Aircraft Carrier Concept

[Cassel]

My guess is it can work with drone-fighters... and range of 747 makes it very interesting concept.

[DDE]

It can, but why bother? Airborne airctaft carriers became vastly less interesting as soon as tankers became practical. We’re pretty close to aerial refueling and rearmament.

Oh, and a 747 doesn’t have that much of a range advantage over a modern UCAV.

[Cassel]

6 minutes ago, DDE said:

It can, but why bother? Airborne airctaft carriers became vastly less interesting as soon as tankers became practical. We’re pretty close to aerial refueling and rearmament.

Oh, and a 747 doesn’t have that much of a range advantage over a modern UCAV.

Can you fly to your opponent by pretending to be a civilian plane, hit first and retreat quickly?

[DDE]

Just now, Cassel said:

Can you fly to your opponent by pretending to be a civilian plane, hit first and retreat quickly?

Do you want KAL007? Because that’s how you get many KAL007s!

[Cassel]

22 minutes ago, DDE said:

Do you want KAL007? Because that’s how you get many KAL007s!

And? So you will not only carry out the first strike, but will still expose your opponent to the risk of destroying a civil plane, which will greatly undermine his reputation during the war. Two birds with one stone?

During the Second World War, I think the British impersonated civilian ships to more easily destroy U-Boots?

Edited April 1, 2019 by Cassel

[DDE]

19 minutes ago, Cassel said:

During the Second World War, I think the British impersonated civilian ships to more easily destroy U-Boots?

Yeah, and remember what that led to? Unrestricted submarine warfare.

19 minutes ago, Cassel said:

So you will not only carry out the first strike, but will still expose your opponent to the risk of destroying a civil plane, which will greatly undermine his reputation during the war.

That’s a bit too sociopathic to sell to the taxpayer.

Plus, when the target’s air defences inevitably shoot that fat slow plane down, I expect the surviving crew to have a lengthy, interesting and painful experience at the hands of their captors. This is the sort of incentives that tends to make militaries stick to rules of war.

Overall, right now - at least from the standpoint of the system’s past potential customer - there’s a serious disincentive against having big, slow, and especially non-stealth aircraft anywhere near the battlespace. There are serious concerns about the survivability of tankers at 300 km from the enemy, let alone something like this.

Edited April 1, 2019 by DDE

[Cassel]

22 minutes ago, DDE said:

Yeah, and remember what that led to? Unrestricted submarine warfare.

Victory?

 

22 minutes ago, DDE said:

Plus, when the target’s air defences inevitably shoot that fat slow plane down, I expect the surviving crew to have a lengthy, interesting and painful experience at the hands of their captors. This is the sort of incentives that tends to make militaries stick to rules of war.

747 will probably be beyond the range of the enemy, is this not the role of an aircraft carrier?

Besides, there are no rules in war. Several armies are already preparing for such conflicts. I have seen a rocket launcher video hidden on a transport ship in a container or in a truck that drives up under the city, shoots and continues as a civilian vehicle.

Some ideas for BD armory ;-)

22 minutes ago, DDE said:

Overall, right now - at least from the standpoint of the system’s past potential customer - there’s a serious disincentive against having big, slow, and especially non-stealth aircraft anywhere near the battlespace. There are serious concerns about the survivability of tankers at 300 km from the enemy, let alone something like this.

As you said, there would be a risk of mistake, so in some sense, the plane will have stealth properties. In addition, the mothership itself can move on a regular passenger flight route, and the drones just disappear from the radar when they dock in it.

[DDE]

35 minutes ago, Cassel said:

Victory?

If you consider shooting yourself in a bunker while also biting on a cynide capsule victory, then yes.

36 minutes ago, Cassel said:

the drones just disappear from the radar when they dock in it.

And wouldn’t that be a reliable distinguishing feature?

37 minutes ago, Cassel said:

747 will probably be beyond the range of the enemy, is this not the role of an aircraft carrier?

You need to show that the role is desireable compared to other options. Your own previous use case relied on it being able to get close to the target. You’re moving the goalposts.

39 minutes ago, Cassel said:

I have seen a rocket launcher video hidden on a transport ship in a container or in a truck that drives up under the city, shoots and continues as a civilian vehicle.

Trucks and transport ships don’t have a tendency to be full of pople. And besides, it’s missing targeting and C&C capability, which is far more difficult to disguise and thus much easier to knock out.

The era where an airborne aircraft carrier made sense is simply over, and this has contributed to the diminishing success of such project - they reached operational use in WWII, but never during the Early Cold War, while the Late Cold War never saw them proceed past napkin studies.

[razark]

I don't see it as very viable.

Aircraft carriers tend to be escorted by entire battle groups and carry an airwing larger than most countries' air forces, including strike, defense, and air superiority roles (among others).

 

A lone 747 is not going to live long in any sizable conflict.

[DDE]

33 minutes ago, razark said:

Aircraft carriers tend to be escorted by entire battle groups and carry an airwing larger than most countries' air forces, including strike, defense, and air superiority roles (among others).

That, and there’s a whole ‘nother discussion of whether those are just floating targets or not.

[magnemoe]

On 4/1/2019 at 6:04 PM, Cassel said:

Victory?

 

747 will probably be beyond the range of the enemy, is this not the role of an aircraft carrier?

Besides, there are no rules in war. Several armies are already preparing for such conflicts. I have seen a rocket launcher video hidden on a transport ship in a container or in a truck that drives up under the city, shoots and continues as a civilian vehicle.

Some ideas for BD armory ;-)

As you said, there would be a risk of mistake, so in some sense, the plane will have stealth properties. In addition, the mothership itself can move on a regular passenger flight route, and the drones just disappear from the radar when they dock in it.

its strict rules in war between civilized players. 
In this discussion who will be borderline political, all major and super powers are civilized players regarding each others. 
This is not an pure NATO thing, Russia has followed all the rules of war in its wars in Georgia and Ukraine. 
Simply as they make sense, you end at the negotiation table at the end there the enemy agree with your terms if your plan worked. 
But you don't want hard feelings. 
No this system is far from perfect, one side can take this way more serious than the other expected. The Cuban missile crisis was mostly the Soviet did an catch up with US putting medium range missiles in Germany and Turkey.

Yes you can convert an container ship to an arsenal ship or escort carrier. But none would do that without painting it in military colors. 
ISIL and similar is considered bandits in this discussion and subject to military or civilian justice of target country. 
However back at WW1 it was not illegal to arm an merchant ship, even merchant raiders using hidden guns was so legal none of the merchant raiders was sentenced for war crimes. . 

[StrandedonEarth]

The whole point of having “rules of war” is so nobody has to deal with the horrors of unrestricted warfare. Think chemical, nuclear, or biological warfare: countries really don’t want to have to deal with those attacks, so they don’t attack with them. Don’t want your hospitals bombed? Don’t bomb them or use them as arsenals. Don’t want your commercial airliners shot down? Don’t use them for military purposes. Treat enemy POWs how you want your POWs treated. 

The reality is that war is war; you can do whatever the enemy can’t stop you from doing. But the retribution may be too much to handle. There is nothing civilized about war from a GIs perspective. 

History is written by the winners...

[adsii1970]

Hey folks, just a friendly reminder to keep the conversation away from politics. While a continued discussion about the technical details of an airborne aircraft carrier and/or other aircraft delivery systems, that's fine. Do not get into a debate about the Geneva Convention or international war crimes policy.

In previous experiences, these kinds of conversations rarely stay focused on hardware and always delve into policy and politics. Please follow the forum rules regarding post content; otherwise, this thread may end up locked.

Please refer to the forum rules. To see them, click here.

 

[mikegarrison]

49 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Don’t want your commercial airliners shot down? Don’t use them for military purposes.

The history of commercial airliners being shot down is unfortunately long, and generally-speaking they were mistakes rather than responses to airplanes actually being used for military purposes.

[ZooNamedGames]

747 carriers are cool, and an outstanding flex of power but about as practical as naval aircraft carriers are becoming today.

[p1t1o]

No.

Air-Air refuelling makes this idea entirely obsolete, even if its impracticalities did not already.

Edited April 4, 2019 by p1t1o

[DDE]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

No.

Air-Air refuelling makes this idea entirely obsolete, even if its impracticalities did not already.

Technically air-to-air refuelling only slightly pushes the envelope.

Air-to-air rearmament is the next killer app.

https://defense-update.com/20060728_feature-abra.html

After that, with the human likely long-gone, all that will remain is oil checks... and that’s before someone decides to reembrace the Atom for months-long flights.

Edited April 4, 2019 by DDE