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.

 

Airborn aircraft carriers

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
So is the United States making airborne aircraft carriers, or is that just a conspiracy theory.




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Can't say i've heard anything. Where did you get your information from? Got a link?



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Nevermind, I can't find it.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
they already have. in the 1930's they experimented with huge dirigibles that carried aircraft. they had hooks that the aircraft would fly up to and hook up on.....it was very dangerous and didnt work very well. they scrapped the idea fairly quickly. i'll see if i can find something more on it.


edit: here ya go.


wikipedia
The Sparrowhawk was ideal for use in an airship because of its small size, 20 feet (6 m) long and 25 foot ( 7 m) wingspan. The Sparrowhawks had a hook attached to the top wing which was used to attach to what the crews called "the flying trapeze". The plane was then pulled into the airship. The planes were stored inside the airship until it was needed to be flown. It was attached to the trapeze, which dropped out of the airship. To begin flight, the pilots simply released the hook and fell free. In order to increase range, some Sparrowhawks had their landing gear removed and replaced by a fuel tank. Landing gear was unnecessary, as the planes did not land on the ground.





[edit on 7-4-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
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...



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   


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.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
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



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
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!"



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Their working on a huge zeppilin like aircraft so that may be adjusted to be a airborn aircraft carrier. I believe thiswas in popsci



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Nick Fury had one in the comic book. It was pretty cool.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   
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..



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
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



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join