Flying Aircraft Carriers (2019)
Early 20th-century experiments with airship-based “flying aircraft carriers” — Zeppelins that launched and recovered biplanes in midair — prompt a wider look at why the concept largely vanished. Commenters highlight engineering and safety limits (weather vulnerability, lift-to-weight constraints, flammability myths) and poor economics compared to jets, arguing that large airships cannot carry enough aircraft, fuel, and munitions to be militarily useful. Many point instead to modern analogues such as cargo planes deploying drone swarms or cruise missiles as the practical evolution of the airborne carrier idea, with fictional depictions and nuclear-powered mega-carrier proposals serving as imaginative but likely impractical extremes.
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.