With the right weapons it gives you more options and under the right circumstances it could increase the range of shorter ranged weapons,tho whether thats actually worth all of the additional costs in aircraft and their associated infrastructure is somewhat debatable.....then again if you`ve already got the damn things [an airforce] then why not use them,eh?
For example with a long range cruise missile carrier you could deploy the missiles from the indian ocean or even the entrance to the red sea.
I`m talking about non tactical aircraft of course,imagine an il76 with a rotary launcher in the cargo bay,or something like a tanker [no rear cargo door] with external missile canisters mounted on top of the fuselage,like the lun ekranoplan
This why I think things like the 2500km turbofan powered soumar cruise missile should`ve been produced for both the airforce and the navy as they both had the platforms to make maximum use of that weapons capabilities,especially in any future hypothetical
strategic role
As for albms it basically allows you to increase the range of these weapons,especially the shorter ranged ones like the fajr 4 or 5 for example,sadly tho iran lacks something like a mig31 to allow high speed long range deployment of larger missiles,tho subsonic air launching of larger missiles like the kheibar shekan is certainly possible.
Sadly tho the iriaf shows no interest in trying to get itself a piece of irans missile pie.
] and both were where you would expect them to be when the warhead would`ve separated,ie jordan/israel.
.
