As always, our pals in AMARG have a few dozen c-130's sitting there pristinely in the sun that might not be wanting to take full cargo loads anymore, but a few pallets of weapons may not tax them and oh, THEY ARE FREE and paid for. They can use rough bases, deploy from shorter run ways with the smaller load, and not take away from a single now active cargo aircraft nor P-8 or fighter. Makes as much sense as taking the 67 S-3 vikings and using them as tankers, again, FREE, and carry more than the new expensive and slow to produce drones will before they get here.
Heard that Boeing is restarting the C-17 production line. There's interest in C-17 again.
India, for example, is interested in purchasing a dozen or so, but we can't sell them because the production has been taken offline, which, in hindsight, is shortsighted.
Besides, our current fleet of C-17 and C-5 is nearing its operational lifespan.
New C-17s could be fitted with new ultra-long-range fuel-efficient GE turbofan engines, plus other electronic suites, radar, and an IR targeting pod. This will enable them to fly longer and off shorter airfields.
Additionally, the USAF is looking at RADIA's WindRunner as an airframe for huge transport logistics. This should be useful as a launch platform as well for a longer-range ballistic weapon. USAF test launched a Minuteman ICBM off a 747 in the 1970s.
Our kids and college graduates are spending more time playing and scrolling TikTok than learning a useful skill to build up the defense sector of this nation.
The Windrunner....an airplane with the volume to carry a C17. But no mass capability?
Err, why?
How about we throw Ukraine some cash and buy the rights to the AN-225? Proven design, throw some modern engines and radios in it, fix the ergonomics on the flight deck and call it good. Massive volume, massive lift, rough-field capable.
At the end of the day it doesn't fix the 80m box airports have been building out to for the A380 and it doesn't have a rear ramp if I recall. With as far as design has come in the past 30+ years we can get close to an AN-225 inside the 80m box. You'll notice the Windrunner wingspan is 80 meters and the height is also the same as the A380. They just had to not do the length so as to support their business case. Frankly, I think their concept ends up a few meters short of what it needs to be for wind turbine blades..
For a strategic airlifter, fitting in an A380 box isn't too relevant. But the issue with the Windrunner is that while it may have a lot of cube, it's got relatively little payload. Wind turbine blades are long and skinny, but relatively lightweight so thats just fine.
Ammo (of any kind)? Quite dense. Don't need a lot of cube, you need a lot of payload. Occasionally that gets miscalculated, sometimes it gets fixed (the upgrade of the C141A to C141B because they would cube out before they grossed out).
We have forgotten about mass and attrition, and we're on the wrong end of them. We won't need to reload VLS cells if we can't produce enough weapons to reload them. We won't need munitions for aircraft if the squadrons have been attritted to nothing in the first week. We don't have enough shipping to keep the Navy and Air Force in action west of Pearl. It's not enough to have long-range weapons and aircraft; we need the logistics to sustain them, week after week, month after month.
Special Military Operation would be a “Short” war!
CDR Salamander, kindly allow me to bunk near your Chart Room!
I can use my skills in Physics to assess the What and How!
I can use my skills in Psychiatric Nursing to assess the “Who”!
I can use my skills in Greek and Russian Orthodoxy to comfort our Christian Believers
I can use my expertise in Chinese Anthropology to assist in the Mindset of Chinese Behavior, Conduct and… let’s not forget Numerology nor Feng Shui!
“The Art of War” is etched into my Frontal Lobes for my own Survival!
CDR Salamander, as collateral duty, may I be responsible for your “Class Room”?
Please, CDR Salamsnder, Mark does such a nice job at the Video Farm; we must pack our Classroom to take it with permission, and set-it-up!
Russell Lee Otway, Professor in Russia can guide you for the necessary permits, visas and paperwork. Perhaps we can fund Mrs Otway “E”, to write everything we need in perfect Russian. She is fabulous!
I know you have a brilliant brain!
I want to help you! Nurse Jane lights the way “Forward”, with permission. Thank you!
Gee, if one of those “loyal wingman” UCAV designs had the payload and range to carry one of these a reasonable distance from the carrier, wouldn’t that be nice?
I do not believe in spending all this insane amount of money for these kids of weapon systems. There is a much better way of waging war.
For example, let's say after WWII, instead using conventional warfare to defend South Korea in the 1950's, we just nuked North Korea and China into oblivion. Now, let's flash forward to Vietnam...nuked, Afghanistan...nuked, Iraq...nuked, just recently Iran...nuked.
All this pussyfooting around is for politicians. Just nuke our enemies, it is so much easier and cheaper, than having infantrymen running around in Iraq like pop-up silhouettes is stupid to the point of retardation.
Minimum use of force, nukes, for maximum effect, destruction of our enemies, and if Russia wants to challenge the U.S. then...nuke them too. I'm not worried about a nuclear exchange with Russia, China, or anyone else, why would I be?
May God Bless you all, the way God has blessed me.
Lebo Von Lo~Debar
Former/Always
82nd Airborne Infantryman,
Disabled Veteran for Life,
& Author of the book "The Separation of Corporation and State" subtitled "Common Sense and the Two-Party Crisis" available on Amazon
I fear an inventory of munitions would show that we’re terrifyingly low on just about everything. How many ships are deploying with half-filled magazines? Stepping up production should be a top priority.
WRT F/A-XX, it raises an option - two designs. F-XX and A-XX. The latter, in particular, with a large internal weapons bay. I cannot stress too much that with modern combat aircraft, the airframe and engines don’t drive cost and schedule…avionics and software do. Recycle F-35 or F-47 sensors as GFE, force true open systems architecture, and we can save a lot of time and money. Better still, do a flyoff between real prototypes - not a USAF-style flyoff with “prototypes” bearing a vague resemblance to a final bid - but a flyoff between production-representative machines. Do this, and you can eliminate a lot of the NAVAIR program management paperwork…which saves everybody considerable time and money.
Better yet. Take used 777s, cut a hole in the side and add rotary launchers inside. A LOT of them. Work can be done quickly at any location turning passenger planes into cargo freighters, and for relatively low cost. Let the Air National Guard fly them since they fly regular 777s during the week.
What we going to have out to 2035? I don't know if timelines when China invades Taiwan are accurate, but, considering how Byzantine our R&D +procurement system is we don't have much in the magazines now. What will we be able to do on the day it starts, and, how long will it last? Doesn't seem encouraging.
The B-52 has an internal rotary launcher, the Conventional Rotary Launcher (CRL).
The Conventional Rotary Launcher (CRL) significantly increased the B-52's payload and flexibility by enabling the internal carriage of weapons like the Joint Attack Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).
Great article. FYI that TCOM is also looking at these type of capabilities for Aerostat elevated sensor and effects.
BTW, CDR Sal....you probably don't remember, but you did help with my Hypersonic Capstone Thesis a few years ago with similar assessments. Thank you again.
So a mission for everybody in the DC area. Go to AUSA in a couple weeks or so, and POUND these idea RELENTLESSLY. Find the missile reps and repeat this. Their event AARs will carry this message back to their product development people and senior management. Go forth and do good!
I did this a few years back. Grabbed a Raytheon rep at AUSA with a death grip and pounded the need for a JDAM-like revolution for missiles. Ditch exquisite and think 155mm shell production. Give me the 80% capability for 10-20% of the regular cost. Turn them out like industrial sausage for us, and allies. Design for low cost and high production rates. And think of how you can recombine current weapons/seekers/launchers for new roles. F-15E launched ATACMS (maybe an air-launched version of MLRS/SDB for hitting NK artillery), air-launched SM-6 from B-1 rotary launchers for MiG sweeps and HARM-tipped SM-6 for long range SEAD. Rep was eating it up like a dog on a cheeseburger. I also told him about the guys trying to make a modern pulse jet V-1 for estimated $50k (at hypothetical high production rate). It kind of looked like a JASSM with a V-1 engine.
Polaris (and maybe Posidon) length D5 fits in a Virginia-class payload module (backdoor AUS SLBM capability?), as I verified with Tory Bruno of LM.
I hit hard that we desperately need low cost cUAS for defense of the vast CONUS critical infrastructure. APKWS was a great example. And bulk low cost drone-deliverable anti-ship torpedoes (we don’t need Mk48 for a RORO or LCM) and Taiwan Strait-range ASCMs.
We need everybody to keep hitting the weapons reps at these conferences with The Message.
If you want a carrier-based hypersonic missile launcher, that doesn't sound like F/A-XX. Such missiles would probably be carried externally, thus negating stealth, and F/A-XX is designed to be stealthy.
The question would arise, how many such missiles could you have aboard a carrier, and when those are all used, how do you get more missiles forward to the carrier? By means of our vulnerable and limited in number replenishment ships? Hmmm.
Carriers have a LOT of magazine space. At least they used to, I assume the Fords didn't change that much. (Getting ordnance on deck is another discussion...) That said I don't know specifics, just my impression of a look at the insides of an empty one. I'm pretty confident that you could stack a full reload for the CV's escorts in a single one of the 6-8 mags available. Probably have some space leftover.
The one thing a carrier has going for it with rearming is that you don't have to strike down into a VLS. Just bring it aboard in its coffin, pallet, whatever, and down to the mag you go. That was something that used to be done a lot. I believe in the 80s it was standard for a returning carrier to offload on approach to CONUS and departing to load up as they started to transit.
One issue is how large a piece of ordnance can be safely transported and loaded to aircraft on a carrier? Also turns into how heavy can be loaded on an F-18 and F-35.
I'm pretty sure that the limiting factor is going to be what the aircraft can manage. A minor secondary consideration is going to be diameter of the ordnance so it doesn't hang to low. And, of course, for F-35s, what can be carried internally so it doesn't degrade stealth. (Hint: not much, the bays aren't very spacious.)
Unless we're talking something so big you can't get it up an ammo elevator (which are probably rated at something in excess of 10k lbs) you can move it even if you need new handling equipment. (And handling equipment is the one thing that seems to set the USAF apart from the Navy/Marines. The USAF has all sorts of motorized and hydraulic lifting gear whereas the USN typically seems to rely on hand carts and strong backs.
That's well more than any of the options cited by Sal except for Khinzal.
And Khinzal seems to be a pretty typical Russian weapon big and massive because. Just because. Likely other than the F=MA thing it isn't any more capable than western solutions. (And likely less.)
I think you have proven they at one time planned a 10,000lb bomb for an aircraft that served in the Navy and Air Force. You have not proven the bomb was actually deployed or made operational on carriers. Talos is a whole other ball game. Love both the Talos and A-3.
The size of the Savage and the limited American arsenal of fissionable material led to a rather odd operational pattern. The Savages would deploy to Port Lyautey, Morocco, while the carrier was in the Med, as they were too big for even the Midways to operate normally. If needed, the nuclear components would be flown into Port Lyautey, then taken to the carriers by the Savages. [my edit. This was before the AEC gave permission to keep the cores aboard the carriers. When that was granted, the Midways were fitted with steel boxes under the flight deck overhang so they could be jettisoned if needed. The carriers were also fitted with a 16,000 max bomb elevator from the SASS space which had also been installed to get them nuke operational. this is detailed in Miller's book.] Onboard, the Mk 4 bombs would be assembled, and the Savages would then fly back aboard to be loaded with them and onto the target.
To be fair, the weight of the follow on weapons rapidly decreased. Those bomb shapes previously mentioned were left overs from the AJ Savage era by the time I was in Sanford. Read JD Ramage's oral history, and you will see he was heavily involved in getting smaller weapons aboard. By the early 60's, it appears (good luck finding much of anything int he public domain on this topic to this day...) the Mk 28 was the standard USN weapon...
Hypersonic weapons / ASBMs are exciting, but are certainly going to cost several million each. This raises the question of how many you're going to buy, what your production rate is, and how many you actually need. There are certainly many thousands of potential targets that you'd like to hit. And the planned PrSM production rate is around 400 per year. It's going to take quite a while to get to an adequate stockpile.
If there is an "affordable mass" approach, exquisite missiles launched by exquisite fighters like F/A-XX from exquisitely expensive carriers is pretty much the opposite of that. =)
Since you are the good idea fairy, I've always wondered how many times you can wear a pair of tights before they get a run.
All kidding aside, production of hi-tech weapons is a problem that needs to be solved forthwith. The lessons of Ukraine are not being taken to heart.
I go commando.
Thanks for THAT mental picture. Eye bleach, stat!
Like any good Scot does under his kilt!
Do we know that they aren't? Being taken to heart, that is?
There seems to be no indication that they are.
Which lessons?
More P-8s and the 174C, obviously.
And how many Rapid Dragons could a cargo 787 carry? (We're going to be ordering more Super Hercs too, I assume?)
I know you will enjoy this: Rapid Dragon...a single fully loaded six-tube pallet: weighs up to 21,800 pounds. okay, call it 10 tons.
so....we would like to order three, UNLIMITED RANGE, 100 ton payload, 100kts airships, please...... (delivered 2026)
Need to get The Other Sal on board.😆
How many on a 777 freighter?
I played this game once and came up with 8 so 64 rounds.
As always, our pals in AMARG have a few dozen c-130's sitting there pristinely in the sun that might not be wanting to take full cargo loads anymore, but a few pallets of weapons may not tax them and oh, THEY ARE FREE and paid for. They can use rough bases, deploy from shorter run ways with the smaller load, and not take away from a single now active cargo aircraft nor P-8 or fighter. Makes as much sense as taking the 67 S-3 vikings and using them as tankers, again, FREE, and carry more than the new expensive and slow to produce drones will before they get here.
Heard that Boeing is restarting the C-17 production line. There's interest in C-17 again.
India, for example, is interested in purchasing a dozen or so, but we can't sell them because the production has been taken offline, which, in hindsight, is shortsighted.
Besides, our current fleet of C-17 and C-5 is nearing its operational lifespan.
New C-17s could be fitted with new ultra-long-range fuel-efficient GE turbofan engines, plus other electronic suites, radar, and an IR targeting pod. This will enable them to fly longer and off shorter airfields.
Additionally, the USAF is looking at RADIA's WindRunner as an airframe for huge transport logistics. This should be useful as a launch platform as well for a longer-range ballistic weapon. USAF test launched a Minuteman ICBM off a 747 in the 1970s.
Man, I hope it's true about the C-17!
FWIW: https://simpleflying.com/boeing-c-17-globemaster-back-production/
US shut down F-22 production
US shut down C-17
US shutdown Stinger and Javelin..
US shutdown icebreaker building
etc, etc
Our kids and college graduates are spending more time playing and scrolling TikTok than learning a useful skill to build up the defense sector of this nation.
Sigh!
Radia is marketing their concept. I think Boeing brought up C-17 restart, again marketing. The discussion for C-17 and C-5 follow on is under way.
The Windrunner....an airplane with the volume to carry a C17. But no mass capability?
Err, why?
How about we throw Ukraine some cash and buy the rights to the AN-225? Proven design, throw some modern engines and radios in it, fix the ergonomics on the flight deck and call it good. Massive volume, massive lift, rough-field capable.
At the end of the day it doesn't fix the 80m box airports have been building out to for the A380 and it doesn't have a rear ramp if I recall. With as far as design has come in the past 30+ years we can get close to an AN-225 inside the 80m box. You'll notice the Windrunner wingspan is 80 meters and the height is also the same as the A380. They just had to not do the length so as to support their business case. Frankly, I think their concept ends up a few meters short of what it needs to be for wind turbine blades..
For a strategic airlifter, fitting in an A380 box isn't too relevant. But the issue with the Windrunner is that while it may have a lot of cube, it's got relatively little payload. Wind turbine blades are long and skinny, but relatively lightweight so thats just fine.
Ammo (of any kind)? Quite dense. Don't need a lot of cube, you need a lot of payload. Occasionally that gets miscalculated, sometimes it gets fixed (the upgrade of the C141A to C141B because they would cube out before they grossed out).
While we are at it, and if we don't get hammered by an Indo-Pacific war with China, and if USAF can get its act together:
C-17 and C-5 Cargo Planes Will Be Replaced With One Aircraft: USAF
Plans for a Next Generation Airlift platform, or NGAL, targeted for entry into service in the 2040s, are starting to coalesce.
https://www.twz.com/air/c-17-and-c-5-cargo-planes-will-be-replaced-with-one-aircraft-usaf
We have forgotten about mass and attrition, and we're on the wrong end of them. We won't need to reload VLS cells if we can't produce enough weapons to reload them. We won't need munitions for aircraft if the squadrons have been attritted to nothing in the first week. We don't have enough shipping to keep the Navy and Air Force in action west of Pearl. It's not enough to have long-range weapons and aircraft; we need the logistics to sustain them, week after week, month after month.
We won’t need to reload them if the ships no longer exist either. Which is what happens shortly after you run out of ammo.
Or run out of fuel as they reach the AO after reloading in San Diego or Bremerton.
Not that I expect anyone to have a true answer, but are we sure we have even enough VLS cells to complete one full loadout?
I don't know. You go to war with the loadout you have, not the loadout you want.
True enough...but somehow I'd have expected that the minimum would be some integer multiple of one full loadout.
‘Zero is an integer’, he says helpfully.
And what is one integer raised to the zeroth power?
I just watched a video about the WW II Red Ball express. Once again - amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.
Good Noon/Time EST CDR Salamander!
Yes! Range!
Yes! Location!
Yes! Velocity!
and please correct your impression:
Russian Federation did not think …
Special Military Operation would be a “Short” war!
CDR Salamander, kindly allow me to bunk near your Chart Room!
I can use my skills in Physics to assess the What and How!
I can use my skills in Psychiatric Nursing to assess the “Who”!
I can use my skills in Greek and Russian Orthodoxy to comfort our Christian Believers
I can use my expertise in Chinese Anthropology to assist in the Mindset of Chinese Behavior, Conduct and… let’s not forget Numerology nor Feng Shui!
“The Art of War” is etched into my Frontal Lobes for my own Survival!
CDR Salamander, as collateral duty, may I be responsible for your “Class Room”?
Please, CDR Salamsnder, Mark does such a nice job at the Video Farm; we must pack our Classroom to take it with permission, and set-it-up!
Russell Lee Otway, Professor in Russia can guide you for the necessary permits, visas and paperwork. Perhaps we can fund Mrs Otway “E”, to write everything we need in perfect Russian. She is fabulous!
I know you have a brilliant brain!
I want to help you! Nurse Jane lights the way “Forward”, with permission. Thank you!
Nuttier than shithouse squirrel. 🐿️
Not gonna argue with you this time.
Maybe so, but she is polite.
Well, this sure woke me up this morning!
Gee, if one of those “loyal wingman” UCAV designs had the payload and range to carry one of these a reasonable distance from the carrier, wouldn’t that be nice?
Pete, Mike, John, y'all paying attention?
What our Navy needs is a Sergey Gorshkov. "'Better'" was his famous quote, "is the enemy of 'Good Enough.'"
It's getting Congress to go along. Way too much pressure to spend "just a little more" for a slightly reduced chance/amount of casualties in a war.
I do not believe in spending all this insane amount of money for these kids of weapon systems. There is a much better way of waging war.
For example, let's say after WWII, instead using conventional warfare to defend South Korea in the 1950's, we just nuked North Korea and China into oblivion. Now, let's flash forward to Vietnam...nuked, Afghanistan...nuked, Iraq...nuked, just recently Iran...nuked.
All this pussyfooting around is for politicians. Just nuke our enemies, it is so much easier and cheaper, than having infantrymen running around in Iraq like pop-up silhouettes is stupid to the point of retardation.
Minimum use of force, nukes, for maximum effect, destruction of our enemies, and if Russia wants to challenge the U.S. then...nuke them too. I'm not worried about a nuclear exchange with Russia, China, or anyone else, why would I be?
May God Bless you all, the way God has blessed me.
Lebo Von Lo~Debar
Former/Always
82nd Airborne Infantryman,
Disabled Veteran for Life,
& Author of the book "The Separation of Corporation and State" subtitled "Common Sense and the Two-Party Crisis" available on Amazon
I’ll pass on the Thyroid cancer, thanks.
When you're glowing green you don't have to worry about Thyroid cancer.
I fear an inventory of munitions would show that we’re terrifyingly low on just about everything. How many ships are deploying with half-filled magazines? Stepping up production should be a top priority.
WRT F/A-XX, it raises an option - two designs. F-XX and A-XX. The latter, in particular, with a large internal weapons bay. I cannot stress too much that with modern combat aircraft, the airframe and engines don’t drive cost and schedule…avionics and software do. Recycle F-35 or F-47 sensors as GFE, force true open systems architecture, and we can save a lot of time and money. Better still, do a flyoff between real prototypes - not a USAF-style flyoff with “prototypes” bearing a vague resemblance to a final bid - but a flyoff between production-representative machines. Do this, and you can eliminate a lot of the NAVAIR program management paperwork…which saves everybody considerable time and money.
Better yet. Take used 777s, cut a hole in the side and add rotary launchers inside. A LOT of them. Work can be done quickly at any location turning passenger planes into cargo freighters, and for relatively low cost. Let the Air National Guard fly them since they fly regular 777s during the week.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2021/10/28/is_it_time_for_cruise_missile_carrier_aircraft_800959.html
What we going to have out to 2035? I don't know if timelines when China invades Taiwan are accurate, but, considering how Byzantine our R&D +procurement system is we don't have much in the magazines now. What will we be able to do on the day it starts, and, how long will it last? Doesn't seem encouraging.
The B-52 has an internal rotary launcher, the Conventional Rotary Launcher (CRL).
The Conventional Rotary Launcher (CRL) significantly increased the B-52's payload and flexibility by enabling the internal carriage of weapons like the Joint Attack Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).
Not sure what other missiles it can carry.
If the internal bay for stealth purposes, forget it; not worth the performance hit.
What you're describing is the Phantom 2000, or 2020.....
Only less capable.
Thanks, CDR, well done.
Great article. FYI that TCOM is also looking at these type of capabilities for Aerostat elevated sensor and effects.
BTW, CDR Sal....you probably don't remember, but you did help with my Hypersonic Capstone Thesis a few years ago with similar assessments. Thank you again.
Best,
Nigel
So a mission for everybody in the DC area. Go to AUSA in a couple weeks or so, and POUND these idea RELENTLESSLY. Find the missile reps and repeat this. Their event AARs will carry this message back to their product development people and senior management. Go forth and do good!
I did this a few years back. Grabbed a Raytheon rep at AUSA with a death grip and pounded the need for a JDAM-like revolution for missiles. Ditch exquisite and think 155mm shell production. Give me the 80% capability for 10-20% of the regular cost. Turn them out like industrial sausage for us, and allies. Design for low cost and high production rates. And think of how you can recombine current weapons/seekers/launchers for new roles. F-15E launched ATACMS (maybe an air-launched version of MLRS/SDB for hitting NK artillery), air-launched SM-6 from B-1 rotary launchers for MiG sweeps and HARM-tipped SM-6 for long range SEAD. Rep was eating it up like a dog on a cheeseburger. I also told him about the guys trying to make a modern pulse jet V-1 for estimated $50k (at hypothetical high production rate). It kind of looked like a JASSM with a V-1 engine.
Polaris (and maybe Posidon) length D5 fits in a Virginia-class payload module (backdoor AUS SLBM capability?), as I verified with Tory Bruno of LM.
I hit hard that we desperately need low cost cUAS for defense of the vast CONUS critical infrastructure. APKWS was a great example. And bulk low cost drone-deliverable anti-ship torpedoes (we don’t need Mk48 for a RORO or LCM) and Taiwan Strait-range ASCMs.
We need everybody to keep hitting the weapons reps at these conferences with The Message.
The modern v1 is what the Ukrainians have apparently done.
If you want a carrier-based hypersonic missile launcher, that doesn't sound like F/A-XX. Such missiles would probably be carried externally, thus negating stealth, and F/A-XX is designed to be stealthy.
The question would arise, how many such missiles could you have aboard a carrier, and when those are all used, how do you get more missiles forward to the carrier? By means of our vulnerable and limited in number replenishment ships? Hmmm.
Carriers have a LOT of magazine space. At least they used to, I assume the Fords didn't change that much. (Getting ordnance on deck is another discussion...) That said I don't know specifics, just my impression of a look at the insides of an empty one. I'm pretty confident that you could stack a full reload for the CV's escorts in a single one of the 6-8 mags available. Probably have some space leftover.
The one thing a carrier has going for it with rearming is that you don't have to strike down into a VLS. Just bring it aboard in its coffin, pallet, whatever, and down to the mag you go. That was something that used to be done a lot. I believe in the 80s it was standard for a returning carrier to offload on approach to CONUS and departing to load up as they started to transit.
One issue is how large a piece of ordnance can be safely transported and loaded to aircraft on a carrier? Also turns into how heavy can be loaded on an F-18 and F-35.
I'm pretty sure that the limiting factor is going to be what the aircraft can manage. A minor secondary consideration is going to be diameter of the ordnance so it doesn't hang to low. And, of course, for F-35s, what can be carried internally so it doesn't degrade stealth. (Hint: not much, the bays aren't very spacious.)
Unless we're talking something so big you can't get it up an ammo elevator (which are probably rated at something in excess of 10k lbs) you can move it even if you need new handling equipment. (And handling equipment is the one thing that seems to set the USAF apart from the Navy/Marines. The USAF has all sorts of motorized and hydraulic lifting gear whereas the USN typically seems to rely on hand carts and strong backs.
B27 Nuke at 3300 lb is the heaviest thing I've found.
That's well more than any of the options cited by Sal except for Khinzal.
And Khinzal seems to be a pretty typical Russian weapon big and massive because. Just because. Likely other than the F=MA thing it isn't any more capable than western solutions. (And likely less.)
It still can kill you.
Its less than the Lora in this discussion.
Oh...How we forget!!
https://www.okieboat.com/Copyright%20images/123%20UNREPS%20Refuel,%20rearm%20and%20resupply%204%201024%20C.jpg
If we routinely UNREP'd Talos missiles 60 years ago...
Then, what today constitutes "Progress"?
I sure hope more than a few FOGO's learn there is no place for them anymore at that big meeting.
I don't know of any pictures in the public domain showing the early nukes carried aboard the AJ's and A-3's actually being loaded....
https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/07/aj-savage-notes.html
Anybody remember the bomb shapes outside the barracks at NTC Orlando?
Lower left in this pic...
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=543449258837340&set=gm.1701288401268013&idorvanity=1394085398654983
Those were practice shapes that had been in front of officers club with the squadrons logos painted on them at NAS Sanford.
Bottom line:
Yes: 10,000 lb bombs were aboard carriers in the 50's and operationally loaded aboard aircraft
I think you have proven they at one time planned a 10,000lb bomb for an aircraft that served in the Navy and Air Force. You have not proven the bomb was actually deployed or made operational on carriers. Talos is a whole other ball game. Love both the Talos and A-3.
You are wrong about that Andy...
The Mk 4 was the first nuclear weapon deployed aboard the Midways. Its why they stayed in the Med through Korea.
See Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers by Adm Jerry Miller.
https://www.navalgazing.net/Nuclear-Weapons-at-Sea-Heavy-Attack.
The size of the Savage and the limited American arsenal of fissionable material led to a rather odd operational pattern. The Savages would deploy to Port Lyautey, Morocco, while the carrier was in the Med, as they were too big for even the Midways to operate normally. If needed, the nuclear components would be flown into Port Lyautey, then taken to the carriers by the Savages. [my edit. This was before the AEC gave permission to keep the cores aboard the carriers. When that was granted, the Midways were fitted with steel boxes under the flight deck overhang so they could be jettisoned if needed. The carriers were also fitted with a 16,000 max bomb elevator from the SASS space which had also been installed to get them nuke operational. this is detailed in Miller's book.] Onboard, the Mk 4 bombs would be assembled, and the Savages would then fly back aboard to be loaded with them and onto the target.
To be fair, the weight of the follow on weapons rapidly decreased. Those bomb shapes previously mentioned were left overs from the AJ Savage era by the time I was in Sanford. Read JD Ramage's oral history, and you will see he was heavily involved in getting smaller weapons aboard. By the early 60's, it appears (good luck finding much of anything int he public domain on this topic to this day...) the Mk 28 was the standard USN weapon...
Check out the practice shape in this pick:
https://www.a3skywarrior.com/photo-gallery?pgid=lrwbavoy-6a442823-4a1e-455b-90e5-96902e3abb82
And an actual Mk. 28:
https://atomicarchive.com/media/photographs/nuclear-journeys/airforce/nmusaf-26.html
Do those fancy bazillion dollar munitions elevators aboard the Ford hoist 16,000 lbs? Its already public that they weren't built with a SASS space.
We are getting beyond the "Cute Little Bug Era" in carrier aviation, even in a non nuke context.
Good read.
"I believe in the 80s it was standard for a returning carrier to offload on approach to CONUS and departing to load up as they started to transit."
Correct. That was due to a shortage of guided weapons. Nothing has changed.
" how do you get more missiles forward to the carrier?"
Just like replenishing VLS at sea, it's a moot point: the US doesn't have the industrial capability to replenish at that rate.
We do. We just don’t have the will.
Hypersonic weapons / ASBMs are exciting, but are certainly going to cost several million each. This raises the question of how many you're going to buy, what your production rate is, and how many you actually need. There are certainly many thousands of potential targets that you'd like to hit. And the planned PrSM production rate is around 400 per year. It's going to take quite a while to get to an adequate stockpile.
If there is an "affordable mass" approach, exquisite missiles launched by exquisite fighters like F/A-XX from exquisitely expensive carriers is pretty much the opposite of that. =)
Follow the SpaceX model and use vertically integrated scale & cost will drop to $900k.