So is the United States making airborne aircraft carriers, or is that just a conspiracy theory.

Can't say i've heard anything. Where did you get your information from? Got a link?

Nevermind, I can't find it.

During the 1950s and 60s the Air Force had a program to see if the large B-36 bomber could carry a fighter for protection... A parasite plane that fit into the belly. It never really worked... I think the little fighter was called the Goblin...

as far as the whole "hooking up" thing, i don't think it'd be too hard. the precision required to accomplish in flight refueling should attest to that.

the only thing i could see that would deter any kind of in flight rendezvous would be jet wash or prop wash.

Originally posted by wdwdash

the only thing i could see that would deter any kind of in flight rendezvous would be jet wash or prop wash.

try wake turbulence. that is turbulence from the wing tip vortices of aircraft, and in heavy aircraft such as the c-5 and b747 it can be enough to cause smaller aircraft to completely loose control, which is why the mandatory seperation between heavy aircraft and smaller aircraft is substantially greater than between other types of aircraft.

Sounds just like the movie I just watched. Sky Captain& The World of Tomarrow. They showed a pretty reasonable looking model of what looks like an multi blimp single super structure idea that would possibly work for an airbourne carrier/airport. I suspect weather would play much havoc though.

try wake turbulence. that is turbulence from the wing tip vortices of aircraft, and in heavy aircraft such as the c-5 and b747 it can be enough to cause smaller aircraft to completely loose control, which is why the mandatory seperation between heavy aircraft and smaller aircraft is substantially greater than between other types of aircraft.

i hear that. however, the kind of aircraft we're talking about latching onto a larger craft aren't going to be small single prop craft, we're talking about fast movers, proportionally pushing more air than a 747.

the other thing is DoD seems to be really interested in rotary enging aircraft, so if that trend continues the whole mother ship thing would not really work.

Unless we master anti-gravity, if you're thinking of an airborn aircraft carrier I'm thinking of - holy **** would that be a lot of power to keep that in the air. I can see a type of project for space however

Snafu had it right, although actually, we had two flying aircraft carriers, the USS MACON and the USS ARCON. There wasn't really a problem with the trapese method, but there was a problem typical of US Airship designs at the time, a weak tail section. Both the Macon and the Arcon were destroyed in storms when thier tail section disintigrated, and tore huge holes in thier internal gas bags.

Biggest problem in trying to revive this concept is one of speed. The Macon and Arcon could probrably have made a good effort of outrunning thier own aircraft. But it's hard to get modern fighters to be highly controlable under 100 knots for recovery. Launch is still pretty easy though, "okay, got your engines running? adios, and watch that first step!"

Their working on a huge zeppilin like aircraft so that may be adjusted to be a airborn aircraft carrier. I believe thiswas in popsci

Nick Fury had one in the comic book. It was pretty cool.

I don't think there will ever be an airborn aircraft carrier. Many years ago when airplanes didn''t have the range they have now, it seemed that one solution would be to put them all on a long range airship that could hold enough fuel to get to the destination. However, I do think that eventually we will see cargo airships, or maybe cruise ships in the sky for passengers.

That is what I was refering to. Also a reason this would be is not so much as an aircraft carrier but as a platform for launching large numbers of cruise missiles. This probably would use the the new lasers also on the jsf. I dont know what power source would be used. again maybe like the jsf or like the yal-1/abl-1 . I wonder if the system that is used to protect tanks from rpg's (making them detonate early) would be applicable to this with missiles. probably it would have a complement of fighters to make up for the obvious weakness that it is slow and cumbersome. yet another military use would be as a transport. Imagine how much arse an army would be able to kick being able to get the same amount of stuff in that it would take like 100 transport planes to do all at once. As for the conspiracy theories nwo could use it as a base to controll imformation. Also it could be used as an airborn pentagon or white house. As we all have said there are many civilian uses. Theres no reason it would not be used as an aircraft carrier. Just because they can fly planes across the world to strike targets doesn't mean its a good idea. Pilots will become fatigued and planes will have to carry externals ruining flight speed and stealth for planes that this applies for. Also the added weight decreases manuveability. Also it could be used as a controll ship for many uav's that have super manuverability and low range etc..

Unless there is a way to make a gigantic airship optically as well as electronically invisible, this flying carrier would be a sitting duck. I guess there could be advanced "SEAD & AAA blimps" developed to screen the carrier from airborne or SAM threats. but I doubt this would survive battles over funding.

I think the most viable alternative would be a high speed sub-orbital carrier that could "sprinkle" smaller craft into a theater followed by a second sub-orbital carrier for extraction. This would require extremely fast and efficient 'docking' capability for the extraction carrier to exit the theater under conventional power safely. However, I think the advancement of smart munitions and armed drones will eventually make all of this unnecessary anyway.

My 1 cent (2 cents before tax),

W.E.S.B

Heres my 2cents (3before tax cause I compensated for it HAH)

It could be used as a transport mostly thats really the only feasable use.