Current models for HH military hardware

Looks like at least a few folks at Boeing liked the idea of pod-naughts and LAC carriers, long before even HH1...from Wikipedia:

"747 CMCA – This "Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft" variant was considered by the U.S. Air Force during the development of the B-1 Lancer strategic bomber. It would have been equipped with 50 to 100 AGM-86 ALCM cruise missiles on rotary launchers. This plan was abandoned in favor of more conventional strategic bombers.[186]"

"747 AAC – a Boeing study under contract from the USAF for an "airborne aircraft carrier" for up to 10 Boeing Model 985-121 "microfighters" with the ability to launch, retrieve, re-arm, and refuel. Boeing believed that the scheme would be able to deliver a flexible and fast, carrier platform with global reach, particularly where other bases were not available. Modified versions of the 747-200 and Lockheed C-5A were considered as the base aircraft. The concept, which included a complementary 747 AWACS version with two reconnaissance "microfighters", was considered technically feasible in 1973.[187]"

That would certainly shorten the deployment time once the decision was made that you might want to do something and getting assets close enough to use when you make the final decision to use them.
One drawback would be "the other side" trying to keep tabs on the missle carriers at bases (and takeoff from said bases) if they supect there is going to be an operation or pin down the opening time if they are convinced one is comming. Same challanges with existing stratigic bombers. If someone has eyes (or electronics or optics) on a base and sees assets leaving AND can communicate that is sufficent time, it might aid in interception.

Some people might be annoyed with the suggestion but being able to be putting what amount to "precision" standoff weapons in a position to proved fire support to ground troops who are getting their asses kicked sounds like a great idea.

jcreed57 wrote:Looks like at least a few folks at Boeing liked the idea of pod-naughts and LAC carriers, long before even HH1...from Wikipedia:

"747 CMCA – This "Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft" variant was considered by the U.S. Air Force during the development of the B-1 Lancer strategic bomber. It would have been equipped with 50 to 100 AGM-86 ALCM cruise missiles on rotary launchers. This plan was abandoned in favor of more conventional strategic bombers.[186]"

"747 AAC – a Boeing study under contract from the USAF for an "airborne aircraft carrier" for up to 10 Boeing Model 985-121 "microfighters" with the ability to launch, retrieve, re-arm, and refuel. Boeing believed that the scheme would be able to deliver a flexible and fast, carrier platform with global reach, particularly where other bases were not available. Modified versions of the 747-200 and Lockheed C-5A were considered as the base aircraft. The concept, which included a complementary 747 AWACS version with two reconnaissance "microfighters", was considered technically feasible in 1973.[187]"

The concept of an airborne aircraft carrier is even older than that, look at the Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk and XF-85 Goblin fighters.

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

Note though the word "current" in the original post. I suspect Admiral Zheng He had some sea-based designs even in his day.

Even though the designs mentioned above were never deployed, it would be interesting to discuss how they might have fit into strategy and doctrine--say in WW2, or Desert Storm...

jcreed57 wrote:Yes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_aircraft

Note though the word "current" in the original post. I suspect Admiral Zheng He had some sea-based designs even in his day.

Even though the designs mentioned above were never deployed, it would be interesting to discuss how they might have fit into strategy and doctrine--say in WW2, or Desert Storm...

The F9C Sparrowhawk reached operational status and was deployed aboard the U.S. airships USS Akron and USS Macon.

saber964 wrote:

jcreed57 wrote:Yes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_aircraft

Note though the word "current" in the original post. I suspect Admiral Zheng He had some sea-based designs even in his day.

Even though the designs mentioned above were never deployed, it would be interesting to discuss how they might have fit into strategy and doctrine--say in WW2, or Desert Storm...

The F9C Sparrowhawk reached operational status and was deployed aboard the U.S. airships USS Akron and USS Macon.

Carrier designs and concepts keep changing. As aircraft ranges, size and capabilities grew, the need for, and minimium size of, a carrier aircraft has changed. A lot of those 70s designs went the way of the dodo as fighter range climbed and refueling became so prevalent - currently, the only thing an (air based) carrier would allow would be crew rest on the way to a strike.

Unfortunately, current A2A missiles are as large as a man - or more, so the minimum size of a Microfighter with several missiles has to be fairly decent sized.

But all that is about to change again, with the advent of drones. I can see the attempt to re-engineer missiles down by 75%, and build smallish drones which carry 2-4 of the smaller missiles - add worthwhile solid state lasers into the mix, and you could engineer a dogfighting drone in the <5,000 LB range, making the Arial carrier a worthwhile idea again. If the drones fold up properly, a modded B-52 could carry 6 to a dozen of them in a support role. But then cheap long range drones or hypersonic, suborbital boosters will become available and the Arial Carrier concept will again be a footnote, if ever built.

Theemile wrote:
Carrier designs and concepts keep changing. As aircraft ranges, size and capabilities grew, the need for, and minimium size of, a carrier aircraft has changed. A lot of those 70s designs went the way of the dodo as fighter range climbed and refueling became so prevalent - currently, the only thing an (air based) carrier would allow would be crew rest on the way to a strike.

Unfortunately, current A2A missiles are as large as a man - or more, so the minimum size of a Microfighter with several missiles has to be fairly decent sized.

But all that is about to change again, with the advent of drones. I can see the attempt to re-engineer missiles down by 75%, and build smallish drones which carry 2-4 of the smaller missiles - add worthwhile solid state lasers into the mix, and you could engineer a dogfighting drone in the <5,000 LB range, making the Arial carrier a worthwhile idea again. If the drones fold up properly, a modded B-52 could carry 6 to a dozen of them in a support role. But then cheap long range drones or hypersonic, suborbital boosters will become available and the Arial Carrier concept will again be a footnote, if ever built.

They have had success at refueling drones in flight. Unless you need to rearm them they can stay on station as long as their hardware can endure it rather then a pilots endurance.

pnakasone wrote:

Theemile wrote:
Carrier designs and concepts keep changing. As aircraft ranges, size and capabilities grew, the need for, and minimium size of, a carrier aircraft has changed. A lot of those 70s designs went the way of the dodo as fighter range climbed and refueling became so prevalent - currently, the only thing an (air based) carrier would allow would be crew rest on the way to a strike.

Unfortunately, current A2A missiles are as large as a man - or more, so the minimum size of a Microfighter with several missiles has to be fairly decent sized.

But all that is about to change again, with the advent of drones. I can see the attempt to re-engineer missiles down by 75%, and build smallish drones which carry 2-4 of the smaller missiles - add worthwhile solid state lasers into the mix, and you could engineer a dogfighting drone in the <5,000 LB range, making the Arial carrier a worthwhile idea again. If the drones fold up properly, a modded B-52 could carry 6 to a dozen of them in a support role. But then cheap long range drones or hypersonic, suborbital boosters will become available and the Arial Carrier concept will again be a footnote, if ever built.

They have had success at refueling drones in flight. Unless you need to rearm them they can stay on station as long as their hardware can endure it rather then a pilots endurance.

Which, like refueling fighters before, will probably be the death knell of such a carrier - the only real advantage to such a system would be when someone like a AWACS suddenly needs fighter protection, it could drop a drone or 2 - if so equipped.

Once you get effective AA lasers manned combat aircraft are pretty much doomed vs 1st world adversaries. Next airborne radars get killed by lasers on aircraft from very far away.

kzt wrote:Once you get effective AA lasers manned combat aircraft are pretty much doomed vs 1st world adversaries. Next airborne radars get killed by lasers on aircraft from very far away.

Wouldn't that depend on the range of the AA laser, especially when combined with the radar detection range of the planes carrying it?

Basically an AA laser means that you can't outmaneuver or decoy it; so if you're seen and within range you're hit.

But atmospheric issues (turbulence, scattering, attenuation) will likely limit the effective range of an AA laser significantly. And if the AWACs can see the attacker from further than the laser reaches it can direct defending fighters to ambush the inbound fighter and take it out before it's aware they're within their own laser range.



To truly eliminate the sustainability of AWACs you need a laser ranges that's further than the radar detectable range of the platform carrying it. (Longer ranged radar or better stealth on the aircraft).