ACH: Boeing 747 CMCA

Right. The premise sounded promising enough: gut the commercially available, and widely utilized 747, and replace the innards with around 100 long-range munitions. By using the 747-200C, nose loaded version, the nose cone is simply opened, and pre-loaded racks are just rolled right in.
Meanwhile, the upper hump becomes a limited command and control center. With huge range, massive payload (evidently 4 times the cruise missile capacity of the B-52), and low cost of entry due to the commercially available frame, it seems like it would have been a brilliant idea.
Likely even more so now, with GPS guided munitions, and smaller munition options than the AGM-86. The thing could simply loiter over combat areas, at high altitude, with drones providing intel at lower altitudes; dropping what is needed when, and where.

But would it really have been all it was cracked up to be?
Thoughts?


jqpnexme8siuimsknw4a.jpg


B-747cruise1.jpg
 

Delta Force

Banned
That concept would have involved putting too many weapons on one delivery system. Having the same number of weapons on more aircraft would make a more survivable deterrent and provide more operational flexibility.
 
747 would be better for air-launching cruise missiles. More fuel-efficient than B-52 and a fraction of the cost of launching them from submarines.
 
That concept would have involved putting too many weapons on one delivery system. Having the same number of weapons on more aircraft would make a more survivable deterrent and provide more operational flexibility.
I think the point was that there were/are few other systems that can offer the same range, payload, and littoral capability as the 747; and not for the same price. Combine that with the value associated with a widely used, commercially available air-frame; it seems like it might not be a bad idea; even if it is a bit over-kill. But then, wasn't that the name of the '80's? :p
And it would seem to be a logical follow on to the B-52; cheaper, more efficient, greater payload, etc.
And the BUFF is still very much in use as a cruise missile platform...

747 would be better for air-launching cruise missiles. More fuel-efficient than B-52 and a fraction of the cost of launching them from submarines.
That's what I thought; a more efficient, cheaper, and heavier-lifting airframe... why not?
 

NothingNow

Banned
That concept would have involved putting too many weapons on one delivery system. Having the same number of weapons on more aircraft would make a more survivable deterrent and provide more operational flexibility.

Also, deploying that many missiles, and ditching their rotary launchers would have caused severe Center of Gravity problems.

If there were anything actually suited for the task, it'd be something that would let you have the center of gravity stay very close to the center of lift, and ideally be somewhere below it, so that the two come close together as the payload is deployed, instead of shifting up and aft.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Also, deploying that many missiles, and ditching their rotary launchers would have caused severe Center of Gravity problems.

If there were anything actually suited for the task, it'd be something that would let you have the center of gravity stay very close to the center of lift, and ideally be somewhere below it, so that the two come close together as the payload is deployed, instead of shifting up and aft.

Also, how are the missiles supposed to be launched if they are loaded through the front cargo door? Are there launch bays somewhere in the fuselage?
 
Also, how are the missiles supposed to be launched if they are loaded through the front cargo door? Are there launch bays somewhere in the fuselage?

If I remember correctly, the missiles were to be launched through an ejector on the right side of the tail. Fig 1 of the drawing above showed where it was supposed to be.
That, I believe the racks could be moved about internally to prevent CoG issues.
 
There is a very good precedent for this sort of thing

The DH Comet was turned into the Nimrod the most heavily armed maritime Patrol aircraft and the latest Boeing P-8 Poseidon is a modified 737 capable of carrying the latest ASW and AsuW weaponry.

As for this 747 Idea - I think its too complex

A better idea would be to fit Pylons under the wings (say 2 per wing) and a modest Rotating bomb bay (or 2) around the COG (or a close to it as possible) - they could be side by side given the size of the plane.

That's probably 18 - 24 Tomahawk type weapons (or smaller) right there

Plenty of room for ECM, Counter measure launchers and sensors etc
 
It could be painted to look like a commercial flight with a fake flight plan, take off record etc. and then used as a sneak first strike and run .
 
It could be painted to look like a commercial flight with a fake flight plan, take off record etc. and then used as a sneak first strike and run .

But what can a B-52 not do of that? As soon as your off of commercial air routings, if you are anywhere near the enemy's radar coverage they will notice, at which point your no better off than the B-52, and while a B-52 is not a fighter, I suspect it would easily cover a 747 in terms of maneuverability.
 
But what can a B-52 not do of that? As soon as your off of commercial air routings, if you are anywhere near the enemy's radar coverage they will notice, at which point your no better off than the B-52, and while a B-52 is not a fighter, I suspect it would easily cover a 747 in terms of maneuverability.

Think he was thinking along the lines of using the commercial routes to help in the attack. You can't have a B-52 fly over the capital of your enemy without arousing suspicion but a commercial jet using the proper airways? Perfect for a sneak attack,
 

Delta Force

Banned
Think he was thinking along the lines of using the commercial routes to help in the attack. You can't have a B-52 fly over the capital of your enemy without arousing suspicion but a commercial jet using the proper airways? Perfect for a sneak attack,

If the military uses commercial aircraft as nuclear bombers and operates them on civilian airline routes, the number of airline shootdown incidents during the Cold War would likely increase. It might not even be deliberate, there have been a few incidents in which training exercises (Ukraine shooting down an Israeli airliner in the 1990s) or air skirmishes (Italian airliner shot down during a skirmish between NATO and Libyan aircraft) ended in airliners being brought down by missiles. That's before you get into actual border incursions such as the Korean airliner incident.
 
But what can a B-52 not do of that? As soon as your off of commercial air routings, if you are anywhere near the enemy's radar coverage they will notice, at which point your no better off than the B-52, and while a B-52 is not a fighter, I suspect it would easily cover a 747 in terms of maneuverability.
747's are plenty maneuverable...
Well, as maneuverable as a massive pig could be. Heck, they're even used as fire bombers.

But I don't think the original concept was ever intended to be used as a sneak-in/close-quarters munitions truck. Rather, it was intended to be a long-range, stand-off, cruise missile platform. Something that can fly across an ocean and a continent, drop a load of missiles at multiple targets from 1,000 miles away, then get home again.
Basically, along the same lines as the Ohio class SSGN's... only from the air, and from even farther away.

Yes, that's a real pic.
fire3.jpg
 

Riain

Banned
Firstly, that firebomber looks to be discharging that retardant from a central point near the CoG, and the tanks would empty evenly. This would not be the case for a CMCA.

How would the 747 CMCA fit into arms limitation treaties such as SALT and SALT II, given that SAC also wanted a bomber to penetrate to the target to drop gravity bombs, fire SRAMs as well as launch ALCMs?
 
Firstly, that firebomber looks to be discharging that retardant from a central point near the CoG, and the tanks would empty evenly. This would not be the case for a CMCA.

How would the 747 CMCA fit into arms limitation treaties such as SALT and SALT II, given that SAC also wanted a bomber to penetrate to the target to drop gravity bombs, fire SRAMs as well as launch ALCMs?

Strategic Bomber were not part of SALT I who concentrate on ICBM and SLBM systems.
SALT II Limited the numbers of cruise missile carry on B-1 and B-52 bomber to 28 units

now the term "bomber" could be used as Loophole in treaty with 747 CMCA defined as "Launch Platform"
although SALT II brought end to CMCA project and other mad ideas (like digging tunnels of thousands miles and drive ICBM in it)

Another interesting fact on 747 CMCA was brought up by Robert and Rudolf Das (futurologist from Netherlands)
they had study in 1980s the concept and came to conclusion that CMCA camouflage as Cargo airliner would make difficult for enemy to hit direct.
and surpass capability of Enemy to attack ALL aircraft in air, efficiency in first strike, while the CMCA launch there cruise missile to enemy
Also they advice to double the Range of cruise missile, so CMAC could launch from international Airspace out side Enemy reach.
 
It could be painted to look like a commercial flight with a fake flight plan, take off record etc. and then used as a sneak first strike and run .

I was thinking more about the operating costs of using a design with near complete commonality of parts with the commercial 747.

I would imagine that this would be cheaper to run than a fleet of aging B52s?

And as for suprise attacks a B52 (other aircraft designs are available) can insert into an air stream with a 'civilian flight plan' and squawking as a civilain airliner - its only going to be spotted if another aircraft closes with it - and if its at night possibly not even then.
 
Launching munitions out the nose of a modified 747 is a non-starter for numerous aerodynamic reasons. Take a look at the 737 replacement for the P3 to get an idea how the airplane would actually have to be modified.

747 airframes as eventual replacements for the KC-10 Tanker do have some good points though the 777 is probably closer to the right size airframe.
 
I was thinking more about the operating costs of using a design with near complete commonality of parts with the commercial 747.

I would imagine that this would be cheaper to run than a fleet of aging B52s?


And as for suprise attacks a B52 (other aircraft designs are available) can insert into an air stream with a 'civilian flight plan' and squawking as a civilain airliner - its only going to be spotted if another aircraft closes with it - and if its at night possibly not even then.
This is one of the major reasons the idea originally gained traction.

Launching munitions out the nose of a modified 747 is a non-starter for numerous aerodynamic reasons. Take a look at the 737 replacement for the P3 to get an idea how the airplane would actually have to be modified.

747 airframes as eventual replacements for the KC-10 Tanker do have some good points though the 777 is probably closer to the right size airframe.
No one was suggesting launching munitions through the nose of the aircraft. They would be loaded through the factory built, opening nose cone, but launching would be done through a portal near the tail, as can be seen in both the pics above, as well as here:

tx1io4jytoa3bsal608x.jpg
 
Top