has anyone ever tried to basicaly have a plane launch a missile/bomb realy high and then adding a rocket booster to turn said bomb into a balistic missile?
>>64702153that's what russian rocket bombs are anon
>>64702153Air launched ballistic missiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-launched_ballistic_missile are going to blow you mind
>>64702374I think what OP means is extending a bomb range by sending it high up not just fucking launching a ballistic missile without booster.
>>64702394there is the soviet doctrinal use of unguided rockets from a helicopter, where the heli tilts up and fires the rockets in an arch extending their range. you can see combat footage of that from UkraineiIrc there is also the concept of releasing a battlefield nuclear bomb while flying straight up allowing the carrier aircraft to exit the danger zone while the bomb makes the arch back down.Otherwise, lobbing a dumb bomb into space and hoping that it impacts anywhere near where you want it to is very optimistic. You could employ a guidance system but at that point, with a rocket motor, a guidance system and a warhead you might as well use a ballistic missile.
>>64702153Pretty much all types of lon(ish) ranged aircraft launched missiles do this.Ground launched, too.
>>64702153They are dead weight on the ground and jets spend more time on the ground than in air. It takes longer time to ready, arm and climb a fighter jet with special missiles than a big ass solid rocket booster hooked to an ignition button. The system only fills an offensive role and have trouble with defense as it won't be made abundant, have high endurance to be available at all time to react in time. Jets specialized in giving more speed, range and altitude usually suck at endurance or ease of maintenance.
>>64702495>You could employ a guidance system but at that point, with a rocket motor, a guidance system and a warhead you might as well use a ballistic missile.And thermal shielding
