backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 22 comment(s) - last by Zoomer.. on Oct 22 at 12:15 AM
In the future, pilots could get a fresh load of fuel and bombs mid-air

In-flight refueling has become a rather routine operation in military aviation for well over 50 years. With aerial refueling tankers, airplanes can stay aloft longer without the need to land to refuel. An Israeli company is tackling the next logical step with aerial rearming.

The Airborne Rearming System (ABRA) is currently being developed by Far Technologies and could be implemented on C-130, C-130c, C-17, or even a C-5 cargo planes. The ammunition is carried internally and a robotic arm would remove a bomb and deliver in to a ready and waiting fighter/bomber.

The system is seen as being beneficial not only for manned missions, but also for unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs). However, Far Technologies see UCAV as benefiting the most from this technology as unmanned flight is seen as the future of aerial combat. The Future of Things reports:

Unlike manned aircraft, UCAVs can currently stay aloft for days, and in the future, weeks or even months at a time, performing countless refueling and rearming rounds. Such a capability does not yet exist and would require some level of automatic operation, similar to that currently under development for aerial refueling; if successful, however, it would dramatically increase the flexibility of air power utilization in future conflicts.

The whole system sounds rather intriguing, but there are a lot of issues and possible modifications to the system to be taken into account. There's the possibility that one plane would not only be able to rearm an aircraft, but also refuel it at the same time. And there are also other matters to consider like how the aerodynamics of the receiving plane will be affected while rearming in mid-air.

There is a conceptual video posted on the site which shows the system in operation so be sure to check it out.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
navy doesnt have that technology
By rika13 on 10/18/2006 3:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
actually the navy doesnt use standardized weapons in a box, the box launchers are simply containers to protect and store the munitions, but they are not interchangeable with other munitions

the army's MLRS does have this technology however, as it can fire either it's standard munition which is a pair of six missile containers, each missile releases many submunitions (sorta like a cluster bomb) or two of the newer ATACMS missiles (which is a dramatically bigger weapon) can be used instead of the 12 standard missiles

battletech came out with the idea before the army adopted it, they called it the omnimech:)




RE: navy doesnt have that technology
By rcc on 10/18/2006 5:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
The entire interchangable package dates back long before the boys at FASA.


RE: navy doesnt have that technology
By rcc on 10/18/2006 5:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
However, on a more recent note, you might research the USS Seafighter. The modular Navy is here.



By The Sword 88 on 10/18/2006 8:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
And the Clans came out with it before the Inner Sphere


Danger Will Robinson, Danger!!
By AxemanFU on 10/18/2006 2:49:52 PM , Rating: 3
The only way they can make this practical is by using packeted weapons with a standard interface and recepticle. Sort of like a "weapon in a box", where the box is standardized.

The other problem is going to be SAFETY. You will practically have to have both vehicles be fly by wire, and synchronized, or will have to hard dock with the host aircraft to ensure the weapons aren't damaged in transfer. If they can pull this off, well, wow. Pilots won't have to land as long as they can keep taking speed and their "biological waste retention device" doesn't "overflow".




RE: Danger Will Robinson, Danger!!
By Knish on 10/18/2006 2:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
I am not an expert on weapons tech, but the standardized weapon in a box approach is actaully being used by the US Navy on many of its ships. I don't see why it wouldn't be adopted for the Air Force as well.


RE: Danger Will Robinson, Danger!!
By Zoomer on 10/22/2006 12:15:07 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you need a biological waste retention device?
You could purify the water to make it drinkable, and dump the rest out.


What they need...
By GoatMonkey on 10/18/2006 3:56:56 PM , Rating: 3
...is a flying aircraft carrier. Just land on it and you have all of your inflight refueling and rearming.




RE: What they need...
By rcc on 10/18/2006 5:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
Right!!!! Bring back the airship.

I can see the arguments now. "on a carrier!. Naw, how many night traps do you have on a gas bag!"



POW
By FightingChance on 10/18/2006 1:56:46 PM , Rating: 5
I prefer flying over flashing power up icons; I like the blue spread shot the best.




RE: POW
By btxmonty on 10/18/06, Rating: -1
Inconcievable!
By chiefbozz on 10/18/2006 2:09:58 PM , Rating: 3
"I do not think that mean's what you think it means."

I don't know that I would trust hanging an explosive device in the air. I know that went my jet comes back from a mission with AR there are times where an antennae got knocked off by the AR boom.

This will also take quite a mod on the pylons (especially on the F-16) for it to be able to secure a bomb on there with no human interaction. I guess we'll see.

Hopefully they can get a prototype that will hang bombs in a bomb bay, since that's the way everything is going now that the F-22 is in play.




Battlefield
By SaintSinner1 on 10/18/2006 2:11:15 PM , Rating: 3
I prefer to fly over airfield or carrier on low attitude. 3 flyovers and I'm fully re-loaded with fuel & bombs




im no psychic
By Armorize on 10/18/2006 2:18:22 PM , Rating: 3
But I see a disaster in the making, I can see this going horribly wrong within reach of SAM sites, and badguys with portable SAM, or worse then that, armed weapons not properly in/attached to aircraft and causing some collateral damage.




By kilkennycat on 10/18/2006 3:18:46 PM , Rating: 3
I hope the company inventing this contraption is also inventing the MacFreezerStorage, MacHamburgerMaker and the MacDrinkMixer for the fighter pilot, and in an appropriate form not to disturb the fighter's ballistics.




lol
By yacoub on 10/18/06, Rating: 0
RE: lol
By Hare on 10/18/2006 3:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
Some people just find "funny" words where others don't... :P


BBQ Explosion
By sonquizzon on 10/18/2006 2:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
In the air? Turbulence or human error and bye bye bomb! Chicken Little might be right!




Reload at the speed of zero
By fraggalicious on 10/18/2006 3:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
How about a vertical life C130 reloading a vertical lift fighter.

Certainly cuts down on drag.




Methods of Reloading
By TimberJon on 10/18/2006 7:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
Reloading a Whole weapons pod would be more acceptable, instead of two moving objects in an evermoving atmosphere trying to connect a loose LGB or missile to the rack. Yea laser guidance and robotics are great. But we are human and all the worse crap happens to us when we apply technology in dangerous environments.

Reload a whole pod, or design what Battletech used. A Missile launcher with an ammo bin, that reloads itself from within. Perhaps the reloadable missiles wouldnt have too long a range due to a size reduction, but you could still affix LGBs, bunkerbusters, rockets and the like to the wings.

Think about it this way. Which would you choose?

A standard fighter with 2-4 bombs, Say 2 30-pack rocket pods, and 12 missiles.

Or, a slightly heavier fighter thats fusion powered, uses vectored microjets, can still dogfight, can carry 4-6 heavier bombs, perhaps 2 cruise missiles, or 2 bunker busters of a heavy type, and twin dual-tube missile launchers with 80 missiles each. Selectable fire allowing both missiles or one per side of the aircraft to be fired. Heat seeking on the left and "fire and forget" on the right. Or any combination therein.

Id take #2. More ammo. More damage faster to the enemy. Besides, explosives are getting better and better.. Smaller delivery package might not necessarily mean a lower destructive yield.

~2 Cents




So if I were the enemy
By mindless1 on 10/19/2006 1:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
So if I were the enemy, and I see a half dozen jets out of ammo and a slow moving, giant bomb depot in the sky, which would I attack? Hmm.




JSF?
By Darksyde on 10/19/2006 7:11:35 AM , Rating: 2
I would imagine the device would primarily be designed for foreign fighteres and new JSF F35. Generic interchable weapon loads that work with the new generic chassis just makes more sense.




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov










botimage