User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 8:11:26 PM EDT
[#1]
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.   They were going to be special-built small lightweight fighters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 8:12:38 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Enzo300: That's not going to work without some kind of treadmill. I loled |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 8:46:21 PM EDT
[#3]
Do a Google search for Lockheed CL-1201. A 1969 proposal for a nuclear-powered, 11,851,000 pound, 1,120ft wingspan monster with a crew of over 400 that would carry 22 F-4 Phantoms while towing 3 KC-135s and up to 3000 combat troops into a war zone.
 The Nuclear Powered Flying Aircraft Attack Carrier - Never Built CL-1201 |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 8:55:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fssf158: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fssf158: Originally 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. I would love to see what the combat radius of these tiny little jets would have. Hell, they’d have to have at least a five foot shorter wingspan than an F-5. |
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 9:03:02 PM EDT
[#5]
I wonder if there would be any value of it being a drone carrier instead. Either as just a delivery platform or serve as a C2 mothership to rapidly deploy smaller platforms into a far away theatre that perhaps the logistics couldn’t support right away
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:31:36 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: @Zoinks The Soviets tried this throughout the 1930s, and it was too assinine for them. Making a big plane carrying little planes that aren't really that good for anything other than fitting in or on a bigger plane, well, that question answers itself. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:49:34 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TexasSheepdog: We probably have a lot of retired 747 hulls that could be used for a final flight. Make it a drone. Go out with a bang. And what kind of target would this 747 drone loaded with high explosives be pointed at? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:55:02 AM EDT
[#8]
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=TvmwfoyIZLQI came to post this. You can see them at the Stratcom museum outside of Omaha. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:59:11 AM EDT
[#9]
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. Japanese had subs that could and did carry aircraft in WWII. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:01:59 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: And what kind of target would this 747 drone loaded with high explosives be pointed at? An orphanage. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:04:21 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Japanese had subs that could and did carry aircraft in WWII. I think the French and British also had floatplane hangars on some of their largest submarines. But the idea seems to work better when you don't have to spend half an hour floating on the surface to launch a strike. Seems a few navies played around with the idea. |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:20:44 AM EDT
[#12]
90 years ago the Navy did it.
  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:25:14 AM EDT
[#13]
It would have made for a great gig for senior officers during their last couple of years exploring the idea.
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:32:53 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: I'm leaning to....no. There were a couple of FICON experiments, but this is just not feasable for several reasons. There's a reasonably in-depth concept paper floating around online. It's some interesting reading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:51:20 AM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:11:58 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: The tip tow experiments were even more "hold my beer" than the Goblin or Thunderflash tests. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally 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. If I remember correctly, Robin Olds mentioned that program in his book. He said it worked, but everything had to be perfect or things went bad really quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:13:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: safes2small]
[#17]
That’s a stupid idea. Now the 747 CMCA that would have carried 100 cruise missiles would have been awesome!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:38:53 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Osprey61: 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... Sanchez or Walters? The other way (mini gunships) at least had flying models. |
|
|
|
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
