When I made the page about parasites in the section "Weird ones"
I read about the theory of Vogt. He proposed to couple two
airplanes to a large ones wingtip. This way the two airplanes got a
free ride. Experiments with this had problems due to one major
factor: the up-and-town-movement of the wingtips.
I am sure that we can re-use the concept under better
circumstances. When I was tinkering on the idea of parasites, I
tinkered that much that it didn't lead to a new fighter, but to a
new bomber and large commercial airplane (but please read on a bit
more to understand how the concept works). The base is a
combination of a cheap made B2 and two stealth F-22 fighters. If
you lost interest due to the word "stealth", please, read on. The
concept has also possibilities in the non-stealth (and cheaper)
When I saw a picture of the used B-36 in the MX-1016 project and
Tom-Tom project I saw long and narrow wings. Seeing the pictures
and reading the known problems I ran to my books and looked at a
picture of a B2. And yes, the wings are not so narrow and look more
rigid. So the B-2 would not have those flapping wings. But the B-2
has another problem that meant its death. It is toooo expensive.
But would it be possible to make it less expensive? I think yes.
Let me explain.
The B-2 is a rather secret item, but some writers had a guess at
what could be found inside the bomber. Bill Sweetman writes in his
book "Stealth Bomber" that it would possibly use two rotary weapons
launchers. Those are surely an expensive item in the B-2. The
rotary system itself is expensive and the system has all different
launching and guiding equipment for all the weapons that fit in the
barrel. Sounds like costly electronics. Are they necessary? I think
no. Please, read further.
We could combine a B-2 and two F-22's. F-22s have themselves
laser- or radar-guided weapons. Let's fill the bomber with ordinary
non-guided bombs. I hear you thinking: "ordinary bombs, why?" The
experience in the Kosovo-war showed us that most guided weapons
were not so reliable anyway. If a target is rather large (harbor,
large factory, military airport and so) you could bomb them like
the "Dam busters"-squadron did in WW 2. After their famous bombing
on the dams they started to use the "Grand Slam", a very heavy bomb
for those days (a Lancaster could only carry one of those), on
other military targets. They were able to drop this bomb from high
altitudes and still have a very good aiming. One mission tells
about the bombing of a factory while they didn't touch the
cafeteria that was standing near the middle. Sorry, guys (and
girls) but I lost my book about the squadron so I cannot give you
exact figures. Anyway, what they did around 1940 should be possible
now. Now we have aiming devices that can look through clouds and
darkness. And you would only need one aiming devise. Not like the
current B-2 who has many.
Let's imagine a mission. The three airplanes take off
separately. They couple in the air. They fly to the target. On
their way a fighter can leave the combination and use his guided
missiles on a target (radar installation, bridge, hangar) on their
way to safeguard the mission. The fighters leave the bomber near
the target to protect it from hostile airplanes. The bomber has to
fly over the target and drop the bomb(s) using the aiming device.
The bomber returns, the fighters guard the bomber on the way back.
Once in free space they couple again.
The fighters did protect the bomber at the range of the bomber.
Not at their own range!
This combination could also be used to extend the range of the
fighters. But here you need to fill the bomber with fuel instead of
bombs. The bomber "carries" the fighters over a longer range and
functions at the same time as an external fuel tank. Near the
target the fighters leave the bomber and use their guided weapons
to attack their target. After the attack they couple with the
bomber who already started his flight to the home base.
The stealth-ability of both planes could make sneak-attacks
I know already about one problem that the combination F22-B2-F22
could have. The B-2 has sweptback wings. The F-22's are placed near
the tail of the B-2. When they control their plane to keep in line
with the B-2 wing they could force a moment that could alter the
pitch of the B-2. Maybe a new bomber should be designed. But I have
not the experience or knowledge to start that project.
At non-stealth design, this sort of combinations also has a
future. It saves a country fuel during a war. Fuel sometimes
controls a war. Other non-stealth combinations can "easily" be
designed using a bomber with a rigid wing. If possible a bomber
without sweepback of the wings. But I leave this up to you to find
combinations. If you find a combination, give me a sign. I will
list them. But please state why you thought about this combination.
So... go combination hunting.
In non-weapon design, it could be a commercial liner, which
almost never lands. The center section would be a large passenger
transport. The tip-airplanes would be smaller passenger transports.
The idea is to keep the center section in the air over a looong
distance. A long airfield would be necessary at the beginning and
at the end of the trip. There would be no need for fuel stops. The
tip-airplanes take off from smaller airports. They carry
passengers, luggage and fuel. Once connected they open a corridor
between both airplanes. Passengers can board the large airplane or
leave the large airplane and land at the airfield of the smaller
airplane. The airplanes should have long airfoils to make such a
corridor in the wing possible. I hope that using this way smaller
airfields give "access" to larger airplanes. It would make a
de-centration (less airplanes on a airfield) of the air traffic
possible, because the larger airplanes would no longer need to land
on the many in-between airfields. It also could make a looong
flight with many in-between landings shorter in time, since there
no longer would be in-between landings. I still have some questions
about the way stability will be maintained when the cargo is
shipped from one airplane to the other. Anyone an idea how the
combination will react?
I know that this commercial idea doesn't use the theory of Vogt
to the max. The tip-airplanes don't stay at the tips. They only
connect a short time. But the idea of tip coupling gave me this
idea. [Editor (Koen)]: I changed my idea about this. The best
benefot would be if the "loaders " (orange) would stay attached and
travel with the large passenger plane. How could it be done? I
guess it only can be done if the airports on the line of such a
large commercial airplane use the loaders as common goods. So, the
loader from Brussels flies to Berlin and takes the next flight back
to Brussels. The crew can use the empty seats on normal flights to
get back to Brussels. It will be hard to organise this, I know. And
organizing is not my best thing. But... there might be some bright
mind out there who can think about a possible solution.
This basic idea is now already a few years on my site. Recently
i thought up this new edition of the idea. A UAV edition.
It is based on the idea that making three times a small thing
can sometimes be easier than making one time something big. And
...here we get a extra bonus. Later more on that.
Basic idea: Create a UAV that can have two types of interior.
One is filled with fuel tanks. The other has fuel, but also weapon
Together they can fly further due to the increases wing
efficienty or the fact that the UAVs at the outside don't need to
use their engine at cruise speed.
Now ...you ask me ...what is the bonus here? Well, a buyer can
start with the regular UAV with weapons (for close-by attacks) or
the UAV with fuel capacity (for surveillance). If they started to
appriciate the idea of this UAV, they can order one or two new ones
to get a two or three modules UAV-train. It is like being able to
buy a 1/3 Eagle Eye or Predator.
And ...another bonus is ...that it is harder to aim at a small
target than it is to aim for a big one. In other words ...Might be
that before you even see these UAVs coming, you are already in the
range of the UAV-weapon. These UAV are very hard to defend