PC/WI: Joint services E-4/Looking Glass/TACAMO aircraft.?

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
From what I've gathered in the Cold War the US had a fleet of 16 TACAMO's, 16 Looking Glass and a further 6 E4B's aka Doomsday Planes.

What if the US decided to fund a fleet of 32/36 multi role aircraft that could do all three missions possibly based on a 747 platform in the same way as the J-STARS?

Would this work? . . . as it would technically be a force multiplier.

Regards filers
 
Sort of but not really. The original TACAMO's were communication relay aircraft rather true airborne command stations, so they were lacking a lot of the equipment that the E4B's and the EC-135's had. So while the other two aircraft could act as relays they couldn't act as command stations, which of course made them cheaper. It was only with the E-6 that they became full command stations. So to go back to the cold war era I think the optimum would be maybe 20 "full fat" airborne joint command stations alongside 20 cheaper relay planes. You would have the same or slightly great capability but much less cost.
 
Sort of but not really. The original TACAMO's were communication relay aircraft rather true airborne command stations, so they were lacking a lot of the equipment that the E4B's and the EC-135's had. So while the other two aircraft could act as relays they couldn't act as command stations, which of course made them cheaper. It was only with the E-6 that they became full command stations. So to go back to the cold war era I think the optimum would be maybe 20 "full fat" airborne joint command stations alongside 20 cheaper relay planes. You would have the same or slightly great capability but much less cost.
I seem to recall that there were several roles for the EC135's in this context:

-Command post (ie. looking glass)

-line of site UHF communication relay (ie. Post attack command and control system ?)

-minute man ICBM launch control (I believe via line of site radio links to the missile silos in question ?)

-I may be missing some others :)

I'm not convincing almagmating all these roles along with the TACAMO role into one air craft would have made sense during the Cold War. I seem to recall SAC also kept EC135 air craft on alert at multiple locations so they would be close to where they would be needed, so there may have been a hard lower limit on the number of air frames that were needed ? (To be transperant I am also not 100 percent sure if there were different EC135 variants for each role but I suspect the alert basing requirements may have been important re air frame numbers ?)

During the Cold War SAC also considered the Looking Glass mission to be of paramount importantance. I have my doubts that the USAF would been keen to let go of it much earlier than they did. (I recall an account of an interview of a SAC General that basically said if the airforce could only afford one air craft it would be the looking glass air craft.)

Edit to add:
-My understanding is that SAC kept a looking glass aircraft on airborne alert on a 7x24 basis during the Cold War. I suspect this would further increase the number of air frames that were needed. Once this airborne alert requirement ended I can see a smaller number of common larger aircraft making more sense.
 
Last edited:
While you could have used a common basic airframe, the needs of each aircraft were different - those which had the TACAMO role needed equipment to hold and reel out/in the long antenna which their trailed to communicate with subs, the "presidential" aircraft had different needs from the command post version etc. The reel mechanism and the antenna for TACAMO were a significant weight penalty, which means less other payload for the same airframe. The original TACAMO were modified C-130s. The aircraft might look pretty similar on the outside (think of how many US aircraft are based on the 707 or 747) but the interior quite different based in the mission.
 
While you could have used a common basic airframe, the needs of each aircraft were different - those which had the TACAMO role needed equipment to hold and reel out/in the long antenna which their trailed to communicate with subs, the "presidential" aircraft had different needs from the command post version etc. The reel mechanism and the antenna for TACAMO were a significant weight penalty, which means less other payload for the same airframe. The original TACAMO were modified C-130s. The aircraft might look pretty similar on the outside (think of how many US aircraft are based on the 707 or 747) but the interior quite different based in the mission.
True but it is my understanding that post Cold War the E6B has taken on most of the roles that the C130 TACAMO and the relevant EC135's did during the Cold War.

I believe the E4 also plays a role as well.
 
Last edited:
Probably difficult to build a multi-role airframe early on .... considering the weight, cost and complexity of specialized equipment.
The RCAF tried to do that repeatedly and every time they ended up with a heavy, complex, expensive airframe that was years late entering service and mediocre at two or three roles, but good at none of the roles.
 
@riggerrob : My suggestion, as opposed to one aircraft for all three roles is to use a common airframe - but three different variants based on the mission, a fair amount of commonality in engines, etc.
 
Top