Rapid Dragon is a palletized and disposable weapons module which is airdropped in order to deploy flying munitions, typically cruise missiles, from unmodified cargo planes. Developed by the United States Air Force and Lockheed, the airdrop-rigged pallets, called “deployment boxes,” provide a low cost method allowing unmodified cargo planes, such as C-130 or C-17 aircraft, to be temporarily repurposed as standoff bombers capable of mass launching any variant of long or short range AGM-158 JASSM cruise missiles against land or naval targets.
…
Similar concepts for parachuting pallets from cargo aircraft to launch rockets have independently been proposed in the civilian aerospace sector by a cross-industrial team sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in 2011 at the 25th AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites to facilitate the deployment of satellites weighing 100-200 kilograms to Low Earth orbit without the need for a dedicated spaceport.[16] Follow-up design research was published in 2013 and 2015 at the 27th and 29th AIAA/USU Conferences on Small Satellites respectively. These design proposals have also been preceded and paralleled with other related Air-launch-to-orbit concepts that launch spacecraft deployed either from cargo ramps or external mounts.
Could the An-26 or An-70 launch Tomahawks this way I wonder?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force
Rapid Dragon will be a game-changing concept for conventional and, possibly, nuclear weapons use, now for the United States and its allies, but in the future for potential US adversaries. The Rapid Dragon development is somewhat reminiscent of England’s introduction of the Dreadnaught, a type of battleship that made the rest of its large fleet obsolescent and allowed other nations to compete with England in building modern battleships. Rapid Dragon appears to be a similarly game-changing development for the United States and its allies but will need to be carefully monitored to ensure that the advantage it creates is maintained. Similarly, the nuclear potential for Rapid Dragon-like systems will need to be tracked, arms limitation strategies for such systems developed, and the potential increase in threat potentials and/or new threat vectors defined as counterstrategies are conceived.
Video of Rapid Dragon live fire test in Norway 2022
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EPBVWkZxz-w&pp=ygUSYWZzb2MgcmFwaWQgZHJhZ29u
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T1adrIckr6M&pp=ygUSYWZzb2MgcmFwaWQgZHJhZ29u
edit it looks like the platform can be scaled all the way down to being launched from a Wily Coyote
edit 2 as far as interest in this kind of technology for launching satellites for communications/military satellite systems see this article for the rationale of why this technology might be of so much interest to Ukraine, since Ukraine certainly knows Russia could conceivably strike Ukraine back with such sophisticated operations. Launching orbital sattelites from cargo planes seems like a much more resilient, non-static method for Ukraine achieving space capability rather than building ground based space launch facilities.
Lastly, Operation Spiderweb demonstrated Ukraine’s ability to destroy strategic assets deep inside Russian territory. Russia’s ground-based space infrastructure could be similarly targeted. Ukraine’s allies have been squeamish about Ukraine attacking targets inside Russia, but U.S. President Donald Trump was reportedly a fan of Spiderweb, so why not?
Sabotage or cyberattacks could also be used to delay or prevent Russia’s space modernisation.
https://kyivindependent.com/dont-give-russia-space/
edit 3 specific description of broad utility and direct use of already trained air lift/air drop personnel
“that’s just one aspect of palletized effects. So imagine, you know, not only can we service a target [with a lethal weapon], but we could deploy a decoy, we could put out a jamming sensor, we could put out a sensor that could find a radio and provide search and rescue. You know, all those things I think are on the table. When I talk about Rapid Dragon and when I talk about palletized effects, it’s much broader than just the kinetic side of the business,” he added.
…
“Imagine where … you drop 100 UAVs. So, you know, little drones. A drone could come out and it could provide precision navigation and timing to someone that doesn’t have it. It could fly a life vest down to a downed pilot or a radio to a downed pilot. It could actually fly down and survey the runway which you’re about to land on … It could provide some sort of, you know, search mechanism for an enemy force if you want it. Or it could simply fly down and go to sleep and be there available for when you want to wake it up,” he told reporters.
…
Major modifications to aircraft shouldn’t be necessary to deliver so-called palletized effects, he said, meaning it shouldn’t be expensive.
“I shouldn’t have a whole lot of concern about what comes off the pallet once it goes out of the airplane, I just need to make sure my crews are trained to get it out of the airplane safely and precisely for the operational maneuver being done, and then move forward,” he added.
I’m fairly convinced that given enough time they can launch a Tomahawk off a matchbox. The Ukrainians aren’t fucking around when it comes to long range weapons development; it’s kind of an existential deal there.
There are C-130s all over the world, and that’s all you need, if you’re going to use Rapid Dragon. I’m sure that they could get ahold of some.
My impression is that Rapid Dragon was really designed to allow the US to “surge” a massive number of launches at once using the large US air-logistics system, though, to overwhelm air defenses. I don’t know whether it’s necessarily the best way to launch Tomahawks. I assume that air-launching them might give them more range, if it’s not a problem to fly at altitude, but also make the launch more-visible.
Aside from naval launchers, we did have a Tomahawk ground launcher used to launch nuclear-warhead-equipped Tomahawks. That isn’t around any more, but it’s clearly technically viable to ground-launch them.
EDIT: Hmm. Two days ago:
At AUSA, Oshkosh will showcase three production-ready variants from its FMAV portfolio:
- Extreme Multi-Mission Autonomous Vehicle (X-MAV): The Oshkosh X-MAV is a purpose-built, autonomous-capable launcher solution that is engineered to support the future of long-range munitions. With a robust chassis for the heaviest payloads, proven off-road mobility, and integrated onboard vehicle power, it’s the ideal foundation to support the Common Autonomous Multi-Domain Launcher Heavy (CAML-H) program for multi-domain missions and formations. The X-MAV will be displayed for the first time with four Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles.
EDIT2: I’m not sure that you can launch Tomahawks from Rapid Dragon, though.
looks further
Ah. Apparently there are existing, in-inventory ground-based-Tomahawk launchers of another sort, and it’s actually been discussed re: Ukraine.
Tomahawks for Ukraine now more plausible U.S. reportedly found surplus ground launchers just a month ago
EDIT3: It looks like the US Marines started using these two years back:
https://news.usni.org/2023/07/25/marines-activate-first-tomahawk-battery
EDIT4: And apparently they just stopped using them, as per the defense-ua.com article above:
Just a month ago, the U.S. Marine Corps decided to abandon the LRF (Long Range Fires) launcher for Tomahawk.
The reason was poor cross‑country mobility on soft ground critical for Marines who would need to land LRF units on a beach. That limitation is less of an issue for Ukraine. Moreover, it is unlikely Ukraine could receive original LRFs anyway, because the LRF is a remotely operated ground vehicle based on the JLTV. The platform itself could still be useful to the Marines for an NMESIS concept with NSM anti‑ship missiles. But the Tomahawk launch system itself which can be mounted on virtually any wheeled chassis is exactly what Ukraine would need.
Yes ground platforms like the Oskosh series of vehicles are an obvious “soon as possible” solution for Ukraine, but Ukraine presumably already has air lift capability, already deployed, right now.
There are obvious domestic military surveillance and communications satellite launch capabilities this makes much more feasible for Ukraine, especially during war, so I would think no matter what this would be near the top the list of strategic interests.
But the Tomahawk launch system itself which can be mounted on virtually any wheeled chassis is exactly what Ukraine would need.
Too bad Ukraine didn’t get just get a bunch of secret trucks from ihr Freund
deleted by creator
Rapid Dragon wouldn’t work with Tomahawks afaik, it was developed to launch JASSM/CMMT etc. according to the webs.
The solution is of course to give Ukraine JASSM-ER.
Is this because it wouldn’t work with tomahawks or the US military sees no point I wonder?
I think it’s the latter. I suspect tomahawk’s software assumes they are being initially fired in roughly the ‘up’ direction (see every iteration so far of anything that fires a tomahawk). This would present issues when deployed as part of rapid dragon, which dumps missiles in roughly the ‘down’ direction when leaving the pallet. There is no technical reason this cannot be accounted for in the software, I simply suspect it hasn’t been. Modifying and testing the software would take time.
Since they are already fired out of a VLS cell, something that is purposefully modular and unconcerned to what it is attached to, we have lots of great ground-based options. All you really need to do is get the VLS cell roughly vertical and you are good to go.
As an aside, Rapid Dragon is pretty damn cool, and I see it as the future of cruise missile deployment. It is by far the simplest and cheapest way to deploy cruise missiles en-mass. Mostly because it lets you use your existing air-lift capability, rather than requiring specialized platforms for deployment.
Note: It won’t replace VLS cells, which are the way to do naval and ground launched missile deployment. Take a look at HIMARS, which is basically a smaller VLS cell erector/launcher:
HIMARS have radically reshaped large scale mechanized warfare but I wonder if having an even larger truck-based launch platform to launch even bigger missiles is wise.
The article I read about the marines giving up their launchers states indicates it was largely because of ground pressure issues and that still seems like a VERY relevant issue to Ukraine. The problem seems to me is that cruise missiles are very rare and expensive and almost any amount of effort spent sabotaging them would be worth it so maneuver limitations become deadly quick against an enemy like Russia especially when you are stuck on the ground in a massive truck solidly in the territory of loitering munitions.
I would much rather throw a salvo of tomahawks out the back of a cargo plane if I had them especially since this same technology has potential for launching satellites which I would definitely want given how a shitty fascist runs SpaceX.
