Airborne aircraft carrier VS aerial tanker

overscan (PaulMM) said:
You are young and enthusiastic, but the answer is a clear "yes, aerial refuelling is better". You can generally tell this from the lack of airborne aircraft carriers.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the compliment, but also wouldn’t an airborne aircraft carrier be better? I mean it can service aircraft without being to far from the battlefield. you would also probably need to dock and undock fewer times.
 
Another advantage I see in airborne aircraft carriers is that they can make the parasite aircraft simpler, for example, using ramjets instead of turbine jets or props, and having much smaller landing gear.
 
Does anyone know of any other airborne aircraft carrier concepts?
 
A_Kid1234 said:
Thanks for the compliment, but also wouldn’t an airborne aircraft carrier be better? I mean it can service aircraft without being to far from the battlefield. you would also probably need to dock and undock fewer times.
Click to expand...
Think about how a conventional carrier works.

The purpose is to have a rapidly relocatable airbase that can conduct sustained air operations in a region. Long range strike missions can be conducted by bombers but these generally are not amenable to rapid sortie generation.

The aircraft of a CVW are going to be doing 1-2 sorties per day on average during a surge there's more limitations than just weapons that contribute to this. Pilot fatigue, briefing and debriefing, and maintainence are all critical steps that must be undertaken to generate a sortie.

How long can your airborne aircraft carrier stay on station? A day? 12 hours? Unless you have something truly insane like a nuclear powered aircraft you're going to have a very finite mission time unless you're going to have a constant stream of tankers in which case you've just created a whole new set of problems.

What missions could an aircraft carrier with that time on station do? Strike, close air support? At that point you're better off using a bomber since they can perform those missions and they don't have to waste space and weight on parasite aircraft, just munitions. Combat air patrols? Again if you really need a super long duration fighter/interceptor would it not be better to just convert a transport/bomber. There were concepts for a P-3 Orion derived interceptor armed with Eagle AAMs and the concept has surfaced from time to time with C-130s armed with Phoenix to a modified Tu-22M acting as an interceptor. Additionally, munitions expenditure isn't very high during fighter sweeps. Refueling is almost always the key limitation, not weapons, so a tanker that services a couple fighters is just a more efficient use of resources.

A_Kid1234 said:
Another advantage I see in airborne aircraft carriers is that they can make the parasite aircraft simpler, for example, using ramjets instead of turbine jets or props, and having much smaller landing gear.
Click to expand...
This is called a cruise missile.

When considering these topics its important to think of the actual mission it performs and the alternatives. The substitute for an airborne aircraft carrier isn't always a tanker, sometimes its a bomber or an ISR/AEW&C aircraft. Consider the costs. An airborne aircraft carrier likely needs specialized aircraft to use it, specialized aircraft that may be useless without it (unlike conventional carrier-borne aircraft which can be deployed to land bases).

The most realistic proposal is probably the Gremlins program which involves the launch and recovery of what amounts to a loitering munition by a transport aircraft. This works because the vehicle is only one-step removed from a cruise missile, not being a manned aircraft and is thus expendable meaning it has some potential benefit in high-risk environments over just using a bomber or other strike aircraft.

gremlin-deployment-619.png
 
A_Random_Guy said:
Think about how a conventional carrier works.

The purpose is to have a rapidly relocatable airbase that can conduct sustained air operations in a region. Long range strike missions can be conducted by bombers but these generally are not amenable to rapid sortie generation.

The aircraft of a CVW are going to be doing 1-2 sorties per day on average during a surge there's more limitations than just weapons that contribute to this. Pilot fatigue, briefing and debriefing, and maintainence are all critical steps that must be undertaken to generate a sortie.

How long can your airborne aircraft carrier stay on station? A day? 12 hours? Unless you have something truly insane like a nuclear powered aircraft you're going to have a very finite mission time unless you're going to have a constant stream of tankers in which case you've just created a whole new set of problems.

What missions could an aircraft carrier with that time on station do? Strike, close air support? At that point you're better off using a bomber since they can perform those missions and they don't have to waste space and weight on parasite aircraft, just munitions. Combat air patrols? Again if you really need a super long duration fighter/interceptor would it not be better to just convert a transport/bomber. There were concepts for a P-3 Orion derived interceptor armed with Eagle AAMs and the concept has surfaced from time to time with C-130s armed with Phoenix to a modified Tu-22M acting as an interceptor. Additionally, munitions expenditure isn't very high during fighter sweeps. Refueling is almost always the key limitation, not weapons, so a tanker that services a couple fighters is just a more efficient use of resources.


This is called a cruise missile.

When considering these topics its important to think of the actual mission it performs and the alternatives. The substitute for an airborne aircraft carrier isn't always a tanker, sometimes its a bomber or an ISR/AEW&C aircraft. Consider the costs. An airborne aircraft carrier likely needs specialized aircraft to use it, specialized aircraft that may be useless without it (unlike conventional carrier-borne aircraft which can be deployed to land bases).

The most realistic proposal is probably the Gremlins program which involves the launch and recovery of what amounts to a loitering munition by a transport aircraft. This works because the vehicle is only one-step removed from a cruise missile, not being a manned aircraft and is thus expendable meaning it has some potential benefit in high-risk environments over just using a bomber or other strike aircraft.

View attachment 725245
Click to expand...
Well the idea would be to have a bomber carry its own escort fighters and/or strike drones.
 
A_Kid1234 said:
Well the idea would be to have a bomber carry its own escort fighters and/or strike drones.
Click to expand...
The penetration mission is largely obselete, except for stealth aircraft which having a fighter around would likely compromise their stealth. If you really need defense, put an air-to-air radar or two on the bomber and strap some AMRAAMS to it. You'll be giving up far less payload space to do that than have a modern "Goblin" fighter.

It's better to be undetected and the only way to cue such a fighter to counter an inbound interceptor would be a powerful radar that is going to light up every threat-board on earth.

Even better, don't perform a penetration mission and use long range air launched cruise missiles to hit a target, entirely eliminating the need for strike drones and for escort fighters and the complex servicing equipment for them.
 
A_Random_Guy said:
The penetration mission is largely obselete, except for stealth aircraft which having a fighter around would likely compromise their stealth. If you really need defense, put an air-to-air radar or two on the bomber and strap some AMRAAMS to it. You'll be giving up far less payload space to do that than have a modern "Goblin" fighter.

It's better to be undetected and the only way to cue such a fighter to counter an inbound interceptor would be a powerful radar that is going to light up every threat-board on earth.

Even better, don't perform a penetration mission and use long range air launched cruise missiles to hit a target, entirely eliminating the need for strike drones and for escort fighters and the complex servicing equipment for them.
Click to expand...
I’ve never been a huge fan of stealth, I’ve always preferred low observable technology combined with advanced countermeasures.
 
A_Kid1234 said:
I’ve never been a huge fan of stealth, I’ve always preferred low observable technology combined with advanced countermeasures.
Click to expand...
What do you think stealth is? It's always been like this. LO inherently benefits from (offboard) ECM more than conventional aircraft.
 
A_Random_Guy said:
What do you think stealth is? It's always been like this. LO inherently benefits from (offboard) ECM more than conventional aircraft.
Click to expand...
Stealth is, from what I’ve read, the ability to become nearly invisible, low observable on the other hand, reduces your RCS, but not to the extent of stealth technology.
 
A_Kid1234 said:
Does anyone know of any other airborne aircraft carrier concepts?
Click to expand...
There are several topics on this forum relating to past attempts at airborne aircraft carriers. The USAF extensively tested the concept of "parasite fighters" carried by modified bombers that would enable a force of bombers to better protect itself. One of the results was the XF-85 Goblin, an ugly barrel-shaped little fighter that was intended to fit inside of modified B-36s. Because of these size restraints its performance was very much compromised. I have little doubt that the contemporary F-86 Sabre or some of the USAF's earlier straight-wing jet fighters could have bested it in air-combat with ease.

It was also a great challenge for the pilot to hook back up with the bomber after launch. It took a real expert pilot to do this and I'm sure McDonnell test pilot Edwin Schoch had the sort of experience to qualify for that label. Yet even he failed most attempts at reconnecting to the mothership aircraft.

McDonnell proposed some improved designs but at that point the USAF had lost interest in the concept and they were probably right that it wasn't going to be effective with the technology of the day. Aerial refueling provided much more practical options. There were a few other similar USAF programs like fighters connected to the bomber via the wingtip, and FICON which allowed a bomber to carry an under-slung fighter-bomber that would be used to actually deliver the nuclear weapon.

With the much greater automation that can be achieved now and the increased utility of UAVs, you could probably do some impressive things today. Like having a large aircraft to carry something like the Boeing MQ-28. These could serve as an escort or strike package that could be useful for specific scenarios. But in the past I don't think the concept was ever very viable.

Now if you want something like a massive sci-fi flying aircraft carrier out of Ace Combat, that would take some revolutionary developments in aircraft propulsion and power sources. If you were crazy enough and had the resources of an industrial superpower maybe you could make a massive fixed wing aircraft carrier powered by an airborne nuclear reactor, but a lot of people won't be very friendly to the prospect of that flying around.
 
Last edited:
A_Kid1234 said:
Stealth is, from what I’ve read, the ability to become nearly invisible, low observable on the other hand, reduces your RCS, but not to the extent of stealth technology.
Click to expand...
Stealth is often called VLO (very low observables) which is regarded as a subcategory of the wider LO (low observables) domain. The latest stealth aircraft have been called ELO (extremely low observables).

So the overall technology is LO. "Stealth" is generally regarded as using LO technology to achieve very low or extremely low observables.
 
A_Kid1234 said:
Stealth is, from what I’ve read, the ability to become nearly invisible, low observable on the other hand, reduces your RCS, but not to the extent of stealth technology.
Click to expand...
LO and Stealth are synonymous though LO is the far more technical (and more precise) term. There is no "becoming nearly invisible" there is only signature reduction which reduces probability of detection and aquisition.

Imagine someone talking across the room from you. With no-one else in there it's easy to listen to them. Now if there's a bunch of other people at a party, good luck picking out their words. Now imagine they're alone and whispering. Now even background noise like birds chirping outside drowns them out and it's made even worse when we get back to the party. You can hear them in both scenarios, they're never perfectly silent, its just you don't have the processing capabilty to separate that low signature from everything else. That's how Stealth works.

LO technology also applies to more than RCS, low IR emissivity measures and noise dampening also contribute to LO. Stealth/LO is not a set grade. They vary betwen contexts both compared to other aircraft and between different sensors.
 
A_Random_Guy said:
LO and Stealth are synonymous though LO is the far more technical (and more precise) term. There is no "becoming nearly invisible" there is only signature reduction which reduces probability of detection and aquisition.

Imagine someone talking across the room from you. With no-one else in there it's easy to listen to them. Now if there's a bunch of other people at a party, good luck picking out their words. Now imagine they're alone and whispering. Now even background noise like birds chirping outside drowns them out and it's made even worse when we get back to the party. You can hear them in both scenarios, they're never perfectly silent, its just you don't have the processing capabilty to separate that low signature from everything else. That's how Stealth works.

LO technology also applies to more than RCS, low IR emissivity measures and noise dampening also contribute to LO. Stealth/LO is not a set grade. They vary betwen contexts both compared to other aircraft and between different sensors.
Click to expand...
Ah, I think I get it now
 
Technically speaking, cruise missiles are aircraft, therefore any cruise-missile carrier is an aircraft carrier...
 
Sineva said:
The original flying aircraft carriers,the rigid airships Akron and Macon
WND-PRO-9-19%202a.jpg
Click to expand...
Didn’t they both crash?
 
Also, so instead of manned fighters, just use strike drones stored inside the bomb bay. And suicide drones are just surveillance cruise missile.
 
the only way I really see airborne aircraft carriers working in fixed wing aircraft is either, the bomb bay is big enough to store the aircraft, or having the wings be thick enough that, via some kind of airtight connection, the crawls out of his aircraft, through the wing, and into the fuselage. In airships, however, with modern jet technology, the aircraft would need to be able to essentially hover, and a boom or arm or something grabs the aircraft and moves it into the hangar. The other option is that the airship is fast enough and the jet is slow enough that they can match speeds, although some kind of boom or are would likely still be necessary for the retrieval of the aircraft.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom