Boeing Model 985-121 microfighter from the early 1970s, supposed to be launched from a converted 747 Airborne Aircraft Carrier
Posted by Xeelee1123@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 61 comments
psunavy03@reddit
Unfortunately, a jet with no room for gas, no radar, and only two Sidewinders is basically a useless waste of resources. Pierre Sprey and his ilk basically had no idea what they were talking about.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Yeah, no radar and no fuel makes them practically useless as scouts, much less fighters. So you’re kind of stuck with the worst of both worlds. I’m not sure what kind of engagement something like this would even be useful for—you’re already going to be keeping your big, fat C-5s and 747s as far away from any potential frontline conflicts as you can anyway.
CNB-1@reddit
Yeah you'd be better off making a 747-based AMRAAM or Phoenix carrier. Give it a big AWACS-style radome for targeting, have the crew up in the hump behind the cockpit, and fill the fuselage with missiles.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
I wonder how one would go about defending such a thing. Just outranging everything else that might try attacking it?
CNB-1@reddit
Yeah I think that would be it, especially if you linked several of them together along with dedicated AWACS aircraft and surface ships.
hippitybobbityty@reddit
It looks like a f-16 but yearns for the Stars
Erikrtheread@reddit
Also not that much smaller from the original models, if I recall.
TacTurtle@reddit
XCOM-16
daltonsghost@reddit
It’s beautiful
Sketchy_Uncle@reddit
Tie interceptor 16
Sivalon@reddit
Viper Mk IX
the_clam_farmer@reddit
Hot damn, I'm taking this right to KSP
GlockAF@reddit
This may call for an enormous multi-engine Ekranoplan WIG / GEV parasite fighter / VTOL drone mothership-carrier. Cruising months-long random patterns over the oceans at 300+ knots, resupplied by dedicated STOL freighter / transports. Maybe nuclear powered?
xrelaht@reddit
Ekranoplan or submarine?
SuDragon2k3@reddit
Why not both? And nuclear powered to boot.
GlockAF@reddit
Now yer talkin!
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Nuclear makes sense. Unless you’re using the mothership as a glorified range extender and crew rest station for the parasite fighters, what’s even the point? Just refuel the fighters in midair instead, or operate them from an aircraft carrier.
Ainene@reddit
Large aircraft is way more efficient at using fuel than equal summ of fighters, and doesn't take remotely as much activity for that; it's also an intermediate refuelling node itself (no need to dock every time). Fighters can be rearmed mid air, and their crews can actually rest.
Concept wasn't without merit. Just too bothersome/risky, and there was no need to go that expensive and that far.
Atholthedestroyer@reddit
Cue panicked Jeb screaming
Designated_Lurker_32@reddit
I wonder if we could make something like this work now that we have drones
syringistic@reddit
We have had UAVs with the ability to launch A2A missiles for a long time...
There is just no functionality in deploying them from larger aircraft.
dirty_hooker@reddit
Range and speed. Being able to have air superiority anywhere over the globe within a few hours.
syringistic@reddit
If we have drones that can carry A2A missiles and are only somewhat smaller than a manned fighter jet, what's the point of carrying them aboard a carrier craft? Speed doesn't matter anymore, all jets are flying at .8 to .9 Mach in combat scenarios. Range doesn't matter, the US has an insanely vast network of refueling stops and refueling planes.
The sole reason these little microfighter jets were conceived 50 years ago is because the avionics weren't enough advanced to pilot the remotely. In a few years the US military will be able to throw a single F35 with half a dozen autonomous drones into any fight.
xrelaht@reddit
Genuine question: can we do airborne refueling of drones?
propsie@reddit
Yes
syringistic@reddit
DoD is working on it. They already have drones that can refuel manned aircraft, just a matter of getting the code together to coordinate two drones to refuel each other. In theory this should allow a drone to refuel a drone that then refuels the other drone back. #perpetualmotionmachine
psunavy03@reddit
Having dealt with the actual evolution up-close-and-personal like, the computer vision problems involved in that are . . . not trivial.
Ainene@reddit
All these sentences are individually wrong. And no, microfighters weren't convinced because avionics weren't advanced enough to pilot remotely.
Reason was different(rapid collective deployment and saving on takeoff/landing cycle+chassis weight and structure), it was totally possible to pilot remotely(SAGE did it for over a decade at that point), and it's still not possible to make a fully capable remotely controlled/autonomous drone fighter.
syringistic@reddit
Except the Air Force has been testing autonomous systems for years now... by the time the 6th gen fighter arrives i expect it to be fully out.
Ainene@reddit
Yes, all true and you're right. Just not yet.
SuDragon2k3@reddit
We need to combine this with Project ITHACUS.
xrelaht@reddit
USAF has been working on a C-130 drone carrier for the last decade.
Zestyprotein@reddit
I mean, they had DC-130s 60 years ago.
bigloser42@reddit
In this day and age, you’d be better off putting a rotary launcher on an E-7 and just dumping AIM-174b’s into inbound fighter groups from 200+ miles out.
VinniTheP00h@reddit
We can, but why? A potential microfighter drone would still have to carry certain amount of weapons to shoot, certain amount of fuel to stay in the air during a fight, while the mothership is busy with the other daughtercraft, or just to extend its range, and have some (quite a lot) mass allocated to the engine, wings, and the rest of the airframe. Mass savings compared to a manned aircraft are miniscule, the only difference is cost of training a pilot and acceptable risk. So the hypothetical "747-carried strike drone" would end up just like the manned microfighter, just without cockpit.
Then another questions comes in: why aircraft carriers? Aerial refueling has been in use for a long time now, fighters often have enough range to not even need it, and the countries that could have made something like this already have better alternatives in form of bases in the region of interest. Rearmament? That's an option, yes, but how much ordnance can a 747 and those microfighters carry? Answer: not much, at 10k lb TOW they were effectively limited to a pair of Sidewinders or 1-2 bombs if at that - many designs for that project only had enough space for the missiles - though I guess you could give a potential "drone microfighter" a choice between pair of AAMs, pair of ATGMs, or pair of bombs. Still, even at maximum capacity of 10 fighters that's less ordnance than from a pair of F-16s, which also wouldn't demand that you have absolute dominance in that airspace. Then we get to the difference in radar, which is necessary for hte modern air combat, and the idea becomes dead in the water. It is just so much easier to fly a bunch of conventional fighters and a tanker, than to go with this program.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Closest thing I’ve heard of lately is the concept of a militarized Airlander 10 launching and recovering ScanEagle drones to extend its reach for Arctic and maritime patrols.
largecontainer@reddit
Honestly I’d be very surprised if one of either US Russia or China didn’t already have something like this in the works.
NoDoze-@reddit
This looks awesome! I wish microfighters were a thing. Get them at FOBs and air refueling, it'd be good to go!
AggressorBLUE@reddit
DoD thought GI Joe was a documentary…
Xeelee1123@reddit (OP)
Source: https://www.tumblr.com/spockvarietyhour/176727549885/boeing-747-airborne-aircraft-carrier
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_aircraft_carrier
Source: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/air-launched-boeing-and-lockheed-micro-fighters.8711/
Source: https://hushkit.net/2022/02/21/unbelievably-sleek-fighter-cold-war-combat-aircraft-bud-nelsons-light-fighter-concepts/
xerberos@reddit
That 747 is packed with so many microfighters that they forgot to include space for the crew.
Pyrhan@reddit
An excellent video about that by Mustard on Youtube:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=drnxZlS9gyw
woofyc_89@reddit
Yes and when you want even more detail, such as the microfighter and the Lockheed attempts, here is Found and explaineds version
https://youtu.be/UfDxsfiDl24?si=p9S_vXQRBEc_MQBS
waldo--pepper@reddit
Always! MORE DETAIL!
Squeakygear@reddit
Enhance… clickity click click enhance.”
Adventurous_Tea_2198@reddit
Why did microfighters never take off a concept?
TheWalkerofWalkyness@reddit
Lack of range, lack of payload, and often lack of performance. McDonnel developed the XF85 Goblin to be carried in the bomb bay of the B36 and other large bombers in the late '40s. But by the time the first prototype flew it just didn't have the performance to face the jet fighters the Soviets were starting to produce. It was also required a highly skilled pilot to successful dock with the carrier aircraft in mid air.
YogurtclosetJumpy770@reddit
Landing it, they just slide into home.
FranciscoDisco73@reddit
Is that the Deal of the Century fighter? I never saw that movie, but I wanted to.
Wraeth7@reddit
"We have TIE fighter at home"
Imperium_Dragon@reddit
Core Fighter looking plane
Stranger_Z@reddit
Ace Combat 8 looking plane. Gonna be dogfighting this thing and dodging superweapon shots, mark my words.
fromkentucky@reddit
Front view reminds me of a TIE Fighter
GRadde@reddit
As close as we've gotten to making a TIE fighter.
woofyc_89@reddit
A 3d video about the microfighter here:
https://youtu.be/UfDxsfiDl24?si=p9S_vXQRBEc_MQBS
starkruzr@reddit
GI Joe-ass airplane [laudatory]
YeetboiMcDab@reddit
Airbus mfs always real quiet when they see this typa shit. Truly the 747 was and continues to be the Queen of the Skies. The A380 would never. The A380 could never. Has an Airbus ever launched rockets into space? Has an Airbus ever been used as an airborne observatory with a 27 foot telescope? Has an Airbus ever carried the fucking Space Shuttle? "Well yeah but the reliability of the Airbus...." no one cares. The 747 was and is a masterpiece.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Versatility surely is the sign of a truly legendary design. If your platform—no matter what it is, from a VW Beetle to a 747—has so many different versions, derivatives, specialized one-offs, and remixes that nobody can even keep track of them all, that’s how you know you’re one of the all-time greats.
MuffinTrucker@reddit
That looks fun!
CAS966@reddit
Looks like a cool Sci-fi plane.
kaiwikiclay@reddit
Carrier has arrived