" Study Recommends Revolutionary Air-Borne Re-Arming Concept " Topic

A very interesting concept and a new facet to add to an air game. Robert

"Israeli Study Recommends Revolutionary Air-Borne Re-Arming Concept for strike aircraft and UCAVs.

FAR Technologies

With the use of massive aerial refueling, sophisticated target acquisition systems, and smart, precision weapons, modern air powers are capable of engaging targets anywhere and anytime. Yet, ordnance release requires terminating the aircraft's mission to re-arm for the following mission. Flying to and from a distant battlespace poses a "bottleneck" for massive airpower operations.

According to Nir Padan, CEO of the Israeli company FAR Technologies, the Air-Borne Re-Arming concept is real and could dramatically enhance operational tempo of combat aircraft and particularly UCAVs. Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and FAR Technologies performed a successful technological feasibility study anddesign of the Air-Borne Re-Arming (ABRA) system. Padan says that airborne rearming could increase the yield from any fleet of strike aircraft, particularly in long range and extended duration missions, typical to those carried out by UCAVs. Padan adds that on the long term, this mode of operation will require less missions, fewer takeoff/landing cycles, resulting in lower maintenance costs. A side benefit will be the improved safety and survivability of the operating bases and carriers.

The system consists of a bomb storage and loading device , attached to a boom at carried by the cargo plane and a smart pylon carried by the attack aircraft, which obtains the weapon from the robotic arm, attaching it to the weapon's bay or external weapon carrying pylons. An aerial rearming aircraft such as a C-130C, can carry up to 16 MK-84 guided or unguided bombs or considerably more smaller weapons (C-17/5 may potentially carry 4-6 times more). Bombs can be stored in an external or internal bay. The robotic uses an extendable boom, operating from the cargo plane. Controlled by an automatic engagement control (AEC) and supported aerodynamic lift surfaces, the robotic weapon loader will transfer the ordnance from the cargo plane to the attack aircraft. The smart pylon may include sensors and a camera for day and night use. It will interface with the automatic engagement control (AEC) system to automatically activate ordnance on the pneumatic multi-action ejection mechanism and an active sway brace for mid-air operation.

Based on the concept and technology, Professor Asher Tishler, from Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University, conducted an analysis of the potential contribution of airborne rearming on 3 – 9 hours bombing missions at ranges of 250 to 1,000 nautical miles from the operating base. For UCAVs, 12 – 30 hour mission durations were analyzed.

The analysis demonstrated a dramatic improvement and increase of operational tempo, resulting in the number of attacks executed and target killed without increasing the aircraft fleet. Improvement of up to 100% was demonstrated for short range attacks and over 200% for extended range operations. Since aircraft do not have to return to base to rearm, the density of the attacks could be increased, resulting in faster target neutralization (time required to drop a set number of bombs on target could be reduced by up to 70%). Fielding Airborne Rearming systems could introduce new economies for air forces, where fewer resources can perform more missions, resulting in lower acquisition and maintenance costs. Other attributes of airborne rearming are more flexible use of forward operational bases, (as aircraft can takeoff without loads) and higher survivability of the home base and strike aircraft (reducing pressure from operating bases)."

link

But wait until the first mishap, when someone accidentally drops a missile…

I like it. The C-130 becomes an airborne replenishment and resupply ship. I have a feeling these relatively 'low tech' innovations using cheap off-the-shelf proven technology could be the 'wave of the future.'

Not as 'sexy' as expensive high-tech, resource-intensive programs, but they won't bankrupt small national economies like the F-35 either.

I think it makes sense, and it's a good idea.

What will limit it, is that in recent modern warfare, targets are scarcer than ammunition. Which is to say that airstrikes aren't a matter of dumping ordnance on a target and going back to get more, it's a matter of waiting until a target comes up, servicing it with some ordnance, and then waiting for the next target to come up. So pilot endurance will likely limit missions more than running out of ordnance.

I have a feeling that such a system would incur a massive R&D expense.

As other have pointed out, for most missions more ordanance is not needed, more targets are needed. For those missions where more ordnance is needed, it would be easier to allow the "ammo" plane to launch the missile and have the front line fighters guide them to target.

I prefer the SHIELD helicarrier concept.

The C-130 is big and slow. Right?
What could possibly go wrong?

Well, whatever goes wrong, it will be over very soon…

Chalfant

So did the center misnap the football or did the RB fumble the handoff?

Perhaps we need "Arsenal Jets" (TM), making the little ones, with limited carrying capacity redundant!

I only ask $1 USD Billion for the idea – less than the cost of a single B-2 bomber.

So… now the pilots will get zero down time. Looks like a recipe for disaster

Pfff.

With the use of massive aerial refueling, sophisticated target acquisition systems, and smart, precision weapons, modern air powers are capable of engaging targets anywhere and anytime.

…as long as people remembered to put it in the Air Tasking Order.

Flying to and from a distant battlespace poses a "bottleneck" for massive airpower operations.

So move closer to the "distant battlespace". That's what aircraft carriers are for.

Now, if you absolutely insist on airborne re-arming, I still think that the right answer would involve more Zeppelins.

All the best,

John.

Nah, those are so retro.

Think solar cell wings, and algae power. Yea, that's the ticket!

now the pilots will get zero down time

what pilots. the obvious use for these is swarms of remote drones.

With current surveillance capability, the re-arming
platform could be found and then destroyed using
suicide drones.

Next…

And the 'Pizza, wings and beer' pallet would replenish the pilots…

"With current surveillance capability, the re-arming
platform could be found and then destroyed using
suicide drones."

But how much time does the enemy need to have these "suicide drones" aloft ahead a time in order to intercept? Robert

"Airborne Weapon Re-Arming

Background

* Due to the extremely high cost of fighter aircraft, there is a constant demand for improved operational versatility and efficiency
* Implementation of aerial refueling and data link systems (provides real time target information) delaying the necessity of fighter aircraft's terminating the mission
* Releasing the entire ordnance requires the jet's landing in order to re-arm for the following mission
* Time cycle of approaching a distant fighting zone (either ways), requires that the aircraft's ordnance reconfiguration, is the "bottleneck" in the field of operating massive air power

Concept

Remove bottleneck by re-arming aircraft in the air, in a safe area, close to the fighting zone using the Airborne Re-Arming System (ABRA).

Technical Overview

* Designed for efficient aerial delivery of bombs from a cargo aircraft to attack aircraft (fighter jet or UCAV)
* The cargo and combat aircraft will not require modification

Cargo Aircraft

* Internal design allows for large quantities and efficient weapon storage
* Utilizing an aft door remote driven BOOM, with a aerodynamic lift surfaces, producing it's own lift, carries the ordnance while reducing the momentum on the tanker
* Close circuit TV allow day or night operation
* Load weapons on the fighter

Cargo aircraft internal storage

Attack Aircraft

* Equipped with "smart pylons", which allow connecting and interface with the cargo Aircraft robotic arm boom system
* Enable the installation and activation of the weapon on pneumatic multi-action ejection mechanism

Performance and Technical Benefits

Based on the concept and technology, Professor Asher Tishler, from the Faculty of Management at the Tel Aviv University, conducted an analysis of the potential combined operational, logistical and economical contribution of airborne rearming on 3 – 9 hours bombing missions at ranges of 250 to 1,000 nautical miles from the operating base. For UCAVs, 12 – 30 hour mission durations were analyzed. The analysis demonstrated a dramatic increase in the number of bombs dropped for a given mission duration:

* Increase of well over 100% more bombs for close-by target zones
* Increase of well over 200% more bombs for far away target zones
* A dramatic reduction in the time required to drop a given number of bombs on the target zone
- Over 60% reduction in the time required for close-by target zones
- About 70% (or more) reduction in the time required for far away target zones

The analysis demonstrated various operational benefits:

* Significantly increases air power efficiency. Improvement and increase of operational tempo, number of attacks executed and target kills, without increasing the aircraft fleet
* Since aircraft remain in vicinity of targets, the density of the attacks is increased, resulting in faster target neutralization
* Reduced response time from target detection to attack
* Flexible use of forward operational bases (as aircraft can takeoff without ordnance)
* Higher home base and strike aircraft survivability (reducing pressure on operating bases)
* Allows continuation of attack when home base / carrier ship is under attack
* Increased aircraft availability for alternative real time mission
* Significant reduction in determining and allocating the sequences of the combat forces and formations for the mission
* Increased aircrew familiarity with battle arena

Economical Benefits

* Less aircraft can perform more missions
* Reduction of acquisition and operation costs
* Fielding Airborne Rearming systems could introduce new economies for air forces, where fewer resources can perform more missions, resulting in lower acquisition and maintenance costs

Potential Market

Combat aircraft, helicopters and UCAV.

Status: A feasibility study has been conducted with the preliminary system design preformed by IAI's Engineering Group based on a C-130 (Hercules) re-arming a F-16.

Patent Protection: Israel Patent No. 157401; US Patent No. 7,793,888 "

link

Airborne rearming clip
link

But how much time does the enemy need to have these "suicide drones" aloft ahead a time in order to intercept? Robert

Given refueling capability, no need for a pilot
relief and the reliability of components these days,
it is probably possible to keep a set of drones
orbiting for application as needed.

There are those who suggest that's how targeting
(ground) is being done these days.

Not, of course, that I would know.

The reason I ask is that in order to have those "suicide drones" aloft ahead of a strike you would have to know when the strike will be and/or have the satellite capability. And some if not most do not have that type of capability. Robert

the satellite capability. And some if not most do not have that type of capability

Satellites are useful, especially when they have IR
capability or sensing devices other than direct optics.

However, there are radars which can capture the
necessary images/locations, too. We are not the only
country in the world with very sophisticated imaging
devices (radar, especially)

If you have access, you might look at some of the
vulnerability studies done in the 90's anent JSTARS
and AWACS platforms. Similar vulnerabilities exist or
would exist with respect to inflight refuelers
or replenishers.

And the 'Pizza, wings and beer' pallet would replenish the pilots…

Ding, ding, ding! we have a winner!

But that would require some type of system to be able to transfer the 'Pizza, wings and beer' to the pilots from the outside. . Robert

This ain't gonna happen, no matter how much the "wishful thinking" crowd pushes.

The problem here is the pilot or aircrew. As someone who has sat an ejection seat, there's a very good reason why missions are kept to the minimum time required: Fatigue.

Being strapped into that seat keeps you from bouncing around, but also means that you are VERY restricted in movement and what you can do to relieve yourself, if needs be. It can become uncomfortable after awhile, and that also tends to degrade aircrew efficiency.

It's an interesting engineering experiment, but it fails the common sense test. Hopefully this idea dies a quick and painful death.

Thanks for bringing up the Fatigue issue. That would certainly play a factor. Especially for long range missions. How about short range ones? Robert

In air rearming sounds extremely dangerous,most likely occurring over third party territory to minimize accidental friendly fire and also minimize any tragic interceptions.Drone guided,high altitude solar powered zepplin bombers flying patrol armed with high yield munitions (NBC,Nuclear)would be more practical.Once launched and cruising in neutral airzones they become a defacto orbitting defense system and strong deterrent.Similar vehicles for recon and communications work are also viable…but being lo-tech not sexy to the weapons procurement boards.

The above is pure sarcasm boys,in response to something i read on Russian defense forums,nuclear powered cruise missles with extreme longievity have been suggested as a passive hard to hit future weapon system,now thats scary.What will be next deep swimming circling nuclear torpedoes?

Robert,

Short=-ranged would certainly be doable, and here's the thing: This idea would have to be done with aircraft utilizing at least a 2-man crew. The F-15 Strike Eagle, etc.

The thing is, it can get very busy up there, and as a friend of mine once said, an easy mission can quickly turn into wrestling snakes. If you've got a Guy In Back, then he can work the mission profile and weapons bit while the pilot concentrates on flying, fuel status, etc. That helps share the load.

My short time in these situations was as a SENSO on S-3's. 4-5 hours tops but that seat can start to dig into your butt right quickly. Plus, every hour in the air has a fatigue factor equal to 2-3 hours on the ground.

It isn't just the "busy" part of the mission, running your gear, etc. It's the constant motion that you might not detect, but is always there, the vibrations that act on your body.

There are times when you'd get out of the aircraft and feel like you just got out of a swimming pool.

Even more interesting was the P-3 Orion. That's where the majority of my aircrew time was. Although you could get up and move around when transiting, when you were onstation (and that could be as long as 8 hours) you were in your seat, monitoring your gear and dealing with constant motion. the P-3 has a non-flexing wing, unlike an airliners, so every little bump and burble is felt. Add to that the tactical crew is facing out over the port wing, and it can be quite fatiguing. With transit time to and from the op-area, mission could be as long as 14 hours, usually about 10-12.

Extending the onstation time by rearming in flight is an interesting idea, but to be honest, the real X-factor here is crew fatigue, and in a hostile environment, or even bad weather, it could impede mission accuracy.

In the long run, it might be a much better deal to bring more aircraft on the mission than to try and rearm inflight.

V/R