[HN Gopher] Flying Aircraft Carriers (2019)
___________________________________________________________________
Flying Aircraft Carriers (2019)
Author : cainxinth
Score : 50 points
Date : 2024-04-17 20:57 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (neverwasmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (neverwasmag.com)
| simonw wrote:
| Not enough people know that a hundred years ago there were
| genuine airship aircraft carriers flying around, launching
| biplanes and then having them land back on the airship while it
| was still flying!
|
| How do you land a biplane on a Zeppelin? You fly up underneath
| it, match your speed with that of the airship, then hook onto a
| landing frame lowered beneath the aircraft and let it lift you
| back onboard.
|
| I gave a talk about Zeppelin history back in 2008, and recently
| rediscovered the slides and audio and turned them into a YouTube
| video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omobajJmyIU
|
| It has images of the biplane landing mechanism at 3m57s.
| parker-3461 wrote:
| That is fascinating, I have found myself learning more about
| these as I dive through the background works on Ace Combat
| contents.
|
| While by no means a proper simulator, it certainly makes a fun
| arcade and sci-fi shooter experience.
| bee_rider wrote:
| There was a super arcadey flight... I don't even want to call
| it a simulator... game, Crimson Skies, that IIRC featured a
| Zeppelin carrier as your home base. I think it was fun,
| although I must have been around 10 when I played.
| jtriangle wrote:
| Airships were so cool... and unfortunately, so flammable.
| bugbuddy wrote:
| Helium airships were not flammable.
| nickff wrote:
| Neither of the 'airship' aircraft carriers described in the
| article failed due to fire.
| boringg wrote:
| Airships are cool but are a large easy target.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Once someone figures out the Stealth Airship design,
| warfare will change!
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| So are regular aircraft carriers - hence they're traveling
| with escorts :).
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Helium airships are not particularly flammable.
|
| They don't deal with rough weather well, though.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| The US is all over this concept today, Only with
| bombers/transports and drones/UAV's
|
| https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/01/here-...
|
| https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/09/13/us-drone-swarms-ta...
|
| I suspect that in light of the war in Ukraine were going to see a
| lot of development on this front.
| kcrwfrd_ wrote:
| Carrier has arrived!
| Solvency wrote:
| today, far more likely to have a mothership drone that shoots
| drones out.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| "The Lockheed CL-1201 was a design study by Lockheed for a giant
| 6,000 ton nuclear-powered transport aircraft in the late 1960s.
| One envisioned use of the concept was as an airborne aircraft
| carrier" [1]. (Also watch [2].)
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-1201
|
| [2] https://nebula.tv/videos/mustard-the-largest-aircraft-
| never-...
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Another parasite fighter concept that actually got to prototype
| and flight phase was the XF-85 Goblin. It's... pretty adorable
| actually.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin
| dragonwriter wrote:
| A parasite (reconnaissance focused, as a pivot from an original
| nuclear strike concept) fighter was briefly in operational
| service with the US: the RF-84K operating from modified B-36
| Peacemaker bombers.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICON_project
| pfdietz wrote:
| Admiral Moffett was killed in 1933 when the airship Akron crashed
| at sea. Moffett Field in California is named after him.
|
| After airships were seen to be impractical, the navy switched its
| planning to use seaplanes. Originally intended also to be bombers
| (hence the PBY designation for "Patrol Bombers") they proved
| their worth in recon and rescue roles in WW2. Their ability to
| operate from unimproved islands (via seaplane tender ships) was
| somewhat overshadowed by the unforeseen speed with which the
| Seabees could build new forward airbases, and by the enormous
| expansion in US Navy aircraft carriers in the latter stages of
| the war.
| nox101 wrote:
| Flying aircraft carriers always seemed like a particularly bad
| idea to me. Too fragile, a small amount of damage would knock
| them out of the sky. No?
| theiz wrote:
| Of all this amazing stuff, I learned today they were considering
| using solar panels on a zeppelin in 1936. I really though solar
| panels were from the 1980's onwards.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| We have had flying aircraft carriers in practice and a far more
| viable form since the advent of air-launched missiles in 1947.
|
| Today, as several other comments have noted, cargo aircraft
| launching drone swarms are the most likely future development
| (along with further missile development). Cargo aircraft have
| vast capacity in both mass and volume. Drones which dispense with
| the need to support a human pilot, and can operate one-way /
| kamakazi mode (though return flight is an option), and often have
| limited top speeds and ranges, make far more sense than a
| lightweight (and typically limited-capability) manned fighter or
| bomber.
|
| Another line of nontraditional aircraft carriers are those based
| on submarines, with the Japanese deploying several during WWII
| (these enacted the only Japanese aerial attacks on the US
| mainland, near Santa Barbara and along the Oregon coast), and I
| believe there was a Soviet study (possibly 941-BIS) to develop a
| large-scale submarine aircraft carrier. As with airborne aircraft
| carriers, submarine-as-missile-launch-platform (ballistic or
| cruise) is far more practicable.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-17 23:00 UTC)