It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DARPA seeks manned mothership

page: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And this one won't work?




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

Cannon fodder.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

Its pretty feasible in terms of engine technology, In my line of work, we run a number of gas turbine power stations, some are Aero type engines, others are built for power stations but a very similar tech.

The turbines basically consume most hours when starting but once running they can run for weeks and months, there is no reason you couldnt keep a large aircraft up there for months (with appropriate support). Aircraft carriers are similar in terms that with the Nuke powerplant you dont need fuel and water etc., but you are limited by food and stuff so still need a logistics path.

If you could fly UAVs in and out of an Airborne platform, it could deliver enough food and water and remove waste to keep you up there for ages, only thing you need is fuel - the only thing! Its also the biggest and weightiest thing.

What is the endurance of a 747 if it was to run on the lowest fuel consumption possible and if coupled with a boomer, is it possible to give it enough fuel for a couple of days with current tech? Are turbo props more suitable (the russian Bear type??).

So many questions...I love the idea of an Airborne Aircraft Carrier..



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TheCrowMan

Easily a couple of days. I remember there were some Looking Glass flights that almost booked triple digit hours airborne. We have even looked into the possibility of exchanging bomber / missile control crews airborne for continuous 24hr overlapping coverage. The ABL was going to piggyback on that idea - But none of it never happened. Certainly more than possible however. Hopefully some of our colleagues here have more information on that.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

Always an insightful read.

Was reading about the Personnel Reliability Programme in relation to the Nuclear Surety Programme recently in regards to Looking Glass- all very interesting.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: aholic



Was reading about the Personnel Reliability Programme in relation to the Nuclear Surety Programme recently in regards to Looking Glass- all very interesting.



Yeah I really hear you. Those continuity of government / continuity of operations plans can be enlightening if at all down right terrifying.






edit on 12-11-2014 by aholic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic
At 20000 ft, easily hit by rockets, however, I had heard that
it was capable of 70,000 ft (crap, can't find the link now).
Here is a flying model that launches another aircraft. It reminds me of the S.H.I.E.L.D. hover ship.
The video is located in the right upper section of the link.
www.popularmechanics.com...-8
edit on V482014Wednesdaypm30America/ChicagoWed, 12 Nov 2014 13:48:18 -06001 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Stack a bunch of "Dorito chips" in a wide hypervelocy aerospace frame,launch them with EM rails by the wing tips,the crew operates the actions from orbit.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

Didn't they can the project and return the prototype to the manufacturer in the UK?

I personally can't see blimps with a military application, too vunerable. Even in a logistics role.

There must be something bad about them because outside of sports commentary I can think where they are used.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join