aircraft as weapons platform

Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?

Think missile sub concept......

grasshopper wrote:

Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?

Think missile sub concept......


Think of the difference in speeds of the launch platforms.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:42:29 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

grasshopper wrote:

Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?

Think missile sub concept......


Think of the difference in speeds of the launch platforms.




I don't see a problem here. Think about a modern ejection seat.

grasshopper wrote:

I don't see a problem here.


Then you have poor vision.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:15:43 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

grasshopper wrote:

I don't see a problem here.


Then you have poor vision.




Lol. Perhaps so. :-)

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:42:29 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

grasshopper wrote:

Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?

Think missile sub concept......


Think of the difference in speeds of the launch platforms.




I don't see a problem here. Think about a modern ejection seat.

A one shot device...

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:40:02 -0500, grasshopper
wrote:

Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?

Think missile sub concept......

The AGM-78 Standard ARM was programmable by the Weasel Bear and could
be directed toward emitters in any quadrant. On launch it cleared the
aircraft forward then turned upward to apex at over 100,000 feet. In
about 90 seconds it would come back down and follow the programming to
the memorized location, re-acquiring the emitter in the process.

Almost got hit by one on the way down during one mission.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

On Sep 12, 12:09*am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:40:02 -0500, grasshopper

wrote:
Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?

Think missile sub concept......

The AGM-78 Standard ARM was programmable by the Weasel Bear and could
be directed toward emitters in any quadrant. On launch it *cleared the
aircraft forward then turned upward to apex at over 100,000 feet. In
about 90 seconds it would come back down and follow the programming to
the memorized location, re-acquiring the emitter in the process.

Was this to add a harassment or loiter capability, extend range or
allow a top view of the radar (aka the UK ALARM)?


Almost got hit by one on the way down during one mission.

Did you forget to turn?

In message
,
Eunometic writes
On Sep 12, 12:09*am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
The AGM-78 Standard ARM was programmable by the Weasel Bear and could
be directed toward emitters in any quadrant. On launch it *cleared the
aircraft forward then turned upward to apex at over 100,000 feet. In
about 90 seconds it would come back down and follow the programming to
the memorized location, re-acquiring the emitter in the process.

Was this to add a harassment or loiter capability, extend range or
allow a top view of the radar (aka the UK ALARM)?

Range extension by trajectory shaping, as I understand it.

Almost got hit by one on the way down during one mission.

Did you forget to turn?

It wasn't Ed's missile - someone else had fired it, it was on its way
back down, and the AGM-78 neither knew nor cared about any traffic in
the airspace it wanted to fly through.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

I was attending the Air Defense Command's Interceptor Weapons School
back in 1963 and one of our lectures was "Future Developments' by a
team from Wright Pat Air Development Center. In the course of events
the 'suits' mentioned chaff rockets - folding-fin 70mm rockets fired
from a bomber that dispensed spaced bundles of chaff to mask the
bomber and draw off radar-homing missiles. The 'suits' complained that
they had tried firing them sideways out of a special turret mounted on
a B29 but the rockets insisted on going straight ahead. We looked at
each other incredulously and finally one of our group asked "Did you
ever consider that there was a 300 mile an hour wind blowing past the
rocket launch tube?" No, they hadn't . . .
FWIW simulated ICBMs have been launched from transport aircraft. A
drogue chutes hauls it out the back and a few seconds later it is
hanging from the chute in a vertical position - next a timer fires the
rocket motor and off it goes. I suspect the big problem back then was
establishing an accurate launch position for the inertial guidance
system to start from. Maybe GPS can do that nowadays. FEDEX contract
proposal? When 'next day' isn't quick enough? Ummm - front yard or
back yard?
Walt BJ