But from a military standpoint, it looks like a solution desperately searching for a problem.

Sure, it's possible to conceive of situations where these towed escort fighters could help the bomber carry out its mission. But there's a lot of potential for them just to get in the way, too.

It's clear that the bomber can carry (if necessary) only one escort at a time, but it would only be a temporary situation. With the thrust coming from only the tow, and off-centerline, the bomber pilot would have to apply considerable rudder to keep the aircraft on course. This would increase drag, hence fuel consumption, and defeat the whole purpose of the concept.

In a long range mission, this means the bomber might lose one of its escorts, say in combat or due to a mechanical malfunction. This would mean the other fighter would have to be jettisoned, sacrificed, in order for the tow to make it home. If the bomber were damaged or disabled in any way, both fighters could be stranded deep in enemy territory, or far out at sea, with no ride home.

Now I grant you these considerations might become irrelevant in certain high-risk, high-reward missions, but would the expense and extra complexity required to equip these aircraft and train their flight and maintenance crews make sense in the long run? Look at it this way, the expense of plane modifications and crew training might be better directed to developing other capabilities. And there's always the drop in performance and maintenance costs of aircraft so equipped when they might only rarely use those modifications.

In short, its a needless complication of systems which, to put it bluntly, do not survive long during combat operations.

An analogous concept was considered during the early days of jet airline commercial flight. Serious thought was given to using aerial refueling techniques pioneered by the military to extend the range and pay loads of commercial aircraft, but the idea was discarded because it was too expensive, too complex, and too likely to go wrong in a civil context.

Engineers have a tendency to come up with schemes like this. They are often brilliant and visionary, but sometimes serve no real practical purpose. Aviation is an area where these Rube Goldberg monstrosities often pop up--after all, don't all little boys love airplanes? Think of the supersonic transport. It should have been very clear that there really was no market to justify such an expensive technical system just to save a tiny handful of money-is-no-object passengers a few hours on a few routes. The vast majority of all airline passengers spend more time in traffic on the way to and from the airport, getting through airport security, idling on the tarmac or circling their destination than they do in the air. Unless you're a businessman who flies from New York to Tokyo to attend crucial meetings several times a year, getting there a few hours early at twice the cost makes no sense.

And now these nerds are daydreaming about sub-orbital rocket planes and hypersonic transports. What they should be employing their design talents on is wider seats and more carry-on luggage space.