircraft that can deliver these before hand....and they are rolling out things like the Raider soon. Just more billions and billions of taxes spent for stuff that doesn't have a purpose.

[@quake2608]

@@johnnycab8986 The USAF has more Airlift Wings than Fighter/Bomber Wings. Allowing Airlift Wings to operate with more than 4 Air-to-Surface Missiles (iirc Rapid Dragon palletised bombs can have between 4 to 46 missiles). Allowing Airlift Wings the capability to send off JASSMs. Would you rather a F/A-18 which can carry 2-4 JASSMs or a C-17 that can carry upwards of 45? The USAF doesn't want to spend millions on reseach and development. The B-21 is being produced because they want to phase out the B-1 and B-2 and just combine it under one role, allowing less time and money spent on training on 2 different but similar platforms. Infact, the US is really SAVING MONEY by producing the B-21 and Rapid Dragon, allowing them to focus more on a singular or bi-platform bomber system (B-52 and B-21) and allowing Airlfit Wings to have more of a strategic purpose with Rapid Dragon. A massive thought also is that Rapid Dragon is cheap and disposable. It's just a pallet that can carry missiles. Better than creating a whole new attack aircraft that will take years if not decades to develop.

[@frank6842]

@@quake2608 it's not saving money if the money is just being used to bomb villages for heroin money. Literally a waste of taxpayers money

[@johnnycab8986]

@@quake2608 What's it matter that they have more Airlift than Fighter/Bombers? The US has a ton of Fighter/Bombers. What scenario is there where they would actually use these?

[@boatrat]

@@johnnycab8986 War with China, is the scenario. China's "A2/AD" strategy/capability, is the problem.

[@Ganiscol]

They looked at that old idea of launching a Minuteman from a C-5 Galaxy, dialed it down and made it a worthwhile thing. Think smaller!

[@nickmaclachlan5178]

They looked at having a 747 full of missiles before, not to mention fighters piggy backing on bombers for longer support rage etc...

[@Ganiscol]

@@nickmaclachlan5178 They actually launched that Minuteman from a Galaxy and saw, it was no good...

[@SargeRho]

"oh, it's just a C-5 Galax-" *explosions* "Where did our fleet go?!"

[@jollygreen4662]

So 60k feet in lower orbit on a remote c130 with automated refueling capability and adrino controlled pallet lock release and cargo area camera... its like a airborne himar launcher

[@nunyadambusiness6902]

Pretty damn much... & they can program these missiles so 1 can start pinging MULTIPLE signals so enemy AA thinks it's SEVERAL missiles coming in & they fire off every SAM they have to stop the attack. Once the sam sites are empty, a 2nd wave of missiles screams thru the gap & takes out the targets... If 1 sends a signal & acts like a flight of 5 or 6, you can send 4 or 5 & clear a big path for strikes to slip thru. Until the SAM sites are reloaded, all they can do is watch them scream thru the gap in the coverage... & the C-130s can carry at least 3 pallets of missiles - that means a longer bird like a c-141 can carry at least 4... That's a LOT of missiles coming at you... 😳🤯😳

[@grahamfloyd3451]

Can we snip these weird comments in the bud. Firstly, the altitude record of a C-130 is ~36,000 feet; add payload and extra fuel and it's lower. Secondly the word "lower orbit" cannot simply mean "in the sky" but fortunately Low Earth Orbit already has a standard definition. It also requires a velocity of 17,000 miles per hour to sustain.

[@nunyadambusiness6902]

@@grahamfloyd3451 good point, but 17k is hard to maintain. I was thinking more of just clearing a corridor & being done with it... 🤔🤔🤔...

[@Ryan_Christopher]

@@nunyadambusiness6902 USAF retired all our C-141 Starlifters a long time ago. Still have the C-5s and C-17s.

[@nunyadambusiness6902]

@@Ryan_Christopher oh, fk... I've been out for too long, 😆...

[@verdebusterAP]

The possibilities this system brings is endless for the USAF as well as the USMC

[@cagneybillingsley2165]

looks like we just discovered the thing that took out the nordstream pipelines

[@Ryan_Christopher]

@@cagneybillingsley2165 Air-Breathing Cruise Missiles aren’t torpedoes. And those Nordstream “pipelines” were thick solid concrete tubes.

[@andyr2203]

@@Ryan_Christopher you mean metal as there welded sections then lowered from a ship.

[@donaldduck3078]

Yeah you can bomb a lot of weddings with this bad boy! Probably vaporize a couple children

[@donaldduck3078]

@@Ryan_Christopher because explosives have never broken thick concrete 🤣

[@smileydag]

This is the scene in Red Storm rising when the Bear Bombers perform a popup and launch EVERYTHING at the US fleet but times 20.

[@robertsears8323]

Very cool.

[@USViper]

Fantastic weapons platform... they won't hear it coming until.... boom

[@bunnyfufu9933]

Yikes that's scary and cool

[@jadilsonalvesdasilva7192]

Grande força aeria Americana muito bom excelente profissional parabéns pelo vídeo que Deus abençoe sempre seu trabalho muito bom excelente 👏👏👏👏

[@angeloicaro661]

If US can drop an ICBM from a C5 an fly. This is just a childs play.

[@martinswiney2192]

All it needs now is Slim Pickens riding it out of the plane. Waaahooo!

[@masaharumorimoto4761]

Ya don't see that every day!!!!!!!!!!!! very neat!

[@acalisal]

That whale was a nuisance. Clean kill.

[@tomservo5007]

it's like a ballet in the sky, every step carefully choreographed

[@festerbestertester1658]

How is it carefully choreographed? It looks like they are just pushing a pallet out of the back of a plane.

[@tomservo5007]

@@festerbestertester1658 use your imagination , in the 20 or so, coordinated steps to get that 'push' and final impact , event, how many of those steps could happen out of order or be omitted ?

[@Nainara32]

Did the other 3 missiles in the rack launch too?

[@julwiezdeghorz5089]

Lately many new weapons being inducted to the military, but at the end of the day, war will end up nuking each other.

[@davidwolf226]

Can you say "Awesome"? I knew ya could!

[@masaharumorimoto4761]

I love freedom missiles :D

[@jonasjurga2481]

wow

[@MrSmith-cm2yo]

Imagine what they could do for the large deck Amphibious ships if they can get it to work on the osprey…F-35B Spotting and osprey dropping could be an awesome combination

[@fastsheep3964]

And the c130 dropped only one cruise missile. Imagine the c130 fully loaded of cruise missiles.

[@h.a.9880]

This is such a clever system. You turn a regular transport plane into a mighty weapon of war. Just imagine some large transport plane dropping 45 such cruise missiles in one go. Two or three planes can easily overwhelm defensive lines.

[@johnsutphin9400]

MC-130J far from a regular transport plane

[@h.a.9880]

@@johnsutphin9400 In terms of military transport planes, it is. 2.5k planes built over a timespan of more than 60 years.

[@johnsutphin9400]

@@h.a.9880 it's a gunship and only 37 have been built.

[@h.a.9880]

@@johnsutphin9400 1) The gunship variant uses the prefix "AC", not "MC". Also, there were intotal 59 of those, not 37. 2) The gunship variant isn't what drops these cruise missiles. These cruise missiles are dropped by transport planes that are capable of airdropping cargo. Do the gunship variants even have room for cargo? Turning transport planes into platforms to launch cruise missiles in large volume is the whole point of this system as I understand it.

[@morecowbell69]

Dude in the cargo bay better watch his step.

[@spockspock]

Someone else said it. Time to change it’s designation to b130.

[@nihilmiror6312]

Real advantage escapes me. 🤔

[@damnfunnychicken]

just build a helicarrier already -.- "die eierlegende wollmilchsau" xD

[@spyderfighter009]

Is this really a better platform than just firing JASSMs from F15/16/18?

[@bigvaxmeanie925]

It's a cheaper alternative method of firing mass numbers of cruise missiles turning all cargo planes into a bomber platform with a range of 575 miles without any modifications to the aircraft.

[@jtho8937]

It's a supplement to the dedicated combat platforms.

[@westcoaststacker569]

B52, B1, B2 etc... the cargo planes seem to be a last ditch choice but damn 3crates per c130 with a fleet of c130s that is a lot of firepower added to a situation. These could be used to follow up or lead another attack.

[@jwolf4948]

@@bigvaxmeanie925 Except that the C-130 is slower and has no chance of avoiding or fighting back against an enemy aircraft. You could literally shoot down a C-130 with a WW2 fighter and they can't do anything about it. The ONLY time these would be of any use from a C-130 is if the airspace is completely controlled and air defense systems are destroyed.

[@rolisreefranch]

@@jwolf4948 Just a waste of taxpayer money. It does nothing better or cheaper than other existing systems. Ridiculous really.

[@bramantyoprahoro7284]

Flying HIMARS?

[@hosswindu166]

Is this similar to how Daisy Cutters are delivered?

[@onyour6621]

That's one, what about the other three?

[@joshstiltner]

Hopefully I’m not the first person to suggest this: The AC-17, bigger, faster and better than the AC-130. Bigger aircraft means more and bigger guns to support SOF on target.

[@jasoncabral3831]

IIRC< the Air Force has plans to upscale the Rapid Dragon system to include bothe the C-17 and C05

[@tommyarnold890]

Bigger doesn't always mean better. You don't carve a turkey with a sword.

[@razbit]

air-Fn-born

[@prfwrx2497]

I'm just thinking. Once the Ukrainians finish rebuilding their An-225 Mriya and load them up with rapid dragons, such a configuration should be called the An-225 Koshmar. A fitting name, for it would have the biggest payload capacity of all bombers. (Mriya = dream, Koshmar = nightmare).

[@Oscar-ds2vb]

keep dreaming. doesnt matter who wins the war, ukraine is done for as a nation.

[@frank6842]

@@Oscar-ds2vb 🤣🤣🤣 in your dreams, until then more dead Russians

[@Oscar-ds2vb]

@@frank6842 like I said doesnt matter who wins. ukraine is destroyed. either NATO occupies it and turns it into LGBT globoh0m0 vassal state or Russia conquers it.

[@Gillymonster18]

Really cool idea, but makes me wonder why they don’t just deploy them directly from the back, instead of from one of these pallets (cut out the middle man, so to speak).

[@TheCol111]

Pretty much all modern transport infrastructure works around pallets, easy to load them in, easy to take them out, easy to deploy them if you know how to drop pallets already.

[@StephenAngelico]

I speculate that dropping them from a pallet might also make the launch harder for opposing radar to detect. AGM-158 being a low-observable missile, that leaves only the rocket motor ignition to detect (I've heard RWRs or CM packages can detect missile launches from a specific UV emission, but it's fairly short range, not BVR). It remains to be seen how many launches could be done this way but it would be interesting if multiple could be done together to take out a fleet of ships or a band of SAMs.

[@ironwolfF1]

@@StephenAngelico And it gives the delivery platforms time to 'be elsewhere' once the baddies get the slightest clue what's going on.

[@sadlerbw9]

Plenty of reasons. First, those missiles do still have a rocket motor to get them started before the turbine kicks in. You don't want to fire that off inside a cargo bay. Not only is hot gas bad for pretty much everything in there, it is also generally toxic for humans to breathe. Second, air-dropping pallets is a solved problem. It is the least risky way to get a missile (or anything really) out the back of a C-130 or C-17, because they are already designed and proven to do it. Third, it is really difficult, through radar, to tell what the hell this thing is. It's basically a big steel box that could be anything from a cargo pallet to a light infantry vehicle. There is nothing overtly dangerous-looking about a cargo aircraft dropping a big box out of the back, which gives the cargo plane more time to turn around and get away from danger before there is any indication that missiles are being launched. Also, I like your avatar. I'm a longtime Battletech player myself!

[@notmenotme614]

Or just launch it from a weapons pylon on a B-52

[@Holaaa325]

Why u kill sea species ?

[@watchthe1369]

I bet 747's can be rigged up for that.....

[@engchoontan8483]

What is the advantage of this method.?

[@timestampterrysassistant7638]

It turns cargo planes into drone ships

[@engchoontan8483]

@@timestampterrysassistant7638 non-recoverable drone is cheaper and more flexible as cruise-missiles(propeller, turbofan) launched from the same runway at the same range-distance as a (fully-loaded) C130.?

[@timestampterrysassistant7638]

@@engchoontan8483 You can carry more payload and less fuel, longer range, and attack the same area quickly without warning because its being dropped from inside a cargo plane

[@engchoontan8483]

@@timestampterrysassistant7638 wow... you can go ahead with that big and slow target in the sky while others can do the disposable turbofan-shaft to propeller to jettison propeller to burn gas-turbine blades of turbo-fan as turbojet using internal hypersonic-speeds at reducing-balance rotor-tips and remaining casing as ramjet-scamjet metal-explosive "rocket"-fuel... ranges of fuel economy for cruising extra-wide-bodied drone-missile with retractable wheel-set strength just enough for airbase runway take-off without landing. Swing wing of course. (Mitigation of Vulnerability, Liabilities, Effort, Manpower, Time-efficiency, Maintainence, ... cost-budgets, ...) Different folks, different strokes.

[@WSOJ3]

I’m sure very quickly there will be a Chinese equivalent of this.

[@RobinHood-yk8og]

Yeet

[@moosesnWoop]

I wonder why the payload, in this case cruise missiles, have to go down then up? I would have thunk that the payload would have been dropped horizontally (the box) and then launch like that, very weird to see the missile head out the bottom

[@griznatle]

Because this system is retrofitted into a cargo carrier platform. The system is made to be thrown out the back of a pallet transport.

[@moosesnWoop]

@@griznatle yeah... that can be clearly seen. Again, why launch out the bottom, towards the ground, instead of launching out the sides or top of the pallet? No where else is cruise missiles launched upside down.

[@griznatle]

@@moosesnWoop so, what other ways will the pallet be facing when its shoved out the back? The pallet will definitely not be horizontal......think that through

[@moosesnWoop]

@@griznatle yes it would, the parachute should be attached horizontally, so that the pallet would eject, volley and then settle i a horizontal or "regular" fashion. Here the parachute is attached to the side, so it cannot stabalise the pallet into a horizontal postion, but instead verticle. In this way, the top is blocked, so it has to eject downwards to the ground. That means, in order to carry out this sortie, the planes would need to fly at a high altitude to give the parachutes enough time to deploy, as well as enough clearance for the cruise missiles to eject and come back around to altitude.

[@moosesnWoop]

@@griznatle in other words, slide the pallet out the back regular, attach the parachute to the top. When it stabalises it will be in a 'regular' position and then the cruise missile launches horizontally outwards, rather than towards the ground.

[@scotthunter7140]

I’m asking the question because I don’t know. Why don’t they just fit them to the wings of the aircraft and it will take away all the risk of parachute not opening? Etc.

[@boatrat]

These are missiles that previously could only launch in exactly that manner. The point here is they're now deployable from any generic cargo plane, in potentially huge numbers, instead of in small numbers only from high-value bombers.

[@u.nforcesalx9892]

Shit like this worries me on wether the future of warfare is just deceptions galore

[@frank6842]

Are you high or something? Did you not realize that's what war is

[@JamesLaserpimpWalsh]

Cheers for the clip. This thing is genius. Any airforce in the world could operate the system. Gamechanger.

[@S300V]

That is allied with the US and gets the satellite targeting data. So behave!

[@hawkeyeten2450]

So wait...how is this thing powered? Turbofan engine? It doesn't seem to have much rocket power on it.

[@Gillymonster18]

“Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile.” At first I thought it was JSOW (Joint Standoff Weapon) which is a glide bomb, but apparently JASSM is a cruise missile with a turbofan engine.

[@caminhosdafloresta3365]

It was always a good idea, but now it's an even better idea for people interested in aviation to start taking some kind of drone piloting course because the platform and the way of launching can be increasingly technological, given the challenges by come over .A missile with such mobility can be a good wingman, making a pilotable missile is possible, ace combat and DCS are the trainers.

[@Frankestein01nl]

...and recruitment channels!

[@gastonbell108]

"start taking some kind of drone piloting course" 🤭 "ace combat and DCS are the trainers" 🤣🤣🤣 Son, please. Just go do your homework. Your mother and I promise we'll come get you if the President calls looking for a hero.

[@pliashmuldba]

Tell me they at least had a or two narco boats targeted, that would have been cool drug runner red mist

[@BaalAdvocate]

Seems kind of janky tbh. How well would this work in adverse weather? Also, would would you want a big, slow, unstealthy cargo plane within A2S missile range of an enemy target? If you already succeeded in SEAD, why wouldn't you use a conventional launch platform?

[@Fred-eg9sx]

Well when your missiles got 1900km range, you can drop hundreds of them beyond enemy fighter range.

[@S300V]

@@Fred-eg9sx These dont have that range...

[@MeanLaQueefa]

575 miles is far enough . The XR will be available in 2024

[@MROJPC]

Standoff Capability. It’s why 60-70 year old airframes like Xian H-6 (Tu-16) and specially B-52 are still dangerous threats to modern opponents.

[@jamesburleson1916]

This also forces an enemy to regard every previously harmless cargo plane as a potential threat. Saturation is how you get past missile defense systems, and the US has a crapload of older C-130s that now have to be counted as a possible threat. This could be as simple as just flying an empty plane around an adversaries fleet, making them think twice about doing shady stuff. If they open fire on it, the US can make a stink about shooting an unarmed transport aircraft, while still effectively threatening action.

[@bigal1863]

Are you watching Vladimir?

[@tommyarnold890]

Ok, I know it's a new toy and all but let's be realistic. Air launched cruise missiles have been around since the Cold War. It's not really that different.

[@boatrat]

It's the new crate thing to make it deployable in large numbers now from generic cargo aircraft, instead of previously firing one-at-a-time from only dedicated "Bomber" types, that is the big deal. The function of the individual missile itself, isn't even the point here.

[@tommyarnold890]

@@boatrat I guess that's impressive. I've seen so much dropped out of 130's this seems lackluster for all the oohs and aahs. Seems like a good start to something bigger and better but as it is now, a satellite link to a current cruise missile from a bomber would allow more than 4 launches. For instance a B-52 could carry 8 missiles on wing pylons and a bomb load. Meaning a single B-52 could hit SAM defenses from a distance and still drop bombs on a high priority target. Which you have to admit is considerably more impressive when you consider what a flight of 3 or 5 would be capable of.

[@cathiestubes2820]

Sorry, but i don't understand the need to use a cargo plane to drop a cruise missile. It seems that there is a lot more hardware involved in this method. Versus just bolt it to the 2 hardpoints on the bottom of a fighter or bomber. I mean why did we spend all that money on the fighter/bomber in the first place?

[@simonhouel1984]

You may want your fighters to be tasked to something else. That method brings a new plateform for delivering those JSSM which is always interesting in case of fighters availability problems.

[@jtho8937]

No such thing as too many launchers. Just because Russia turned out to be a big failure doesn't mean China will make the same mistakes. Bet Pooh's minions are hurrying to correct the shortcomings that Putler has exposed.

[@samreid6010]

Piggybacking off of Simon, you can also get more missiles in the air with one plane. Because it was a test, this only had one pallet, but you could fit three or four pallets in the cargo area depending on the plane. You’re using a plane specifically designed to carry as much as possible. While bombers and fighters have to sacrifice lift capacity for speed or survivability or stealth abilities, these trash haulers only have the one purpose. They don’t need to get anywhere near danger to deploy these

[@martinjrgensen8234]

A cargo plane can carry a lot more than a std fighter.

[@frank6842]

Da plane is bigger than tiny plane da plane carry more bombbys

[@milotura6828]

USAF: we love dropping bombs Rest of the world: Well kamikaze drones are better then bombs anyways USAF: ok hear me out we drop the drones like bombs.

[@victorynow1944]

And 4 we're dropped and only 1 launched successfuly?! This is effin stupid! Why did not all for missiles drop out?!

[@billparker244]

I don't think people understand the significance of this. This capability essentially turns our massive fleet of cargo/transport aircraft into standoff missile bombers like the B-52. In theory, you could strike a huge number of a large enemy country's vital targets all within a few hours. Certainly all of the necessary strategic targets prior to more vulnerable follow up strikes by other vehicles. Sadly, this might actually cause a lot of those B-52's to be decommissioned.

[@festerbestertester1658]

And while you're using your cargo planes to do a bomber's job, who's delivering the supply? FedEx?

[@russell7489]

Give this to Ukraine. No need to re fit fighter bombers to launch precision missiles when you can just drop em out the back of a cargo plane

[@alfredpeasant5980]

"Advanced technology" I want a refund.

[@fighterpilot5105]

Push button death...

[@lingen2193]

From an engineering perspective this is a horrible solution: A missile meant to be injected into level flight is launched pointing vertically downward which means the launch platform - a vulnerable cargo plane with huge radar cross section - has to fly at high altitude. Where it can be detected by radar hundreds of miles away. Why did they design it this way? Is the cargo plane to slow and/or create too much turbulences to inject the missile directly into aerodynamically stable level flight? Or was there not enough time or budget to design a launch system so they used something readily available (parachute cargo dropping system)?

[@frank6842]

I suspect the billions of dollars put into this program figured out this was a good idea.

[@michaelrenper796]

Change in doctrine driven by recent experience and confirmed by the war in Ukraine. 1) Air defenses are pretty good today. No airframe can loiter long and strike into enemy airspace. Stealth helps but is not perfect either. 2) Stand-off missiles are you best option. 3) When you can see it you can hit it. The airframes close the the frotn lines .e.g F35 are your eyes. Targets are commnicated back to opps 4) Any airframe can carry missiles. Opps fills in the target. In short: F35 are the eyes. Carry no weapons. The missile are fired hundreds of kilometers back out of enemy air defense range. Doesn't matter by which airframe.

[@lingen2193]

@@michaelrenper796 I think using cargo planes as a launch platform for cruise missiles is generally a good idea and I wasn't arguing against that. But the way they've implemented it still sucks for the reasons I stated above.

[@michaelrenper796]

@@lingen2193 You already gace the reason why they don't design this as an aerodynamic launch system. Its simpler that way, because it can be made modular and plugged into any transport plane, independent of the flight profile and flight direction. And I gave you the reason why this provides enought advantage to be worth the disadvantages. I think you may overestimate the advantages of launching a cruise missile or rocket directly into its flight path. There are two from my knowledge: 1) It makes inertial guidance more precise. This is of no relevance today when you have GPS for most of the flight. 2) It saves fuel and extends range. Compare this to lauching the same cruise missile or air defense missile from the ground a ship. There are lots of system which have both options. Ground launch takes even more fuel and sonsequently reduces range. But its still done, because a ground paltform is cheaper and more flexible than an air launch platform.

[@michaelrenper796]

@@lingen2193 I will give you another example that your intuition of what modern rockets/cruise missiles can do is out of date. Look up what the IRIS-T can do. The latest and best of short and medium range air defense. IRIS-T can be fired at a target BEHIND the aircraft! It will do a 180° turn based on its inertial navigation. Use a mechanically rotated seeker to lock on to the target as its 75° of axis and keep the lock while the tocket is turning 180° in a mere 3 seconds. Rockets and cruise missiles today do not need to fly in straight lines. Any maneuvre costs range, thats it for disadvantages.

[@whosonfirst1309]

After watching the collapse of the Russian army in Ukraine and seeing the stuff that we know about that we supplied the Ukrainians I don’t think we ever wasted a single dollar on the U.S. military. Those GD 600.00 screwdrivers and 700.00 dollar toilet seats went to something cool.

[@TheStol]

do you guys remember the "tic-tac" incident and how insanely fast the vehicle supposed to be? looks familiar?

[@johnsutphin9400]

bad take

[@frank6842]

Pilots not the smartest bunch. Good with their hands but don't give them a lot to think about

[@wiesenbefeuchter]

Why from a cargo plane ?

[@Jamiro11lol]

The USAF had a huge fleet of transportation aircraft ranging from c130's (pictured above) to huge c5 galaxies. With this system every cargoplane could be turned into a long range bomber, capable of striking deep behind the lines without itself flying into contested airspace. Saving the limited number of B52's, B1B's, B-2's and soon B21's for strategic capabilities. Also, because of the massive numbers of cargo aircraft the rapid dragon system(pictured above) is the more attritable option. Losing a single B52 costs millions of tax-payer dollars, and hurts the strategic nuclear capability of the USAF. Losing a dozen C130's hardly impacts the USAF capability at all, at a quarter the cost

[@TheAlmostHarmless]

@@Jamiro11lol You're like 95 percent correct here, but cargo aircraft are way more expensive than you'd think. The MC-130J, at ~115 million per unit, in this video is actually more expensive than a B-52, which is about 85 million. The standard C-130J is about 80 million per unit, which is basically what an F-35 costs per unit nowadays. The US has so many because while fighters and bombers are important, logistics is what wins wars. If you look at how the US military is holistically structured, it's about 10 percent fighting units, and 90 percent support and logistics. This system takes advantage about another 5ish percent of the specialized logistics like the MC-130.

[@TheAlmostHarmless]

@@rael5469 Thats not correct. The price per unit for the F-35A model is about 80 million, the B model is about 102 million, and the C model is about 95 million.

[@TheAlmostHarmless]

@@rael5469 Again, you're not correct. I'm literally a pilot in the Air Force. I'm very familiar with what they cost.

[@pauldarling330]

So why are we keeping B52s?

[@Trve_Kvlt]

Because the B52 is a dedicated strategic bomber. The point of the rapid dragon system is to allow for operational flexibility. So while the B52s are out flying long range missions and hitting infrastructure (which is what they're designed to do), you load up C-130s, C-17s and/or C-5s with the Rapid Dragon system for mass attacks against point targets. And Rapid Dragon is going to be significantly cheaper than running B52s, B2s, B1s and the likes. And if you detect a C-17 dropping a pallet out of its ass with radar, the first thought isn't going to be that that C-17 is dropping weapons, but if you detect a B52 you can be very certain that it's doing a combat mission.

[@pauldarling330]

@@Trve_Kvlt But we already have b2s and B1s. We aren't sending 1000 plane raids over schweinfurt anymore. The only mission the B52 has left in any contested airspace is ALCM. And in uncontested airspace who gives a fuck?

[@S300V]

@@Trve_Kvlt B52s dont just do strategic missions and I dont see how this isnt strategic! Not going to use a jssm for close air support for sure. A P8 or P3 is cheap to run and they could fire cruise missiles! Yes they wont think its an attack, until the second time... Than they shoot every c130... Not a difficult task. I mean the buff is not a hard target, but it has at least ecm and can fly 650 mph at 50kft.

[@frank6842]

@@S300V I don't think that's all, that's actually going to happen and it's just going shooting down every cargo plan they see

[@S300V]

@@frank6842 I think this is a crap system. Like conditions are always so perfect and even here you could see : ooo is it going to hit the floor... Ooo... This is BS.

[@richardroberson9277]

pushing a crappy pallet, then then pushes a rocket. outthe back of a plane....wut? ya cant just yeet themissle itself out with a drogue and have it turn on. why the middle step even

[@frank6842]

Join the USAF and find out

[@weirdshibainu]

I'd like to sell these to Russia and China. Make a few bucks on the side

[@MarcusAurelius7777]

First

[@randys617]

Maybe it is just me, but why do we need to spend money on R&D for launching cruise missiles out of C130s or any transport aircraft when we have close to 2,000 fighters and bombers in the U.S. inventory. And that does not include several thousand aircraft of our allies. Someone needs to focus defense spending on shit we really need.

[@Xenophon1]

IMHO-Because in the Pacific, China can suppress our main air bases with missile barrages/chemical weapons. This capability would allow transport aircraft from secondary airfields or far off areas to continue the fight. The military has also experimented with shoot and scoot tactics with air transports landing a missile vehicle, launching, reloading on the plane, and leaving the air strip. The USMC has launched anti-ship missiles from their vehicles on the deck of an amphibious assault ship as well.

[@acidpilled8733]

China and Russia have hypersonic technology while we are spending billions on a program to drop our slow cruise missiles out of a cargo plane. Bruh...

[@barrygrant2907]

It's not how fast they hit you, it's what they hit you with.

[@acidpilled8733]

@@barrygrant2907 they can hit us with nuclear weapons even more advanced than ours

[@fartnutssupreme4930]

It really doesn’t matter that much at this point. And we do have hypersonic missiles that have been successfully tested, we just keep things more secret than russia or China does. Also fine, russia will shoot off a few….then be out of them and have no money or way of making more. And nuke speeds don’t much matter. They launch a nuke and it’s world over for us all anyway (including them). Remember hypersonic weapons aren’t a strategic weapon anyway.

[@martinjrgensen8234]

The US has had hypersonic tech for years and years. They just dont brag about it. For each thing they show they are testing, they have several they don’t tell you about until it lands in your lap and goes BOOM.

[@stuarthamilton5112]

No they don't. That's all for show, all of it. Neither Russia nor China have the SCRAM jet technology to deploy air breathing hypersonic weapons. Literally, any time China and Russia say, "we have this thing," you can pretty much guarantee yourself they don't. Everything those two countries do is for propaganda. Meanwhile, on April 5th this year we actually did successfully test a hypersonic cruise missile. A real one, that has two competing designers for its SCRAM jet: Boeing and Lockheed. Raytheon is also a contributing contractor. It goes about mach 8, which is a realistic hypersonic velocity at which a craft can maneuver. At one point Russia claimed its Zircon boost glide vehicle could do like mach 25, but that's re-entry velocity, literally the speed at which the space shuttle typically re-entered the atmosphere. Nothing maneuvers at that speed, the airflow over the control surfaces is so laminar it might as well be solid rock. The Russian and Chinese governments and their respective militaries are literally built on lies. Trust the West.

[@HWFlussy]

You should be drop hundreds of these against the russian. might make putzin wake from his deluded dream.

[@gm7304]

Hello Everyone I'm the new guy this looks like my kinda place I hope this subscription satisfies my 1 and only "War Tooth" I'm all old 🪖🦷 🧙‍♂