Why dont we launch planes like we do missiles?

So I was thinking.

Why dont we have mobile launchers that shoot planes and drones like we do missile launchers?

Cant a jet be put onto a truck with a missile under it or around it?

As a defensive measure,
It may need a runway to land, but why cant we have jets ready to launch directly at incoming threats like a SAM site does?

It doesnt even have to be a new type of scram jet. Cant we design a missile platform that houses various sized aircraft and breaks away safely from the plane after launch?

Or a reusable electromagnetic catapult system like those being designed for aircraft carriers. Make it launch a break away tube with a plane inside that takes the stress off the aircraft while its launched.

Getting a pilot inside is just a matter of an access hatch. If not just launch a half dozen drones from a missile. Same concept.

Just a thought.

Have a good one.

That would be a bit of a jolt to the pilot. Aircraft carriers come closest to what you are suggesting, but they still need some room to launch.

Just for you


Luftwaffe Starfighter
On the rail

F-100 on mobile rail

a reply to: tadaman

They used to experiment with that stuff in the 50s and 60s I think.
JATO or RATO.....jet or rocket assisted take off or zero length launch.
I believe they still use it to some degree to help with takeoffs on shorter runways.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I got to see this once.


Cool and quite hilarious, actually.

a reply to: schuyler

True but the pilot could fly his missile and break away from it over his target. If nothing else put a couple drones in it.

All radar, guidance and everything else for the missile could be from the jet or drone inside saving space and complexity

The missile I am thinking of is just an engine with a cargo hold in front.

a reply to: tadaman

True but the pilot could fly his missile

Could he stay awake under 20G or so?

a reply to: Phage

It could slow down after launch you know.

EDIT TO ADD:
Also, it could just be under a 10 second flight until sufficient speed and altitude is gained for the plane to recover from after break away.

a reply to: tadaman

Yes, but the Gs occur at launch.

a reply to: Phage

All missiles launch at 20 Gs?

How do astronauts survive the trip up?

If it requires something to launch it first place, then it's as useless as the launcher itself. Plus it is a waste of fuel blasting off like a missile.

We don't launch racing cars with slingshots do we?

a reply to: RadioRobert
a reply to: RazorV66

Thats awesome! Why dont we use these types of systems instead of airbases everywhere?!

Whats the downside that makes this so unappealing?

a reply to: tadaman

All missiles launch at 20 Gs?

Oh, no. They go up to more than 100G.

How do astronauts survive the trip up?

That's about 3G. But as has been pointed out, there are JATO launches. That C130 was pulling about 2G.

a reply to: tadaman

Why dont we use these types of systems instead of airbases everywhere?!

It's hard to land without a runway. If you have a runway, why bother with that extra stuff?

No need with VTOL like on the harrier and some F35's. there are helicopters as well.

a reply to: Phage

Why bother?!

You could have one runway for a fleet of launchers spread throughout a region. Your planes can never be attacked together and your enemy can not determine your exact disposition.

Now you need a city to service fleets and house personnel. You could have command and control centers with recovers runways. You could also have recovery runways spread around the world in more numbers than you could with entire air bases.

You could also improvise recovery locations on the fly. That would really throw an enemy off center. Aircraft's range suddenly becomes a little more arbitrary. One way tickets could be to another launcher parked and ready by an improvised recovery runway.

a reply to: tadaman

Your planes can never be attacked together and your enemy can not determine your exact disposition.

We tend to keep our aircraft parked quite far from harms way and well defended. Always have.

Now you need a city to service fleets and house personnel.

And that system requires less maintenance? How so?

Your aircrafts range suddenly becomes a little more arbitrary.

Arial refueling offers many opportunities.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Phage

All missiles launch at 20 Gs?

How do astronauts survive the trip up?

Apples and oranges. I thought you meant launching a fighter from a standing position. The sudden jolt would be unsustainable by the pilot. Besides, why not just use a VTOL aircraft? Doesn't the F-35 have a VTOL variant? And, of course, we have had the Harrier for many years.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tadaman

Arial refueling.

Good one, Phage.

a reply to: Phage

We tend to keep our aircraft parked quite far from harms way

And it takes time to react and send them INTO harm's way. This would allow them to be safe while closer to harm's way. It would allow to attack using more dynamic tactics. Things will evolve anyways. Why not get good at evolving?

These systems could get service via mobile technicians and support fleets that take the existing personnel and has them go to their planes for service.

Arial refueling.

You once said it yourself. Tankers arent stealthy. We fly big now because there is no threat that hits the big and slow Hindenburgs. Aerial refueling acts like watering holes for feeding crocodiles. If you know where our tankers are you then know where our planes WILL be at some point. Not great you know.