11 ms·

Investigation of an Airborne Aircraft Carrier Concept (1973) [pdf]

69 points by vinnyglennon 12y ago

ChuckMcM 12y ago
Oh that is a lot of fun. I find the idea of stacking micro fighter jets inside a 747 pretty amusing. (not to mention the 'nuclear powered airplane' which is the final evolutionary stage of this platform :-) Of course it does not look like the unholy love child of a Parrot AR drone and a nuclear air craft carrier :-)
rbc 12y ago
Looks like great material for a movie ;)
- _random_ 12y ago
  Avengers did that :).
  - blktiger 12y ago
    As did Captain America: The Winter Solder (even better, they had multiple flying carriers) :)
  - koenigdavidmj 12y ago
    Along with 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow', though I recommend not wasting two hours of your life on it.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
DARPA is contracting out for the drone version right now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/11/10/the-pentagon-wants-an-airborne-aircraft-carrier-for-drones/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/11/10/...
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Interesting. Seems that there would be no need for expensive catapult/catchwire operations. Just synchronize speeds and grab the drone with a big mechanized claw of some sort. Drone takeoff could be just like dropping bombs.
Animats 12y ago
This is the old "parasite fighter" concept. It came from a big problem in WWII: fighters had less range than bombers, so bombers had no fighter protection near their targets. Then came "fighter-bombers". The F-15, which is a fighter, has almost the bomb load of a B-29, considerable range, and the ability to fight its way to a target. It also can usually put a bomb on the target, rather than somewhere in the general neighborhood, so fewer bombs are needed. (In the WWII era, bombers had trouble consistently hitting the right city. There were cases where the wrong country was bombed. So vast numbers of bombs were dropped.)
- Someone 12y ago
  For those not familiar with that: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command#The_early_years_of_the_Second_World_War http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command#The_early_...: "It was common in the early years of the war for bombers relying on dead reckoning navigation to miss entire cities. Surveys of bombing photographs and other sources published during August 1941, indicated that fewer than one bomb in ten fell within 5 miles (8.0 km) of its intended target." And that is in _daylight_ bombing. I also remember reading that some British bombers accidentally bombed British mainland in bad weather (with at least twenty miles of sea between their target and Brirtsh mainland) http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2454254 http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2454254 may mention such cases, but isn't online.
  - delecti 12y ago
    Being so used to GPS, it's hard to wrap my head around that. With an easily affordable consumer electronic device that can fit in my pocket, I have better navigational abilities than the absolute best money could buy until a handful of decades ago.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - rebootthesystem 12y ago
      Pickup sailing. Get up to where you can sail longer distances, between ports not day sailing. Without a GPS. Then do it at night. And, occasionally, not by choice, do it in the fog. This gives you a real persoective of what it takes to get from point A to point B. Even with accurate maps it can be confusing as hell. I used to sail a lot. Got pretty good at celestial navigation. Night sailing was always my favorite.
VLM 12y ago
Vehicles in aircraft was a popular concept in the 70s. See the Phoenix aircraft from "Battle of the Planets" aka Science Ninja Team Gatchaman. Don't judge my bad taste in entertainment too harshly, I was just a little kid at the time.
- trhway 12y ago
  man, now i know what it was! - about 35 years ago, living in USSR near border we had some reception of some foreign TV and this was like nothing else available on USSR TV, these series blew our minds, it was literally "out of this world" :) I'm actually torn right now between curiosity to watch it now and fear that it will spoil the magic that it built in my mind those decades ago :)
  - virtue3 12y ago
    don't go back and watch it. trust me. Look upon the memories fondly instead ;)
- pjungwir 12y ago
  Wow, I watched that show as a kid too! For an anime series with an actual airborne aircraft carrier, see Star Blazers. In my memory all these old shows have blurred together, as if from another life time: BotP, Star Blazers, Robotech, Voltron. I'm sure they must have borrowed a lot from each other.
  - VLM 12y ago
    Voltron YES another youth memory that I assure you does not look so good in 2010s. General startup advice that can be learned from this : Kids have always had really bad taste. You can make money off that. But always keep in mind, "the kids like it" does not equal "that proves its good". Teens arguably due to hormonal impact have even worse taste than kids.
trhway 12y ago
it definitely can save money/time/etc... when used in a most typical modern conflict against localized and less [military] powerful enemy, like Iraq, Libya, ISIS, etc... that lacks modern airspace offense/defense capabilities. It would be much less useful against another type of opponent, like Russia, China, probably Iran (at least it comes close to it), Syria (has pretty functional fighter jets and bought S-400 missile systems) - ie. the ones who possess capabilities of striking airborne targets hundred miles away.
- sologoub 12y ago
  Striking requires targeting. S-400 is a very impressive piece of tech, but in order to strike something thats 2k miles away, you need to be able to see it. (Unless it has blind fire capabilities where you can target an area/altitude and have the missile search for a target there.) Jamming and other countermeasures would make something like this that is a drone mothership very interesting over large land masses. US has a huge edge anywhere there is water, but deep inland, have a fully mobile and defensible air field that can go anywhere is extremely compelling. Doubly so when you already have established air superiority.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >in order to strike something thats 2k miles away, you need to be able to see it. that is done by satellites in particular. And China for example develops ballistic anti-ship missile which would be able to strike targets 2K miles away. A ballistic warhead coming at 10M would present next level of challenge even for ship-based anti-missile systems. I don't see a flying aircraft carrier able to carry any meaningful defense capabilities against such an attack. My point here is that, even more than in case of naval aircraft carrier, such flying carrier would be useful only when total dominance is established, which wouldn't be the case with any meaningful military opponent. Of course there is no actual plans to fight an actual war against any such opponent :)
    - sologoub 12y ago
      If US were to engage in open war with any other nuclear armed nation, fate of a few aircraft would be the least of our worries. Even if no nuke ever reached North America, the consequences will. Case in point is Fukushima radiation being detectable on the west coast. (http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/Fukushima-detection http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/Fukushima-detection) Granted those are trace amounts, but if a full scale nuclear war took place in Eurasia, we'd definitely would feel effects.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
I love the ZRS series of helium filled flying aircraft carriers with on-board biplanes. They didn't last very long though. USS Akron (ZRS-4) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_%28ZRS-4%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_%28ZRS-4%29 USS Macon (ZRS-5) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Macon_%28ZRS-5%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Macon_%28ZRS-5%29
vinnyglennon 12y ago
DARPA have a new round open looking for alternative approaches: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a73e0ea615c675383c1529c5ad631249&tab=core&_cview=0 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a73e0ea...
jessriedel 12y ago
Can someone explain the purpose of this? The only reason I can think of to have this (which Animats mentions in a comment) is to allow fighters with modest fuel tanks to attack deep in territory they couldn't otherwise reach. But this problem is a lot easier to solve with in-air refueling, which has been used since the Korean war.
- bluekeybox 12y ago
  you may not want the enemy to know you're sending a fleet of fighter jets in their direction.
hackuser 12y ago
A new idea: "Pentagon Seeks Aircraft-based Drones for Future Missions" http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141111/DEFREG02/311110031/Pentagon-Seeks-Aircraft-based-Drones-Future-Missions http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141111/DEFREG02/3111100...

69 points by vinnyglennon 12y ago

Oh that is a lot of fun. I find the idea of stacking micro fighter jets inside a 747 pretty amusing. (not to mention the 'nuclear powered airplane' which is the final evolutionary stage of this platform :-) Of course it does not look like the unholy love child of a Parrot AR drone and a nuclear air craft carrier :-)

rbc 12y ago

Looks like great material for a movie ;)

_random_ 12y ago
Avengers did that :).
- blktiger 12y ago
  As did Captain America: The Winter Solder (even better, they had multiple flying carriers) :)
- koenigdavidmj 12y ago
  Along with 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow', though I recommend not wasting two hours of your life on it.

waterlesscloud 12y ago

DARPA is contracting out for the drone version right now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/11/10/the-pentagon-wants-an-airborne-aircraft-carrier-for-drones/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/11/10/...

jessaustin 12y ago
Interesting. Seems that there would be no need for expensive catapult/catchwire operations. Just synchronize speeds and grab the drone with a big mechanized claw of some sort. Drone takeoff could be just like dropping bombs.

Animats 12y ago

This is the old "parasite fighter" concept. It came from a big problem in WWII: fighters had less range than bombers, so bombers had no fighter protection near their targets. Then came "fighter-bombers". The F-15, which is a fighter, has almost the bomb load of a B-29, considerable range, and the ability to fight its way to a target. It also can usually put a bomb on the target, rather than somewhere in the general neighborhood, so fewer bombs are needed. (In the WWII era, bombers had trouble consistently hitting the right city. There were cases where the wrong country was bombed. So vast numbers of bombs were dropped.)

Someone 12y ago
For those not familiar with that: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command#The_early_years_of_the_Second_World_War http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command#The_early_...: "It was common in the early years of the war for bombers relying on dead reckoning navigation to miss entire cities. Surveys of bombing photographs and other sources published during August 1941, indicated that fewer than one bomb in ten fell within 5 miles (8.0 km) of its intended target." And that is in _daylight_ bombing. I also remember reading that some British bombers accidentally bombed British mainland in bad weather (with at least twenty miles of sea between their target and Brirtsh mainland) http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2454254 http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2454254 may mention such cases, but isn't online.
- delecti 12y ago
  Being so used to GPS, it's hard to wrap my head around that. With an easily affordable consumer electronic device that can fit in my pocket, I have better navigational abilities than the absolute best money could buy until a handful of decades ago.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - rebootthesystem 12y ago
    Pickup sailing. Get up to where you can sail longer distances, between ports not day sailing. Without a GPS. Then do it at night. And, occasionally, not by choice, do it in the fog. This gives you a real persoective of what it takes to get from point A to point B. Even with accurate maps it can be confusing as hell. I used to sail a lot. Got pretty good at celestial navigation. Night sailing was always my favorite.

VLM 12y ago

Vehicles in aircraft was a popular concept in the 70s. See the Phoenix aircraft from "Battle of the Planets" aka Science Ninja Team Gatchaman. Don't judge my bad taste in entertainment too harshly, I was just a little kid at the time.

trhway 12y ago
man, now i know what it was! - about 35 years ago, living in USSR near border we had some reception of some foreign TV and this was like nothing else available on USSR TV, these series blew our minds, it was literally "out of this world" :) I'm actually torn right now between curiosity to watch it now and fear that it will spoil the magic that it built in my mind those decades ago :)
- virtue3 12y ago
  don't go back and watch it. trust me. Look upon the memories fondly instead ;)
pjungwir 12y ago
Wow, I watched that show as a kid too! For an anime series with an actual airborne aircraft carrier, see Star Blazers. In my memory all these old shows have blurred together, as if from another life time: BotP, Star Blazers, Robotech, Voltron. I'm sure they must have borrowed a lot from each other.
- VLM 12y ago
  Voltron YES another youth memory that I assure you does not look so good in 2010s. General startup advice that can be learned from this : Kids have always had really bad taste. You can make money off that. But always keep in mind, "the kids like it" does not equal "that proves its good". Teens arguably due to hormonal impact have even worse taste than kids.

trhway 12y ago

it definitely can save money/time/etc... when used in a most typical modern conflict against localized and less [military] powerful enemy, like Iraq, Libya, ISIS, etc... that lacks modern airspace offense/defense capabilities. It would be much less useful against another type of opponent, like Russia, China, probably Iran (at least it comes close to it), Syria (has pretty functional fighter jets and bought S-400 missile systems) - ie. the ones who possess capabilities of striking airborne targets hundred miles away.

sologoub 12y ago
Striking requires targeting. S-400 is a very impressive piece of tech, but in order to strike something thats 2k miles away, you need to be able to see it. (Unless it has blind fire capabilities where you can target an area/altitude and have the missile search for a target there.) Jamming and other countermeasures would make something like this that is a drone mothership very interesting over large land masses. US has a huge edge anywhere there is water, but deep inland, have a fully mobile and defensible air field that can go anywhere is extremely compelling. Doubly so when you already have established air superiority.
- trhway 12y ago
  >in order to strike something thats 2k miles away, you need to be able to see it. that is done by satellites in particular. And China for example develops ballistic anti-ship missile which would be able to strike targets 2K miles away. A ballistic warhead coming at 10M would present next level of challenge even for ship-based anti-missile systems. I don't see a flying aircraft carrier able to carry any meaningful defense capabilities against such an attack. My point here is that, even more than in case of naval aircraft carrier, such flying carrier would be useful only when total dominance is established, which wouldn't be the case with any meaningful military opponent. Of course there is no actual plans to fight an actual war against any such opponent :)
  - sologoub 12y ago
    If US were to engage in open war with any other nuclear armed nation, fate of a few aircraft would be the least of our worries. Even if no nuke ever reached North America, the consequences will. Case in point is Fukushima radiation being detectable on the west coast. (http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/Fukushima-detection http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/Fukushima-detection) Granted those are trace amounts, but if a full scale nuclear war took place in Eurasia, we'd definitely would feel effects.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

I love the ZRS series of helium filled flying aircraft carriers with on-board biplanes. They didn't last very long though. USS Akron (ZRS-4) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_%28ZRS-4%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_%28ZRS-4%29 USS Macon (ZRS-5) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Macon_%28ZRS-5%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Macon_%28ZRS-5%29

vinnyglennon 12y ago

DARPA have a new round open looking for alternative approaches: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a73e0ea615c675383c1529c5ad631249&tab=core&_cview=0 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a73e0ea...

jessriedel 12y ago

Can someone explain the purpose of this? The only reason I can think of to have this (which Animats mentions in a comment) is to allow fighters with modest fuel tanks to attack deep in territory they couldn't otherwise reach. But this problem is a lot easier to solve with in-air refueling, which has been used since the Korean war.

bluekeybox 12y ago
you may not want the enemy to know you're sending a fleet of fighter jets in their direction.

hackuser 12y ago

A new idea: "Pentagon Seeks Aircraft-based Drones for Future Missions" http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141111/DEFREG02/311110031/Pentagon-Seeks-Aircraft-based-Drones-Future-Missions http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141111/DEFREG02/3111100...