Flying Aircraft Carriers (2019)

Historical flying aircraft carriers

• Discussion highlights early 20th-century airship carriers (e.g., Zeppelins, USS Akron/Macon) that launched and recovered biplanes via hooks and trapeze mechanisms.
• Several note that such concepts were only viable when airships could fly higher than contemporary aircraft; once aircraft performance improved, airship vulnerability increased.
• US Navy experience with airships is described as poor: most were lost to bad weather rather than fire.

Fiction, games, and pop culture

• Multiple references to flying carriers in games and films (Crimson Skies, Indiana Jones, anime and cartoons, retro-futurist media).
• Commenters note these fictional depictions often exaggerate capacity and robustness far beyond what real airships can support.

Viability of modern airships / “sky cruises”

• Some wonder why we don’t have cruise-style passenger airships today.
• Responses stress:
  • Extreme sensitivity to weather and large “sail area”.
  • Unfavorable economics: low payload relative to size and operating cost, slow and noisy, requiring ticket prices above first-class jet fares.
  • Modern materials would improve strength and redundancy but not solve scale and cost problems.
• There is brief debate over helium scarcity; one comment cites a new reserve find, another jokes about fusion as a helium source.

Technical constraints and vulnerabilities

• Airships have low service ceilings and strong trade-offs between payload and altitude.
• Realistic designs must devote most lift to structure, fuel, and minimal payload; heavy armament and large hangars are seen as unrealistic.
• Airships and carriers are both large targets, but airships are considered easier to disable with relatively low-tech weapons.

Modern analogues: drones, missiles, motherships

• Several argue that “flying aircraft carriers” already exist in practice via:
  • Cargo planes and bombers deploying cruise missiles, palletized weapons, or drone swarms.
  • Concepts and tests of drone swarms launched from transports or tankers.
• Debate over terminology: some insist “aircraft carrier” implies recovery/reuse of aircraft; others blur the line with expendable drones and cruise missiles.

War in Ukraine and weapons effectiveness (conflicting views)

• One side sees drone swarms and Western systems (HIMARS, tanks) as highly impactful, forcing changes in Russian tactics.
• Another argues many Western systems became ineffective or too vulnerable over time, describing the war as a costly “arms trade” project.
• Claims about specific systems (Patriot vs drones, HIMARS effectiveness, armor losses, front-line movement) conflict; the overall effectiveness is disputed within the thread.