Why no Airliner Missile Launchers?

I seem to recall the ASALM (a longer range successor to the SRAM that never entered service) reportedly was intended to have at least some air to air functionality.
That was likely going to be some sort of nuclear area weapon which was intended to proximity kill Russian AWACS. Of course the Russian AWACS was not that effective.
 
The operative word is "escorts". OP is about an airliner converted to a missile truck. Which, in essence, it's an AWACS with a missile bay. Remove the escorts and we have AWACS vs Mig-31, and that outcome is clear: The migs will be able to detect the AWACS' radar at twice the range the AWACS can detect them and, given similar missiles, will have a range advantage over the AWACS when it comes to firing them.
The idea of 747's carrying AIM's is silly, for the obvious reasons you suggest. I was talking about the problem with the current fear of hostile fighters taking out AWACS aircraft. It won't be that easy for the enemy to do that. The only technical point I'll disagree with you on is a MIG-31 wouldn't detect an E-3 at twice the range it would detect them. It's power output, and the curvature of the earth would prevent that.
 
I'm not a fan, but have never seen it explored and put to bed.

The fact of the matter is government's don't buy weapons and platforms on a whim, it is looked at very closely by smart, diligent people. If airliner missile trucks were good they'd be in service.
IMHO had there been a political perception of a more credible Soviet Nuclear threat during the cold war era, then the US likely would have found the money for dedicated air liner or air transport type air craft carrying long range nuclear missiles (and probably funded a number of other systems as well.)
 
Last edited:
Interesting that you should say that ICBMs cant be used for tactical strikes, perhaps that is the case, however the US and UK have moved to arm their SLBMs with lower yield warheads for precisely the use in tactical strikes where the higher hundreds of kiloton warheads would be overkill. If you envisage a "demonstration of intent" type strike, like retaliating against a North Korean attack on Seoul with nuclear weapons say, then a SLBM or ICBM is possible, infact potentially preferable to a nuclear cruise missile. Perhaps time a time sensitive leadership target that requires a prompt nuclear response, that would favour a ballistic missile over a cruise missile. on two counts, speed of response and higher chance of penetrating air defences compared to CM. I am aware some peer nations have a ABM capability , but that's a different scenario to the one I outlined. If your talking about a wider theatre nuclear conflict then nuclear ALCMs are useful but they are not great against certain hardened targets, C3M bunkers or missile silos for example.
It's more that one missile is deployed with only a single warhead; the W76, and it's British 'Holbrook' clone, and W88 have the option to detonate without the fusion stage and even without the tritium boost for the primary.
 
It's more that one missile is deployed with only a single warhead; the W76, and it's British 'Holbrook' clone, and W88 have the option to detonate without the fusion stage and even without the tritium boost for the primary.
Ah ok thanks that was a point i didnt understand , thank you
 
IMHO had there been a political perception of a more credible Soviet Nuclear threat during the cold war era, then the US likely would have found the money for dedicated air liner or air transport type air craft carrying long range nuclear missiles (and probably funded a number of other systems as well.)

In that situation the US would be more likely to buy more conventional fighters and bombers because they're more suited to the roles. I think the missile truck airliner idea wilts in the face of close scrutiny.
 
The Russians in particular have been working on very long range missiles intended to kill AWACS since the 1980's. Building a big missile with enough range is doable, the real killer is having a method of actually hitting the target at the required ranges, they are looking at missiles with ranges of 300+ miles. However these would need to hit a target which is moving in 3 dimensions with heavy ECM support, so far at least no one has acknowledged deploying such weapons,
Why go for the kill when you can just make it switch off? Anti radiation guidance is a fairly old concept.
 
Why go for the kill when you can just make it switch off? Anti radiation guidance is a fairly old concept.

I once read in one of those Cold War WW3 books that NATO got an E3 up on day 2 to bring order to the air battle. The Soviets kept attacking it and it had to divert attention from the air battle to save it's own skin. If the stakes are high enough such simple short term degradation of the AWACS coverage might be a worthwhile outcome.
 
The only use I could see for an AAM equipped airliner would be to operate as a high endurance defense against bombers and cruise missiles in areas that are out of range of fighter escort
I will probably be more efficient to design a dedicated aircraft then use a passenger airliner
 
IMHO had there been a political perception of a more credible Soviet Nuclear threat during the cold war era, then the US likely would have found the money for dedicated air liner or air transport type air craft carrying long range nuclear missiles (and probably funded a number of other systems as well.)
As it became impractical for B-52's to penetrate Soviet Air Defenses they were easily modified to carry 24 ALCM's. The B-52's were already paid for. They had the structural strength, advanced offensive, and defensive ECM, were hardened against EMP, carried secure communications equipment, and had inflight refueling capability. Look at the cost of buying new Air Force One aircraft, that only have some of those capabilities. A 747 cargo jet is a very efficient transport, but it's not a combat aircraft.
 
They aren't a thing because instead of an airliner-derived arsenal plane, you can buy a cargo airlifter and a truck-mounted battery of AAMs and do almost everything the arsenal plane can, and a lot more.
 
I once read in one of those Cold War WW3 books that NATO got an E3 up on day 2 to bring order to the air battle. The Soviets kept attacking it and it had to divert attention from the air battle to save it's own skin. If the stakes are high enough such simple short term degradation of the AWACS coverage might be a worthwhile outcome.
AWACS are high flying beasts right ?
What about the good ole S200 can it knock one out at a range of 200 km ?
 
What is the maximum range the AWACS radar can use to manage an air battle ?

In my old 'Airplane' magazine the follow up to 'Take Off', in the section regarding the E-3 Sentry, it states and shows how a mere three E-3's (overlapping their radar coverage) would control the entire airspace over West Germany and into East Germany.

Much obliged!
 
Last edited:
In my old 'Airplane' magazine the follow up to 'Take Off', in the section regarding the E-3 Sentry, it's states and shows how a mere three E-3's (overlapping their radar coverage) would control the entire airspace over West Germany and into East Germany.

Much obliged!
In an idealized world, and in artists' renditions that might appear to be the case. In the real world, depending on the ground clutter, target altitude bands, how signal return or emissions controlled the 'painted" targets are, the weather, and the state of the radar and how many separate scanning events at which bearings and azimuths and how large the signal processing load is, the "control" is more like "whack a mole" with targets popping up and disappearing all over the coverage and with a rather limited response loop (the hammer) possible to whack them.
 
Top