
Investigation of an Airborne Aircraft Carrier Concept (1973) [pdf] - vinnyglennon
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/529372.pdf
======
Animats
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
For those not familiar with that:
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command#The_early_...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command#The_early_years_of_the_Second_World_War):

 _" 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
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.

~~~
copperx
It fits in the pocket alright, but you're conveniently forgetting about the
dozens of satellites.

------
lotsofmangos
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)

------
waterlesscloud
DARPA is contracting out for the drone version right now.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/11/10/...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/11/10/the-
pentagon-wants-an-airborne-aircraft-carrier-for-drones/)

~~~
jessaustin
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.

------
ChuckMcM
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 :-)

------
VLM
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
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
don't go back and watch it. trust me. Look upon the memories fondly instead ;)

------
jessriedel
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
you may not want the enemy to know you're sending a fleet of fighter jets in
their direction.

------
hackuser
A new idea: "Pentagon Seeks Aircraft-based Drones for Future Missions"

[http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141111/DEFREG02/3111100...](http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141111/DEFREG02/311110031/Pentagon-
Seeks-Aircraft-based-Drones-Future-Missions)

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

------
trhway
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
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
>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
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.

------
rbc
Looks like great material for a movie ;)

~~~
_random_
Avengers did that :).

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Along with 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow', though I recommend not
wasting two hours of your life on it.

