In-flight rearming

[B777LR]

How do you re-arm the rearming plane??

    You are getting really cynical in your young age, took me a lot longer   Love it

Nahh, just a result of sommer holidays  

And watching too much monty python!

[Gervasius]

And watching too much monty python!

How can there be too much Monty Python? Strange concept...

Marko

[nev]

Anyway, I heard that tanking from boom-type tankers (USAF) is like jousting, turbulences are terrible, and this rearming "arm" is just another rigid mounting - so it will pass the turbulence from receiving plane to rearming plane.

As one of the fighter jocks on ARC pointed out, he never knew the KC-135 could barrel roll till he was hooked up to one doing it    

[Gervasius]

Anyway, I heard that tanking from boom-type tankers (USAF) is like jousting, turbulences are terrible, and this rearming "arm" is just another rigid mounting - so it will pass the turbulence from receiving plane to rearming plane.

As one of the fighter jocks on ARC pointed out, he never knew the KC-135 could barrel roll till he was hooked up to one doing it  

Probably it was a same one...

[PanzerWulff]

I'm glad you liked the picture it's actually a shot of the Blue Angels flying in close formation with "Fat Albert" taken from Fat Albert if I remember the F-18 is #7 the Blue Angels 2 seater

[elmayerle]

The idea of an aerial base of operations or a forward aerial operating base would certainly add a new dimension in the conduct of warfare.  If you consider the approach that was taken by the US Navy in developing large aircraft carrying Scouting Airships of the early 30s.  These airships were designed to carry a small contigent of figher/scout aircraft to perform the reconnaissance mission ahead of the main battle fleet and they were quite successful when employed in that mission during the early fleet maneuvers.  The only problem was that the Airships were vulnerable to severe weather as demonstrated by the Loss of the USS Macon and the USS Shenandoah.  

Perhaps something similar to this design with the trapeze system to haul the aircraft inside the airship to a hangar bay.  The aircraft could remain secured to the trapeze and the rearming/refueling evolution could be performed.  After completion of the refueling/rearming evolution the aircaraft could then be released back into the airstream and the engine restarted and released to complete another mission.  For obvious safety reasons, it is not common practice to rearm and refuel an aircraft at the same time, but there is also nothing that say it can not be done.  

The airship would have to be quite large in order to haul the fuel and weapons needed for a flight of aircraft and be able to accomodate four or more aircraft per evolution.  I would imagine a useful load of around 1000 tons would be practical to provide the necessary lift capacity to support several evolutions in support of operations which would then require the airship to depart station and return to a main operation base to replenish fuel and weapons stocks and return to station to releive the airship on station.  A group of three to four airships would then be able to support a squadron or more of aircraft increasing the sortie rates for each aircraft without having the aircraft return to base.  

I do not think that this is impossibe to do and the technology is available to create something like this now if there was an actual pressing need for such a thing.  I personally believe that the airship was a valuable resource that was abandoned in haste by the Navy when it should have been retained in service.

Forget the trapeze, use a variation of BAE's "Skyhook".

[Chris707]

At least one aerial rearmament scheme has been patented:

http://www.dataviewbooks.com/rearm.pdf

I wouldn't want to be within a mile....

Chris
-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.dataviewbooks.com

[ysi_maniac]

I agree, idea seems perfectly reasonable.

But still, just a good old-fashioned fear of new technologies.

Anyway, I heard that tanking from boom-type tankers (USAF) is like jousting, turbulences are terrible, and this rearming "arm" is just another rigid mounting - so it will pass the turbulence from receiving plane to rearming plane.

But hey, I am just a dumb office rat, maybe someone with better knowledge in engineering can straighten things out.

I agree with you. This is like Parasite Fighters. Reasonable but not feasible  

[GTX]

Forget the trapeze, use a variation of BAE's "Skyhook".

Evan,

You beat me to it.

Regards,

Greg

[Runway ? ...]

Yeah Skyhook ! Skyhook on F35 even (maybe). Actually yes, Skyhook, a big enough bus, grab hold of the sucker and drag it on board.

If done with conventional aircraft ala Gremlin I wonder if a mesh screen extended out from the mothership to create a pocket of relatively still air (like the things they have on convertibles these days) could make recovery less fraught.

Been playing in 1:700 lately. A deodorant stick size fuselage gets you room enough for two parallel runways or 4/8 Skyhook bays   I don't know if 8 TF39-GE-1C would even move it along the ground so I'm gonna have to find some bigger engines. I'm working on continually refuelling your "carrier" with the same stuff you're delivering so you don't need much fuel space. I'm leaving the gear as a trolley on the ground (ever seen floatplanes land and take off from a flatbed) because once deployed its job is to be up. Landing is for when the action is over. Following this logic we need a COD aircraft for it.

That's as far as I've got so far.  

Edit: You know, the more I think about this, the more i come back to a huge stealthy flying wing. ... Perhaps I've said too mu....