Flying aircraft carriers?

**Ibn-Khaldun** · 08-25-2009, 18:47

I found out that in the 30s US built 2 flying aircraft carriers - USS Akron and USS Macon.

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:

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** · 08-25-2009, 21:22

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** · 08-25-2009, 22:06

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** · 08-25-2009, 22:41

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.

**Tribesman** · 08-26-2009, 00:35

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** · 08-26-2009, 02:19

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** · 08-26-2009, 04:18

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.