User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:41:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: colklink]
 Attached FileDon't know anything about it, except saw the picture and a little blurb on Facebook. But that is such a kick ass idea  It's a concept for an Airborne Aircraft Carrier. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:45:09 PM EDT
[#1]
@Zoinks
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:45:54 PM EDT
[#2]
That's not going to work without some kind of treadmill.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:47:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SmilingBandit]
[#3]
I'm leaning to....no.
There were a couple of FICON experiments, but this is just not feasable for several reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:47:52 PM EDT
[#4]
HeliCarrier…JetaCarrier…
I’m in. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:48:05 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:48:57 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Enzo300: That's not going to work without some kind of treadmill. and magnets, lots of magnets |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:49:56 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:50:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Ha ha. No.
The cruise missile carrier 747 made much more sense. But still that wasn’t going to happen. Barring some kind of weird alternate timeline. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:50:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: VTD]
[#9]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:51:22 PM EDT
[#10]
A very drunk idea? Sure. An even remotely possible idea? No.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:51:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Bigger_Hammer]
[#11]
There were discussions of using the 747 as an airborne ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile) launcher that could stand off from enemy territory & lob a large number of ALCMs onto an enemy.
Save the Bombers for use INSIDE enemy territory while 747 ALCM arsenal planes lob a hard rain of cruise missiles. Bigger_Hammer 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:51:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gspointer: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/315192/IMG_3688_png-3196714.JPG Reportedly this thing was too dangerous to fly. The concept did see some use with an F-84 dropped from a B-36 as the FICON reconnaissance platform though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:52:58 PM EDT
[#13]
They tried that with the Goblin, and it was deemed untenable. Too much turbulence under the mother ship.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/xf-85-goblin.html  XF85 "Goblin" |
|
|
|
COL
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:53:07 PM EDT
[#14]
I’m guessing the weight of all those aircraft exceeds the capacity of the host jet regardless of the volume. based on what we can place and field from an aircraft carrier it is safe to say this “concept” isn’t possible.
 
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:54:24 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Reportedly this thing was too dangerous to fly. The concept did see some use with an F-84 dropped from a B-36 as the FICON reconnaissance platform though. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Originally Posted By Gspointer: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/315192/IMG_3688_png-3196714.JPG Reportedly this thing was too dangerous to fly. The concept did see some use with an F-84 dropped from a B-36 as the FICON reconnaissance platform though. The tip tow experiments were even more "hold my beer" than the Goblin or Thunderflash tests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:58:56 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: The tip tow experiments were even more "hold my beer" than the Goblin or Thunderflash tests. I’ve seen pictures of those. I’ve never seen them talked about in any detail in any documentaries but there’s just something about it that looks incredibly wrong. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:59:21 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HighlandMac: I’m guessing the weight of all those aircraft exceeds the capacity of the host jet regardless of the volume. based on what we can place and field from an aircraft carrier it is safe to say this “concept” isn’t possible. And those fighters would have to be incredibly small as the 747 only has a fuselage diameter of about 21 feet. And it shows refueling of the fighters in flight, but where the fuel tanks are on the KC-747 are repurposed, meaning it would have wing tanks only. And it ignores that air to air missiles existed before the 747's first flight, meaning that it's known to be folly from the start. |
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 12:59:43 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bigger_Hammer: There were discussions of using the 747 as an airborne ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile) launcher that could stand off from enemy territory & lob a large number of ALCMs onto an enemy. Save the Bombers for use INSIDE enemy territory while 747 ALCM arsenal planes lob a hard rain of cruise missiles. Bigger_Hammer Sounds like Rapid Dragon |
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:00:29 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cavedog: They tried that with the Goblin, and it was deemed untenable. Too much turbulence under the mother ship. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/xf-85-goblin.html  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvmwfoyIZLQ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:00:49 PM EDT
[#20]
Yes, and by that I mean no. Proposals are cheap, and the Air Force has flown a fair number of aircraft with a single parasitic fighter or X-plane in the past, but I doubt that one got past the comic book storyboard.
I never saw the details, but a retired chief I know in AFSOC HQ told me they took more than a passing glance at a double-decker "galleon" gunship based on a C-17 airframe. Heavy cannon down low, 30mm Bushmasters (plural) up high. Technically feasible... |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:01:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: I’ve seen pictures of those. I’ve never seen them talked about in any detail in any documentaries but there’s just something about it that looks incredibly wrong. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: The tip tow experiments were even more "hold my beer" than the Goblin or Thunderflash tests. I’ve seen pictures of those. I’ve never seen them talked about in any detail in any documentaries but there’s just something about it that looks incredibly wrong. The experiments resulted in the loss of an F-84 and B-29 with six Airmen killed so I'd say looks are accurate. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:01:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Enzo300: That's not going to work without some kind of treadmill. If the treadmill is inside the 747, can it still take off? 
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:02:45 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crownvic96: Look at what happened with the XB70 disaster when a fighter got into it's wake too. Shit it's tense just watching some of those refueling close call vids. I couldn't imagine trying to launch/capture in bad air. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crownvic96: Originally Posted By cavedog: They tried that with the Goblin, and it was deemed untenable. Too much turbulence under the mother ship. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/xf-85-goblin.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvmwfoyIZLQB-36s with FICON RF-84s were actually operational for a short period. |
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:03:36 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Birddog1911: A very drunk idea? Sure. An even remotely possible idea? No. You know that idea was the result of a few design engineers sitting at the hotel bar on a travel assignment. After a few beers, it begins to sound like a great idea And hell, now someone has a little plaque and got a small bonus for having a few beers. |
|
|
KS, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:23:43 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: And those fighters would have to be incredibly small as the 747 only has a fuselage diameter of about 21 feet. And it shows refueling of the fighters in flight, but where the fuel tanks are on the KC-747 are repurposed, meaning it would have wing tanks only. And it ignores that air to air missiles existed before the 747's first flight, meaning that it's known to be folly from the start. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By HighlandMac: I’m guessing the weight of all those aircraft exceeds the capacity of the host jet regardless of the volume. based on what we can place and field from an aircraft carrier it is safe to say this “concept” isn’t possible. And those fighters would have to be incredibly small as the 747 only has a fuselage diameter of about 21 feet. And it shows refueling of the fighters in flight, but where the fuel tanks are on the KC-747 are repurposed, meaning it would have wing tanks only. And it ignores that air to air missiles existed before the 747's first flight, meaning that it's known to be folly from the start. It’s a wildly infeasible concept, but AAMs don’t really enter into it. Tanking before entering contested airspace has been SOP for jet fighters since Vietnam. There’s no reason for this carrier aircraft to get any closer to the action than a tanker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:27:19 PM EDT
[#26]
The Crimson Skies games had Zeplins acting as aircraft carriers.thqt might be more feasible.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:29:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: gearjammer351]
[#27]
Army vet here, but I have been in a 747 and I own a tape measure.
 How many of what kind of fucking plane would even fit like that IN a 747?  Never mind the weight... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:30:17 PM EDT
[#28]
IDK there was a lot of lead in the air back then...
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:36:07 PM EDT
[#29]
I think the recovery gets a little bit... interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:37:55 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:41:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HighlandMac: I’m guessing the weight of all those aircraft exceeds the capacity of the host jet regardless of the volume. based on what we can place and field from an aircraft carrier it is safe to say this “concept” isn’t possible. But it still kicks ass! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:41:23 PM EDT
[#32]
That looks like something the CIA had printed in Popular Mechanics to throw off the commies on our weapon developments.
I like the indiana jones version, just a big blimp w/ a bunch of fighters floated to the battle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:43:33 PM EDT
[#33]
That's the coolest thing I've ever seen in my life. Reminds me of the biplanes under dirigibles
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:43:36 PM EDT
[#34]
Go lookup Boeing 747-AAC.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:43:51 PM EDT
[#35]
Its like a pregnant plane.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 3:57:57 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hatari: If the treadmill is inside the 747, can it still take off? Only if mounted on a turntable running in reverse. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 4:00:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PrincipsPistol: That's the coolest thing I've ever seen in my life. Reminds me of the biplanes under dirigibles  USS Macon & Sparrowhawks |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 4:01:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CreativeBall: The Crimson Skies games had Zeplins acting as aircraft carriers.thqt might be more feasible. We actually had those. USS Macon (ZR-5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Macon_(ZRS-5) USS Macon (ZRS-5) was a rigid airship built and operated by the United States Navy for scouting and served as a "flying aircraft carrier", carrying up to five single-seat Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk parasite biplanes for scouting or two-seat Fleet N2Y-1s for training. In service for less than two years, the Macon was damaged in a storm and lost off California's Big Sur coast in February 1935, though most of the crew were saved. The wreckage is listed as the USS Macon Airship Remains on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. Less than 20 ft (6.1 m) shorter than the Hindenburg, both Macon and her sister ship Akron were among the largest flying objects in the world in terms of length and volume. Although the hydrogen-filled, Zeppelin-built Hindenburg and LZ 130 Graf Zeppelin II were both longer, the two American-built naval airships still hold the world record for largest helium-filled rigid airships.[2] |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 4:02:36 PM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 5:00:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: m200maker]
[#40]
A giant submarine aircraft carrier loaded with a fuck ton of drones would be more impressive and scary as hell for the enemies.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 5:02:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Enzo300: That's not going to work without some kind of treadmill. This man is wise in the ways of science and should be listen to. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 5:33:09 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By m200maker: A giant submarine aircraft carrier loaded with a fuck ton of drones would be more impressive and scary as hell for the enemies. I favor the oil tanker, where every square ft of the deck is a VCLS - 500 or 600 launch cells would be pretty impressive. A salvo fire would be a lot of whoop-ass going airborne |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 5:42:28 PM EDT
[#43]
 The Air Force’s Crazy 747 Aircraft Carrier Concept |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 7:12:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: cavedog]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dorobuta: I favor the oil tanker, where every square ft of the deck is a VCLS - 500 or 600 launch cells would be pretty impressive. A salvo fire would be a lot of whoop-ass going airborne Your scenario took me down a rabbit hole. A VLCC is 63 meters wide and 415 meters long. A 64 cell Mk 41 VLS is 8.7 meters long and 6.3 meters wide. Going with an beam arraignment of 9 64-cell launchers (56.7 meters) and a length of 35 64-cell launchers (304.5 meters) (9 x 35=315), would result in a total (315 x 64) = 20,160 tubes. That's an order of magnitude whup ass. And probably the most expensive load out ever. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 7:20:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MudEagle]
[#45]
deleted
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 7:22:56 PM EDT
[#46]
 6 Million Dollar Man Intro |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 7:26:30 PM EDT
[#47]
Hydra did something similar .
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 7:50:21 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By feetpiece: Sounds like Rapid Dragon Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By feetpiece: Originally Posted By Bigger_Hammer: There were discussions of using the 747 as an airborne ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile) launcher that could stand off from enemy territory & lob a large number of ALCMs onto an enemy. Save the Bombers for use INSIDE enemy territory while 747 ALCM arsenal planes lob a hard rain of cruise missiles. Bigger_Hammer Sounds like Rapid Dragon |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 8:02:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bigger_Hammer: There were discussions of using the 747 as an airborne ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile) launcher that could stand off from enemy territory & lob a large number of ALCMs onto an enemy. Save the Bombers for use INSIDE enemy territory while 747 ALCM arsenal planes lob a hard rain of cruise missiles. Bigger_Hammer That actual job is now part of the C17 mission set. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 8:09:18 PM EDT
[#50]
That's funnier than bat shit eating monkeys!
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File
