USAF now considering C/B-17

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#1

quote: What has got the generals excited is using C-17s as a flying aircraft carrier. Well, sort of. The C-17s would carry pallets loaded with “Dominator” UAVs. The idea behind “Dominator” is persistence, a one way UAV that carries two or more missiles, and lots of sensors for finding targets. The Dominator could cruise around for 12, 24 or more hours. After that, it would self-destruct, or dive into a target. The air force has been working on the Dominator for two years now, and there’s no guarantee that it would ever be built. It will be expensive for a disposable weapon, as it will have many of the characteristics of a UAV like the Predator, that costs over four million dollars each.

The concept, apparently, is that the C-17 would get as close to the combat zone (taking enemy air defenses into account) as possible, and dump the Dominators out the back of the aircraft. Current plans call for a C-17 carrying twenty or more Dominators. Now that would be a formidable amount of ground attack air power. A dozen or more Dominators, that would cruise at about 250 kilometers an hour, could cover a huge area, which would become a no-go zone for enemy forces below.

And there’s still the possibility of dropping JDAMs from C-17s as well…

Link

Sounds like a good Idea as the B-1s and B-2s cost alot to operate and the BUFF is getting old. Having parts interchangeable with the C-17s would save alot of money.

#2

Until such time as you actually face an enemy with air defences, in which case it becomes a highly expensive way to kill a lot of aircrew. The B-52s might be getting old but in performance terms they’re a hell of a lot better (faster, higher flying) than the C-17s. That counts for a lot.

#3

The other question is what do you do if you don’t need to fire from the UAVs? Do you just throw several million dollars away unused or (prefered option) nosedive it onto some “enemy” civvies “because they might become insurgents”. :twisted:

#4

Yes, but soon the B-52 will face a parts shortage. The C-17 will have spares for years to come and having a main cargo type and a main bomber type using the same airframes will save on part costs, also maintenance crews can be used with both types.

#5

Hey cool article, thanks!

BTW, SS Tiger you got a frickin’ awesome avatar.

#6

Thank you very much! :wink:

#7

Wow… it’s a good and smart idea.

But of course you need to have aerial supremacy, and, if the C-17 would be in enemy airspace, the enemy wouldn’t have SAMs? if a C-17 is launching anti-vehicle UCAVs they would be launched over a large number of enemy vehicles or troops, and the most possible, if they are a very big number of units, is that those vehicles or troops that are under the C-17 is that they would have SAMs in order to defend themselves of an aerial attack, don’t you think?

I don’t know if it could be efficient enough.

#8

So what? Boeing will still have the drawings and parts are cheap even if you have to get them made up specially. The US has a lot of custom toolmakers that could do so if they had to.

#9

SAMs are taken out by F-117s and other light bombers I belive, also commando units may take care of some.

I guess you could get custom made parts but then you would be making B-52 parts and still making C-17 parts anyway. So it would be possible to keep both but it would be more costly I think.

#10

Yes. All mobile SAM sites will be taken out, including every little bloke with a Stinger missile. Guaranteed. 100%. Or your money back. :roll:

#11

Yes. All mobile SAM sites will be taken out, including every little bloke with a Stinger missile. Guaranteed. 100%. Or your money back. :roll:[/quote]

I don’t think any shoulder mounted weapons could hit a C-17 at cruise altitude, 90% of SAM batteries would be taken out. The last 10% is for the chaff and flair to deal with. Very rarely you lose an aircraft like the C-130 a while back, but that’s one of the risks of war.

#12

I doubt the C-17 could stay at cruising altitude with the rear ramp down for long, so it would have to be below cruising altitude.

You cannot simply say that 90% of SAMs will be taken out - you cannot guarantee that. Rapier can apparently track the stealth bombers (one was tracked coming into Farnborough for an air show a few years back), and if they can track it, they can hit it, what if the enemy shoot down a large number of attacking bombers and the SAM sites are not destroyed?

By the way ‘losing an aircraft is part of war’ may well be true, but I doubt the aircrew being asked to pootle round at low altitude over enemy territory with their rear ramp down for hours on end would see it like that :wink:

#13

This is something I feel I can comment on.

In the current threat environment, i.e. the Gulf region, there is no medium to high level threat to speak of. So anything you can hang a JDAM off is fairly safe from harm. As far as I’m aware no aircraft has been lost at these higher altitudes to enemy fire. This would give a long loiter time with a higher payload than Fighters currently are able to carry.

I think the proposed system would be automatic using these drop and forget drones, most likely these would be launched high and outside any threat envelope.

Whether or not this would be needed in the Gulf is a diffrent story, but the system may have merit if its feasible in any future conflicts, although I would be uncomfortable launching a mass of drones programmed to target at will near any population centres etc…

I dont think we will see the Dominator for a very long time to come though.

#14

I read in a publication that these thingies would be used in a conflict situation only, not as a patrol option etc, think of them as very smart cruise missiles.

#15

SAM’s are engaged by all sorts of things. Cluster Bombs, Aircraft cannon, JDAM’s etc.

However for a best bet option you can use these:

AlARM
HARM

I’m not sure special forces are ever needed to take on SAM batteries though. And you never need to kill all the SAM batteries anyway. Only the ones into and out of and at your target area. Even then, if only they are shut down, they arent a threat anymore!

#16

Yes. All mobile SAM sites will be taken out, including every little bloke with a Stinger missile. Guaranteed. 100%. Or your money back. :roll:[/quote]

Stingers arent really effective at medium to high level, they dont get much above 10-15000 feet. So if your toodling along at 25000 your not going to be Stingered. Landing and take off is a worry in some places though.

Stinger

#17

the Stingers was more effective than the designed think of, if you want,
ask the afghans. They shot a very much of that. 8)

#18

Firefly - PM for you.

#19

Yes. All mobile SAM sites will be taken out, including every little bloke with a Stinger missile. Guaranteed. 100%. Or your money back. :roll:[/quote]

If I would being posting yesterdey, I would posted exactly tha same as you, Stoat… The SEAD maneuver, with F-15, F-16, F-18, F-117, B-1, B-2 and B-52, is only effective agaisnt the main batteries of SAMs, but the light portable missiles as the SA-7 Strela, the Blowpipe and other kinds of similar missiles is practically imposible to destroy with a SEAD.

#20

No, they are as effecvtive as designed for. Let me see, Afghanistan, hmm Mountains, low flying Helos, low flying aircraft.

No engagement above 15000 feet, unless your counting the height of the mountain?

Suggested reading is this FM 44-18 Chapter 5 Stinger employment

I’m sure you will find no instructions for shooting down high flying targets in it, but if you do please give me a shout.

One other big thing to remember is the size of the Stinger and how much fuel it carries.

Now this is what you would have to carry on your back to kill a high flying aircraft. You would need pretty strong arms to hold it straight I think.

Hopefully, Ive debunked the myth of the mighty Stinger.