Flying aircraft carriers

[SilentHunter7]

How about an immediate fire base/airpad that can double as an escape vehicle in an emergency.

The USAF already has airbases in every country friendly to the United States. There's nowhere you'd be able to deploy that that isn't already in range of an existing base, or an airfield the Army Corps of Engineers can turn into one within a day.

 

[spectrenihlus]

How about an immediate fire base/airpad that can double as an escape vehicle in an emergency.

The USAF already has airbases in every country friendly to the United States. There's nowhere you'd be able to deploy that that isn't already in range of an existing base, or an airfield the Army Corps of Engineers can turn into one.

True but this would be just fly in and done, and if the shit hit the fan the base could fly out of there.

 

[SturmDolch]

It would be awesome, but also terribly stupid. I imagine half the wait would be fuel, to fuel both this behemoth and the aircraft stationed on it. Add its massive size being an easy target, and one stray missile from anywhere will blow the thing up. And there go $15 Trillion in taxpayer dollars spent on this thing.

 

[Asymptote Angel]

Wouldn't that make them... aircraft? What would carry them?

 

[ThatTallGuy]

First we need a grizzled, never-aging, eyepatch-wearing leader (Preferably the Sam Jackson version) and jets with five engines. Then we can have flying aircraft carriers.

 

[gigastrike]

Spoiler

...Awesome.

Make sense to me. A large mobile docking station that carries a ton of it's own fuel and allows shorter range aircraft to reach further inland (to places that naval carriers can't reach) without needing to create air strips.

 

[unloder]

If it were a zeppelin it could stay airbone for a near infinite ammount of time.
And by the way carriers did kick some major ass in starcraft.
But personaly i think this would be just a huge expensive dummy for target practice.
Smaller versions + unmanned fighter bomber drones = sweet

 

[TheFedExPope]

Flying aircraft carriers with floating airplanes. Military juggernaut!!!

 

[SilentHunter7]

How about an immediate fire base/airpad that can double as an escape vehicle in an emergency.

The USAF already has airbases in every country friendly to the United States. There's nowhere you'd be able to deploy that that isn't already in range of an existing base, or an airfield the Army Corps of Engineers can turn into one.

True but this would be just fly in and done, and if the shit hit the fan the base could fly out of there.

Again, there's nowhere really you can fly into that would be worth the hundreds of dollars a minute it would take to keep it on-station. Remember, an F-16 consumes around 1000 lbs of Jet Fuel an hour, or about a gallon every minute under normal operation. That $2-$5 a minute, for a light-weight, agile fighter. Now imagine how much fuel one of these things would eat up. You're talking a hundred-thousand dollars a day or more. And that's not even considering maintenance.

 

[spectrenihlus]

How about an immediate fire base/airpad that can double as an escape vehicle in an emergency.

The USAF already has airbases in every country friendly to the United States. There's nowhere you'd be able to deploy that that isn't already in range of an existing base, or an airfield the Army Corps of Engineers can turn into one.

True but this would be just fly in and done, and if the shit hit the fan the base could fly out of there.

Again, there's nowhere really you can fly into that would be worth the hundreds of dollars a minute it would take to keep it on-station. Remember, an F-16 consumes a gallon of Jet Fuel every minute under normal operation. That $2 a minute, for a light-weight, agile fighter. Now imagine how much fuel one of these things would eat up. You're talking a hundred-thousand dollars a day or more. And that's not even considering maintenance.

Let's say they are able to create one that is fuel efficient what then?

 

[YouCallMeNighthawk]

Impractical. Why would you ever need it? To get the airfield closer to the target? Were already well within range with normal carriers/airfields/refueling planes.

Not to mention it would require a bitching amount of resources to keep it running for more than a few minutes (assuming its running on traditional fossil fuels).

Bonuses < Cost

Aircraft carriers are powered by Nuclear reactors .

They can run constantly for years using a nuclear reactor can't they? But i think it takes less power gliding through water than staying up in the air so might need something with a bit more kick.

OT: They look awesome! and everyone saying they look like big targets ... that may be the case but by the time they actually build one we would come up with defence weaponry for it like nothing the world has ever seen.

But i do agree with MONSTERheart, that normal aircraft carriers and land bases do the job fine, I think a floating one would just be to show the world we have lots of money to waste and god dam it! we're gona waste it, also for show of power.

Also kind of reminds me of BF2142

EDIT: I also remember back in world war 2 that churchill wanted to make an aircraft carrier out of ice. So the Canadians got on the job building them, but churchill wanted to many in such a short time when it took so long to build just one.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Let's say they are able to create one that is fuel efficient what then?

If you can make one that can stay airborne without the need for constant thrust (Some kind of anti-grav propulsion, or a fucking gigantic zeppelin), and if maintenence costs were kept manageable, then I'm sure a general out there would be able to find a use for it. Mobile Airbases would provide a tactical benefit. Just not one that's worth a million dollars a week.

 

[geldonyetich]

Flying aircraft carriers already existed...


That said, I'm going to have to go with the "big fat target" vein of thought, force field or not. In the modern battlefield, weapons are so lethal that it's all about stealth.

 

[AThousandYoung]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_(ZRS-4)

 

[spectrenihlus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_(ZRS-4)

Unfortunatley all the proponents for that class of flying aircraft carrier where killed in one. =(

 

[SilentHunter7]

I was just thinking. You know, it MIGHT be possible to make a transport(C5)-sized aircraft that can carry and recover UAVs and UCAVs. UAVs are smaller, lighter, and require no additional crew to be stationed aboard the aircraft. Such a plane can launch a UAV out of a tube, which would be controlled by a guy on the ground, or by an AI. If the UAVs are made cheap enough, you wouldn't even have to recover them.

If you can make it cheap enough, you'd be able to fly it into a combat area, disperse several dozen drones, and fly out.

 

[spectrenihlus]

I was just thinking. You know, it MIGHT be possible to make a transport(C5)-sized aircraft that can carry and recover UAVs and UCAVs. UAVs are smaller, lighter, and require no additional crew to be stationed aboard the aircraft. Such a plane can launch a UAV out of a tube, which would be controlled by a guy on the ground, or by an AI. If the UAVs are made cheap enough, you wouldn't even have to recover them.

So something like this?

 

[SilentHunter7]

*snip*

Yeah, something like that. But instead of having craft piggy-back on a plane, I figure you can make UAVs with retractable wings that can fit inside some sort of launch tube in the fuselage.

Of course, if you follow this to it's logical conclusion, this would mean you fire these craft out of a torpedo tube in submarines, making SUBMERSIBLE aircraft carriers possible.

 

[spectrenihlus]

*snip*

Yeah, something like that. But instead of having craft piggy-back on a plane, I figure you can make UAVs with retractable wings that can fit inside some sort of launch tube in the fuselage.

Of course, if you follow this to it's logical conclusion, this would mean you fire these craft out of a torpedo tube in submarines, making SUBMERSIBLE aircraft carriers possible.

Which actually exist or rather existed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine

unfortunately we had to destroy it because we didn't want the soviets getting the tech.

 

[Revolutionary]

Seems kinda pointless. I mean what if you returned to base and its gone?