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.

 

Flying carrier possible ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Sometime ago I read about an UFO which was seen by many testimonies including several police officers and other reliable testimonies.

They described the UFO as a " two football field black triangle".

One testimony said, there have been several conventional military jets around the object and - one of the fighters seemed to vanish inside the triangle.

Could this object be a flying carrier ?
Could a flying carrier make any sense ?

I tried to find the link again but up to now to no avail. I´ll search on ...




posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
It's been done before, but the challenges have changed a bit since then. See if you can find anything on the USS MACON or the USS ARCON. Both were flying aircraft carriers. (sorrey, I can't link from this computer)



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
This object is actually known to the US government as the TR3-B. It has a diameter of 600 ft, roughly 2 football fields and is in the shape of a triangle. We can't know for sure if it's real or not, but look up Mr. Faust's(Mr. Cook?) articles on it, he goes into detail.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
this is virtuily impossible

1. how do you keep sucj object flying thanks to the sheer scale of the object

2. it would need alot of power to get off the ground

3. how do you make a aircarft airo dynamic enough and large enough to accomedate a launch deck and place to hold aircraft

and so forth



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
well, the Macon and the Arcon were each Dirgibles. Figure a top speed on a rigid frame, lighter than air craft to be around 80-90 knots, heck, let's say 100 Knots.

Could a modern fighter aircraft land on/in/under such a device? I don't know, but I suppose it could be useful with something like the SToVL F-35. The biggest problems then become one of balance, and keeping most of your weight on the bottom of the craft.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Couldn´t it be a big plane with a nuclear reactor on board providing the power for one of the futuristic propulsion systems everybody´s talking of ???
It is said it has 18 or more light spots (propulsion aggregates ?) underneath and is slower and faster than any other plane ever observed.
Take-off/landing wouldn´t be a problem if carrier and fighter make the same speed ... .
As for balancing problems during landing/take-off, we have computers to do such jobs automatically, even on our civil planes, don´t we ?
Let´s say the carrier/tanker/transporter/bomber is cruising at an height of 40.000 feet and has 4 multi-purpose fighters on board. Could save lots of fuel, provide a bigger radius and/or pay load for the fighters, and could be used for remunition. As a side-effect it could save the AWACS and become the war lords place on the balcony in "the theater".

I´m still searching for the link ... sorry I can´t provide it right now.

If not built already, could I get a patent on this now
remember, you read it here first !!!



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Bodrul, lets not go as far as saying such an aircraft is imporrible, things in the past that were thought to be impossible are now reality.

The description put forth by the original thread author reminds me of the TR3-B. It is very likely that it is another account of the TR3-B.

This is why the TR3-B is capable of flight.
1)It uses advanced inertial dampeners that reduce it's total WEIGHT(not mass) by 85 percent. The B-2 uses inertial dampeners that reduce 20 percent of it's total weight.

2)The propulsion system is highly advanced, supposedly it uses 3 rocket pods placed at each corner of the craft. The powerplant is supposedly a mercury based centrifuge that spins at above 250,000 RPM to create a plasma induced magnetic field that produces lift for the aircraft. This is not zero G's, but it is mighty damn close. I may have been wrong on some of these details, it's been a while since I read up on it, but if anyone wants to know more information, search the web for TR3-B.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Now I found a link, it´s not exactly the one I was looking for, but it´s heading that direction ...

www.dbarkertv.com...

and thanks for your comments ...



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
If this flying carrier exists, someone please tell me why information like this is being kept from us?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SecretMuffinNinja
If this flying carrier exists, someone please tell me why information like this is being kept from us?

Would you like your enemy knowing and having acess to ALL your technology?



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by SecretMuffinNinja
If this flying carrier exists, someone please tell me why information like this is being kept from us?

Would you like your enemy knowing and having acess to ALL your technology?



Well, Considering the military flew it over 2 or 3 towns with its lights on and rather low to the ground I dont think the military really cares about keeping it secret.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Probably a blimp. What makes you think it would be anything else, unless its aliens, in which case, who knows..



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smoot
Well, Considering the military flew it over 2 or 3 towns with its lights on and rather low to the ground I dont think the military really cares about keeping it secret.

You dont think that flying it over 2 or 3 towns isnt a test of its abilities?

How better to test something new than to fly it over your own people?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
More importantly, why would you even WANT to?

Honestly, it'd be more feasible and more practical even to build an orbital bombardment station.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
More feasible and more practicle? Not by today's standards it's not.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I'm gonna assume you mean in terms of diplomatic, political, and various other non-technical issues...right?



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
No, I mean straight out, technical and economically unpracticle and unfeasible.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I guess a flying aircraft carrier would be possible but it would take all the brains in the world to invent one

Anyone seen 'Captain Scarlet'?



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
A flying aircraft carrier is in the works already. It's really nothing more then a giant Blimp. Once we develop advanced enough hard nanocomposits to create Vacuum filled aerostats the stratosphere is truely the limit.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course these wont be launching F22's or F35's from it's belly, it will most likely be a platform for UCAV sqaudrons.

[edit on 22-1-2006 by sardion2000]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join