Flying aircraft carriers?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I found out that in the 30s US built 2 flying aircraft carriers - USS Akron and USS Macon.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Zrs-4.jpg/300px-Zrs-4.jpg
USS Akron
They both were destroyed by bad weather, though.

Anyway, what would've happened if these flying aircraft carriers would've become popular?
From the National Geographic (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/flying-aircraft-carrier-3772#tab-facts):

In its heyday, the Macon was used for scouting purposes over the Pacific Ocean. Some historians believe that the attack on Pearl Harbor might have been prevented if the ship had still been in use.

Also, is it possible to build similar machines in these days? Nuclear powered flying aircraft carrier?

[drone]

The old game Crimson Skies used these. Great concept for the time. The game works on XP I believe, it's lots of fun.

The problem is that they are too vulnerable, and I would imagine that modern aircraft require a larger (and much heavier) support contingent that would make them unfeasible. These days, airships are used only for filming sporting events and as tethered observation platforms.

[Veho Nex]

I dont know... Imagine one with radar or what ever is used now a days to scan the skies distorting fabric. Even if it could only hold 20 planes that's a substantial strike force if you want to get in and out without too much worry. I believe if our military or any for that matter started making these things and they caught on it would be the beginning of more powerful and bigger planes possibly even taking war into the outer atmosphere... but I know my head is in the Sci Fi clouds.

[drone]

Actually, if they were to be used again I think they would go in the opposite direction. Instead of planes, they should stuff them with UAVs.

The advantage of airships are time-on-station, they can hang around unsupported longer than any plane. However, this comes at the cost of weight, as they are restricted by the volume of helium that can hold (hydrogen is out of the question), and speed. On-board UAVs would be ideal, smaller, lighter, no pilot to support, and more expendable. An airships could launch and recover a steady stream of armed UAVs, and maintain several platforms over an area non-stop. All that is necessary is air superiority to prevent someone bursting your balloon. :balloon2:

[Tribesman]

As for the lighter than air craft carrying planes, that goes back to the RNAS in the first world war.
Airships were found to be too unstable for any precision work so the addition of aircraft increased their offensive capabilities.
There were also several long range airplanes in the 1930s that carried fighters above or below the fuselage or under the wings , I think the last version of this concept was a model of the B-36 which carried an F-84 fighter below the fuselage in the mid 1950s.

[KarlXII]

Balloons? Oh no, balloons are ancient history.

UAV "Aircraft Carriers"? That's an interesting prospect, if I recall, the Air Force is looking more and more at UAV technology.

[drone]

There were also several long range airplanes in the 1930s that carried fighters above or below the fuselage or under the wings , I think the last version of this concept was a model of the B-36 which carried an F-84 fighter below the fuselage in the mid 1950s.

Not sure they ever got around to deploying it, but the SR-71 Blackbird was supposed to have a drone mounted on it's back. I think they gave up on it when they realized the capabilities of the SR-71 negated the need for an unmanned vehicle.

[Hooahguy]

they seem too slow to be practical, and a few bullets could take it down. not good.

[Tribesman]

they seem too slow to be practical, and a few bullets could take it down. not good.
Speed was not the aim, it was range and endurance.
As for a few bullets taking it down, yes incendiary bullets could take down an airship if it was filled with hydrogen but it wasn't.

[al Roumi]

A UAV mothership sounds like it might be verging on the realms of feasibility to me.

Gunships (i.e. Hercules gunship planes) are still used and they aren't exactly known for their air-to-air prowess/defense. So in that sense, there does still remain a niche there for potentially vulnerable aircraft.

An airship would also be placed at much higher altitude, especially if acting as a carrier, so it would mostly require missile defense and no armour, as such. If equiped with the kind of missile defense most Naval warships have, and had defensive fighters/UAVs, it could be moderatley defensible -who knows?

Then again, I think that modern technology is much heavier than that which was used in WWI. The buoyancy required to keep the thing in the air would mean the actual "zeppelin" would need to be massive. High altitude would requrie further buoyancy too... And then there's refuelling, or even carrying fuel for the aircraft...

The thing is, by that stage you start wondering about the cost, which would be high (the sky's the limit -ha ha ha :thumbsdown:).

There would have to be some reason for why an airfield (or sea carrier) wasn't good enough. I don't think there is anywhere so innaccessible by land/sea, and which is accessible to an airship, that you'd care enough about to invest the kind of neccessary resources into claiming/defending.

So I'd rather put my money on a UAV mothership being some sort of high altitude plane, of the type designed to stay in flight for a days at a time.

[gaelic cowboy]

Some kind of UAV based system seems likely and probably under development already.

Imagine it could float far out of reach of artillery with its UAVs even in a highlly mountainous region with precious few runways for traditional fighters your forces could be backed by UAV air support.

In conjunction with various sattelite tech and radar it could be very usefull for recon and offensive operations.

The only drawback is from advanced missle systems which would obviously be targetted in the first few days of the war war by stealth aircraft anyway. Then after you can scale back the expensive traditional air missions and swithch to UAV stuff

I thik this has legs myself

[Husar]

There are already scout UAVs that can be started by ground troops, so why the need for a big balloon in the air? :inquisitive:

[hoom]

The OP airships were not so much about strike aircraft as carrying a couple of defensive fighters to make up for the otherwise horrible vulnerability of the huge Hydrogen filled balloons.
My recollection is that hooking up was hazardous & they mostly operated with no planes & probably most of the mechanism removed.

As for modern Airships:
Interesting bit I saw today (http://www.dailytech.com/Huge+Lockheed+Martin+Airship+Set+to+Debut+in+2011+Survey+Battlefields/article16334.htm)


SR-71 Blackbird was supposed to have a drone mounted on it's back. I think they gave up on it when they realized the capabilities of the SR-71 negated the need for an unmanned vehicle.The D-21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21/M-21) only did a few operational flights & them launched from a B52.
The problem with launching from SR71s was that there was only a quite small clearance between the drone wingtips & the tails -> very dangerous separation at Mach 2+.
In the first test launch the drone sat there between the tails for 2 seconds scaring the pants off the crew & the 3rd test hit the tail -> destroyed carrier & drone.

[A Very Super Market]

I don't think anyone made a hydrogen-filled airship after the Hindenburg.

[Samurai Waki]

If it was a completely unmanned UAV Carrier, and you were worried about it being an easy target; all you would really have to do is look towards a system like Global Hawk. You just put the thing in the ionosphere, somewhere around 60-80 thousand feet, And cover the top, or parts of it with Solar Panels, so you wouldn't have to worry about having any sort of refueling ops. Most Fighter Craft have a difficult time getting above the 35,000 ft mark, Using short range Missiles against something so high would also be a problem, especially if you were to use the Jet Stream as it's primary mode of world wide travel (and using a Jet Stream as a propulsion system would mean it would be FAST) The only problem would be designing UAVs, like the Global Hawk, that could easily get that High to refuel, or rearm. Not a bad Idea, and wouldn't be surprised if it was actually in the works.

[hoom]

Solar powered high altitude UAV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Pathfinder).
Officially a NASA science project but clearly something with military aplications.

Hmm, reading wiki on Akron/Macron they were Helium filled (& only 6m shorter than Hindenburg O_o).
The parasite operations also seem to have been more extensive than I thought albeit primarily for scouting rather than as defensive fighters.

[Fisherking]

As to air ships being any more vulnerable than any other air craft, today couldn't they mount long range missiles and deploy better radar than your typical fighter jet? The also fly high enough to be above ground fire, except missiles. Chambered construction and Kevlar skin would also have an impact.

Besides slow doesn’t mean unusable. The C-130 is not so fast and the AC-130 is one heck of a ground support system.