The Air Force’s Crazy 747 Aircraft Carrier Concept

[S-A-B-E-R->]

 

[Sineva]

So its basically just the modern version of this then.

And there I was thinking it was going to be this:

Sadly the closest we ever got to that was the rigid airships akron and macon

 

[dexter]

It sounds like the stuff of science fiction: A Boeing 747 with an internal hanger loaded with 10 specially designed fighter jets. An on board crew to launch, recover, refuel and rearm the jets while in mid-flight. Sleeping quarters and a crew lounge to ensure that a squadron of 14 fighter pilots and 18 mission specialists stay rested. All of it hurtling forward at Mach 0.85, 35 thousand feet above sea-level. That’s asking a lot from a Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet. But a once classified feasible study prepared for the U.S. Air Force details how it could be done.

An Airborne Aircraft Carrying Boeing 747 might have been an overly-ambitious, overly-complex and ham-handed idea from 1970s, but it wasn’t entirely out of left field. The U.S. Military had been experiment with the aerial aircraft carrier concepts for nearly half a century. In the early 1930s, two U.S. Navy airships, the USS Akron and the USS Macon carried up to 5 planes stored inside an internal hangar bay. These airborne aircraft carriers enhanced the Navy’s seaborne scouting ability, and the airships’ onboard planes could be deployed for further scouting or defensive purposes. But both USS Akron and Macon were destroyed in weather related accidents not even 3 years after their introductions, helping to put an end to any future airship-based aircraft carriers. But the experiments continued in the 1940s, this time spurred on by a need to protect long-range intercontinental bombers. A seemingly sensible solution to extending escort fighter range was to have long-range bombers carry escort fighters onboard which could be deployed and recovered when needed. But the promising concept proved far more difficult in reality, with aircraft recovery being a particularly dangerous endeavor. Multiple docking methods were attempted, but only one version using a trapeze mechanism and a full-sized fighter ever saw limited service. By the mid-1950s, aerial refueling had proven itself to be a far more practical and safe solution to extending aircraft range.

Yet, the Air Force reexamined the concept again in the early 1970s. This time, spurred on by perceived strategic vulnerabilities to conventional seaborne carriers and the new opportunities brought on the enormous Boeing 747 and Lockheed C-5. The feasibility study titled #747 #Boeing #FlyingAircraftCarrier

 

[Imad.Khan]

This is the future of aircraft carriers

 

[Fawadqasim1]

This is the future of aircraft carriers

this type aircraft carrier needs a compact but huge source of energy like in tens of gigawatts I can think of only two such energy sources a very powerful compact fusion reactor or antimatter fuel.

 

[Ultima Thule]

antimatter fuel.

This one is fiction in reality @Fawadqasim1

 

[Fawadqasim1]

This one is fiction in reality @Fawadqasim1

Futuristic not fiction

And btw how are you sir

 

[untitled]

As the video suggests drones are the way to go

 

[S-A-B-E-R->]

So its basically just the modern version of this then.

And there I was thinking it was going to be this:

Sadly the closest we ever got to that was the rigid airships akron and macon

Quadcopter design is actually quite inefficient and slow I think a airliner like A380 can be made in to a similar design for drones, I remember even PAF has plans to use C130s as a drone launching platform for smaller quadcopter drones.

 

[Arsalan]

And why would anyone need it? The idea of a mother ship will be to extend range of traditionally limited range fighter jets. This have already been addressed by the use of IFR. This concept wont offer any additional advantage.


THREADS MERGED

 

[VCheng]

And why would anyone need it? The idea of a mother ship will be to extend range of traditionally limited range fighter jets. This have already been addressed by the use of IFR. This concept wont offer any additional advantage.


THREADS MERGED

Replenishing the weaponry. Changing the pilot.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Futuristic not fiction

And btw how are you sir

May be in 2200 or after, handling and mass production of Antimatter is currently impossible with current Technology and also antimatter is prohibitively expansive to produce @Fawadqasim1

 

[Arsalan]

Replenishing the weaponry. Changing the pilot.

World is moving towards pilot less aircraft. The sixth gen fighters may come as pilot-optional planes. IFR solves the range problem. Only thing that remains is replenishment of weapons.

 

[VCheng]

World is moving towards pilot less aircraft. The sixth gen fighters may come as pilot-optional planes. IFR solves the range problem. Only thing that remains is replenishment of weapons.

Even drones can be replenished with fuel and weaponry but such an aircraft.

 

[Arsalan]

Even drones can be replenished with fuel and weaponry but such an aircraft.

Again sir, for fuel there are IFR.


Weapons is the only thing but the question is really about working a cost to benefit analysis. Will it be better to send in an extra aircraft, thus more weapons rather than operating such a replenishment plane near hostile land? Will the investment in developing a new gen of planes that can be launched and recovered from such a mother ship worth the investment compared to the benefit of weapon replenishment. Are long range missiles and heavy bombers a more cost effective solution. So far, it seem the answer to these is not in favor of any such project as described in OP.