DARPA "Mission Truck" for F35

I thought that's what the B1s were being modified for as missile trucks..defensetech.org...

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: nelloh62

They saw this and said.

Heeeeeeeey

Well when FUSION reactors become perfected you might see a hovering aircraft carrier.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
I thought that's what the B1s were being modified for as missile trucks..defensetech.org...

I hope the project doesn't become as painful as IBS!

I have really liked the Bomb truck idea for years, not just the F35 but imagine the Apache Longbow or some futuristic FAC designator similar to it, sneak in a small squad of SF to set up an OP, lase 90 targets, thinking Russian tank formations rolling into Kiev, 2 x B1 come in and fire off 90 cruise missiles which fly until about a mile out then use the SF laser/gps coordinates from that system to constantly update navigation onto target.

a reply to: Forensick

The B-1R never went past the paper stage.

a reply to: nelloh62

Submarines in space eh? They prob have them lol

a reply to: EA006

Who do you think would be the best branch to build military spacecraft?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: EA006

Who do you think would be the best branch to build military spacecraft?

The new space plane looks like a space sub?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick

The B-1R never went past the paper stage.

But something else might have???

Never heard of B-1r so thanks for the heads up.

I was thinking more ALCM though.

a reply to: Forensick

That's the B-52 mission now. It can't penetrate front line defenses, until they've been degraded significantly, so it's a missile truck.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So is this concept a re-emergence of the B-1r requirement but on a separate platform? If the B-52 does this already, why is DARPA asking for a new one?

Thanks

a reply to: Forensick

Because a B-52 can't keep up with an F-35 package. You don't need a missile truck that has to stand off 200 miles outside a country, and lob long range missiles. You need something that can go in with a strike package, or at least part of the way in with them, launch its payload, and get back out again.

The B-1R was redesigned, on paper, with F136 engines, AESA radar, and an obscene number of AIM-120D missiles. This would incorporate those systems, as well as be able to launch UAVs, and cruise missiles, and keep up with the F-35s without giving the package away.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick

Because a B-52 can't keep up with an F-35 package. You don't need a missile truck that has to stand off 200 miles outside a country, and lob long range missiles. You need something that can go in with a strike package, or at least part of the way in with them, launch its payload, and get back out again.

The B-1R was redesigned, on paper, with F136 engines, AESA radar, and an obscene number of AIM-120D missiles. This would incorporate those systems, as well as be able to launch UAVs, and cruise missiles, and keep up with the F-35s without giving the package away.

So SOMEONE was a fan of ROBOTECH and the MISSILE MASSACRE huh?

a reply to: yuppa

They couldn't launch more than a few at a time. But unlike, say an F-22, they also don't have to worry about running out, when you can carry over 100 missiles.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: yuppa

They couldn't launch more than a few at a time. But unlike, say an F-22, they also don't have to worry about running out, when you can carry over 100 missiles.

True. now imagine If they could launch half or more at one time and track each one individually.

Missile tech needs to get them smaller and faster with a more advanced sensor package..They planned the F15 as a missile truck back in the late 70,s and 80,s but back then they were Sparrows and Sidewinders or Mavericks for ground attack.Hellfire was the next best thing but relegated them to Helo ops as the Soviet threat dissipated with the fall of the Berlin wall.

a reply to: yuppa

There's no computer system in the world, capable of fitting onto an aircraft that could keep up with that much data, and still fly the aircraft.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: yuppa

There's no computer system in the world, capable of fitting onto an aircraft that could keep up with that much data, and still fly the aircraft.

True. but is there a way to do such a job if its divided up between aircraft such as a advanced AWACS or in concert with AEGIS support?

a reply to: yuppa

Only if you don't want either of them to do nothing else BUT missile guidance.

a reply to: Bedlam

Right now seems like a perfect example.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Maybe if you did divide the workload, you would need as little in the missile to make them as cheap as possible but you 'could' run their smaller computers faster as they only need to survive a few minutes and have a great coolant whizzing past them.

F-35 is tracking enemy movements and feeding back to bomb truck.

Bomb truck fire control computers is making sense if all data and doing whatever it does.

So 3 computers not one?

Anyway, I'm only pushing ideas, I'm a commercial person who did asset management for a few years!