Flying aircraft carriers

This really isn't the navy of our forefathers is it?

https://youtu.be/SHRrgvXIddU

Well, it isn't quite SHIELD'S Heli-Carrier....

Still, there is nothing inherently difficult in deploying a drone from the back of a C-130 (or C-141). The problem I think (and I watched the picture only, did not listen) is the recovery, getting a drone to land within the limited confines of another aircraft. I have no idea what the computing power would be for the frone to be able to accomplish that, but it would add weight and complexity to the mission.

Not to mention that the 'carrier' would probably have to travel at relativelty low speed and low altitude, which would make it a vunerable target to enemy anti-air.

Still, DARPA is the organization that is closest in spirit to "Horrible" Hemphill and "Oops" Foraker, so we'll see.

Hutch wrote:I have no idea what the computing power would be for the frone to be able to accomplish that, but it would add weight and complexity to the mission.

Some info and video of past attempts at "flying aircraft carriers"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F898z4PkKuk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_aircraft

Comes down to mission and are there easier implementations of it?

Are we talking recon only? Armed recon? CAS? CAP? What quality of sensors? How fast/slow is this recon? For armed recon what exactly are we going after? Carrying a single Hellfire missile or equivalent?

Assuming laser based communications for control. That after all is basically the whole point of this exercise. Can't rely on sat comms in a real war as the bandwidth would be supersaturated after only a very few vehicles.

Is this carrier deemed expendable? I would have to guess at ~~ semi expendable. Energy density of the drone is going to be entirely dependent on range and its mission. Assuming launching at high elevation and capture at low elevation. By definition, the drone to "land" would have to have short wings meaning high speed and therefore low endurance as the sensor package is still going to require the majority of the aircrafts useable load in a low g aircraft. In a high g aircraft we would be talking rockets required as a reciprocating engine or turbine does not have the energy density required. This is not a bad solution. Just a kerosene oxygen rocket engine would do.

Assume a guppy like aircraft. Landing via insert into a cargo hold bay net. Open door fly in and crash in a net. The "hanger" is above in the "guppy" section.

I could see a rocket based propellent aircraft with a sensor suite, laser coms, and single Hellfire/Griffin missile as offensive fire power where this missile can also be used to go after air/ground targets. This would necessitate the entire skin surface, or near entire skin surface of said aircraft to be a sensor. Currently this tech does not exist, but with increased 3d printing capabilities in dissimilar metals and composites, this could become a reality in the near future.

Of course if the above statement is true, then could put this tech into a longer ranged laser based com aircraft drone where the pilot could be on a destroyer just as easily.

Of course the complete cabosh on this concept is a realistic anti missile system fit for aircraft. Then of course there are lasers and their march in technology.

Personally, I see an "air carrier" as a complete waste of time and thought as the tech needed to use this concept, would be far easier to implement in more basic infrastructure. I also see the inevitable march of ground/ship based IR controlled lasers or cheap missiles a near complete negation of this tech as it is passive defense without active emissions making an aircraft an exceedingly deadly place to be. Clearly DARPA sees this as well, as they are looking for a swarm approach to overwhelm such defenses via cheap drones.

Of course why not just go with drones made of plastic explosives with a rocket attached... Still comes down to C&C loop and its huge expense.

Hutch wrote:Still, there is nothing inherently difficult in deploying a drone from the back of a C-130 (or C-141). The problem I think (and I watched the picture only, did not listen) is the recovery, ...

Mid-air recovery is simple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaVh5Jdh_2c (FF to 3:30 or so for the good part.)

Note: Video is of a C119 catching a satellite in the 50's. Shortly afterwards, JC-130s took over catching duties.




Navy helicopters also engaged in catching film pods.

Catching a drone is bound to be easier than catching a de-orbiting film canister.

Weird Harold wrote:

Hutch wrote:Still, there is nothing inherently difficult in deploying a drone from the back of a C-130 (or C-141). The problem I think (and I watched the picture only, did not listen) is the recovery, ...

Mid-air recovery is simple:

Oh for Bleeps#*(!)@@#!~ sake, do not be absurd.

A carrier has to catch and STORE multiple drones quickly. Catching a single parachute of a film canister and then comparing that to carrier operations is like comparing a nuclear bomb to a machine gun.

Relax wrote:A carrier has to catch and STORE multiple drones quickly.

Why?

Many proposals -- and a few actual prototypes -- only make provision for launch and sometimes recovery of singular parasite vehicles; especially reconnaissance proposals/prototypes.

Just because a 1950's vintage C-119 takes two passes and five to ten minutes to recover one parachute, doesn't mean that sixty years worth of advances in flight controls and automated systems couldn't speed up recovery -- if there was a need to recover more than one drone in a hurry.

Another flying aircraft carrier from history:



Recovery of the film was basically the same as for satellite film; the drone itself was disposable.

In short, you couldn't be bothered to actually read the DARPA previs and what they are looking for so instead you chose to make up whatever you wish out of your preconceived notions.

Smooth

The wiki on the MQ-9 Reaper is quite interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_A ... Q-9_Reaper