Launching from a moving airborne platform sounds doable and deeply rad. Returning to a moving airborne platform sounds like a good way to blow up several dozen airplanes.
Launching has been “doable” since at least the 1940s. It’s how the [X-1 broke the sound barrier](https://youtube.com/watch?v=pKzP5CPk6HI).
The returning part sounds technically possible, at least the theoretical physics of it. But doing it is so dangerous and impractical that it isn’t worth trying.
Well, they said similar things about rocket first stages. I’d think a recovery could be done and done efficiently but I doubt it would be two jets sliding smoothly into each other. Better might be a lowered , wide platform that then collapses down on the jet. Then tows it physically into the parent jet. Key thing there being a large target that keeps the two independent centers of mass separate until they are secured
Like helicopers landing in rough weather. Iirc:
If they try to land normally in boats, the constant movement makes it extremely hard to do a soft touchdown.
So they instead drop a sort of cable that its anchored into the vessel. Once secured, a motor starts to slowly pull the helicopter into the boat. Way safer as the movement is easier to control
What if the smaller aircraft had a set down pad similar to a helipad on the top of the carrier? That then brought the aircraft in from the top Thunderbird island style? Some sort of speed match, and land. It's still a wild idea
Would that give more room for error and correction by both parties?
This is closer to the “two planes merging into each other” idea. Given the variability in wind at speed and aerodynamics of interacting high speed bodies, this would be more dangerous than a winch that would engage the two through solid bodies at range before pulling them together.
Now, if your helipad idea involved the use of activated electromagnets …. 🤔
Not enough electrical power
Nothing wrong with using high pressure mechanical actuators
USAF regularly plays with 10~12K psi pneumatic systems. For example, the ejecting pistons for missile launches need quite a bit of instant force to make sure the missile is clear of the airframe before it's propulsion fires
Okay, now I’m curious though! With modern tech do you happen to know the efficiencies of electromagnets? How big would that structure need to be to generate the power to cause a jet, built with the connection in mind, to “stick” securely to it? Assuming they have matched airspeeds.
I think the area under the 747 would be safer for a pilot to approach. From above they would need to avoid hitting the vertical wing at the tail. One little mistake would kill everyone
Yes, but then the 747 becomes a easily spotted target
I think the only reason to do this was to pose as a commercial flight to untrained viewers, if not an all out stealth strike mission
The shuttle carrier is a peacetime craft with nothing but the pursuit of space as a goal
The issue would be the time to recover. The time from the first plane beginning recovery in a system similar to what you described and the last plane, would be very long to say the least.
This thing will be recovering aircraft in the sky for *hours* with that method. Thats a very juicy target.
If they scaled back on how many fighters are carried, add popout AA turrets & A2A missiles, this would still be a great covert mission platform for a movie
The primary issue I was thinking of would be how heavy all those planes are, plus fuel & replacement ordinance
That’s true but would that be more vulnerable than a naval aircraft carrier? Presumably a portion of the launched aircraft could also act as patrol units as well.
An aircraft carrier can receive planes fairly quickly with the arresting wire system. The ship is also maintaining a constant, straight forward heading, which is relatively easy to land on in calm seas.
A plane version would be moving through the air at a few hundred mph, necesitating turns to stay in the area of operation, also dealing with turbulence which can cause sudden dramatic fall in altitude, while the awaiting planes would be in a constant holding pattern adjacent to the carrier. That presents a bunch of other variables as well. The increased loitering time also would mean less fuel available for the actual mission.
Of course, other aircraft could be providing security, but if it were to be attacked during recovery, it's pretty much a guarantee that you'll lose all of those planes, or they at least won't be returning to the carrier. Its similar to what the U.S. did to Japan at Midway. Harass the recovering carriers, and they can't re-arm and re-deploy.
To your last point: yeah that’s kind of what I’m getting it. There are ways to harass a carrier group. But that said, an air based platform can of course cross over land. That’s a pretty strong technical advantage over naval groups. The vast majority of earth’s surface is covered by water and sea-based movement is likely much more logistically manageable. A boat can often hold approximate position with almost zero energy requirement for example.
In short I do think that the issues you raise are likely a huge part of why this idea never really saw much success particularly in the mid-air recovery aspect. I do suspect that a bomber type aircraft could now in the modern era of drones make use of a squadron of deploy-recovery escort drones, however. Air space gets hot, punch out your covering drones, recall them when safe to do so etc.
A full on air carrier would seem to have to be a specific war theater need. Like an invasion of interior Asia or something.
I feel like any physical tether would drastically alter flight characteristics of the smaller aircraft and could potentially result in whipping effects, at least for anything flexible
Would it maybe be more efficient in/from space? I mean if the mothership is in orbit, and the jet had steering rockets, the latter should be able to guide itself into the path of the mothership… danger would be I guess if it missed entirely… ain’t no coming back from that
Yeah space would make it easy, honestly. We do it already when we dock with ISS etc.
But it’s less practical as you now need spaceships instead of airplanes and the geometries and materials most suited for one aren’t the same as the other. The shuttle, a single dual-operating ship, proved how hard this was. It’s better to have a flying carrier sending out and recovering drones/small jets from atmosphere.
The real question is if it’s worth recovering them. Space shuttle parts come back thanks to gravity. If you recover a drone/small aircraft you will have to have half its fuel for the return. Or you could just use twice as many or go twice as far with disposable ones. So the real question is how valuable is the airframe compared to distance gain by not needing it to fly back?
It’s very close to that at least, yes! It doesn’t necessarily point out that the recovery apparatus could create a large target at distance that would shrink once physically engaged, but it does show someone collapsing inward at least.
I didn’t point out that the artist had depicted something similar because I was just hoping to help folks think beyond the constraints of how “hard” it would be to land a plane on another moving plane. Clever engineering, possibly like what is drawn here even, make it feasible and doable. The real question is in the practicality of it. But in terms of engineering it’s not an impossible feat by any means.
Assuming the same procedure and roughly the same hardware for mid-air refueling could be used to capture and haul-in an aircraft for docking, the biggest challenge
Put an adjective and noun together and it can be an open compound word or it can be just an adjective describing a noun. In this case it's the latter. Why? because the other doesn't make sense in the context. Instead of theoretical physics he could have written the physics theoretically. Reading comprehension.
The problem is that’s also wrong. It’s the incorrect adjective, even just modifying physics, and even in your alternative form. It’s is actual discussion about actual physics that is called something that is not theoretical physics. The word “theoretically” has no place in the discussion.
In this case the term "theoretical" is used in the colloquial sense, which means "hypothetical". The problem is your inability to interpret the nuances of fluid language. You didn't even understand my last explanation as evident in your last reply. You're like a computer code that must be communicated with literally and at irksome length and detail.
Would recovery really be that bad?
Just fly up to the plane with a hook like on a carrier and latch on. Unless the wake is like really, really bad I can’t see it being any more difficult than a carrier landing.
But the X1 was'nt all the way inside the 747. It hang on the bottom of the aircraft so the pilot could climb in the cockpit of the X1. They tried the returning part but it was way to unreliable back then at least. And how many plane could it really carry when it needed a big ass fuel tank to be able to refuel the fighters.
In air refueling is very close to what it would take to “land” a plane inside another plane. It would require a lot of testing and probably some very specific adjustments to both the parent plane and the landing plane, but it’s doable.
Regular airliners carry their fuel in wing tanks. The kc-135 does the same but also has multiple fuel tanks on the fuselage. To the time of about 14000 gallons. More depending on how you want to classify the center wing tank.
ya it would only be tactically beneficial if they could return where they took off, otherwise they'd either have to have range to land somewhere safe or be disposable.
figure that's why this didn't leave the design stage
Enter the “Loyal Wingman” concept. In the age of the drone fighter aircraft, you could launch several fighter aircraft from an AWACS like platform, all of which would carry their own AA or AG ordinance and could be lost with no consequence since you don’t have the “meat packet” in it to worry about.
It might make sense to have enough range on board to land somewhere safe.
The single larger aircraft is inherently more energy efficient (wetted area and lower design speed) and fighter engines are incredibly inefficient at low speeds - bringing fighter jets to speed and altitude this way gets over the most energy inefficient part of the flight.
You'd get a lot of extra range out of a fighter jet by doing this...
I'm not sure about that... An aircraft carrier at sea is essentially a floating landing strip that can move. This is not even remotely the same as trying to land a plane on a landing strip.
But the landing strip is extremely short. In case of the planes, At least both airplanes are moving at the same speed. Trained pilots seem to be pretty good at flying close (airshows) and physically connecting with other planes (refueling).
I think it might be easier to land on the carrier plane, as you just need to match it’s speed fly close as a recovery arm could connect and pull you in.
> Launching from a moving airborne platform sounds doable and deeply rad. Returning to a moving airborne platform sounds like a good way to blow up several dozen airplanes.
—1970s Boeing version
> Launching from a moving airborne Boeing platform sounds sounds like a good way to blow up several dozen airplanes.
—2020s Boeing version
They did try a system to let parasite fighters hook up to bombers midair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin
> The first test flights revealed that turbulence during approach to the B-29 was significant, leading to the addition of upper and lower fins at the extreme rear fuselage, as well as two wingtip fins to compensate for the increased directional instability in docking.
> The two Goblins flew seven times, with a total flight time of 2 hours and 19 minutes with only three of the free flights ending in a successful hookup.
And were "successfully" deployed in WWI. But by the time this proposal came about I assume the level of acceptable accidents had dropped significantly.
More so, most of it was still based on WW1 technology when it was actually ready, but that was in WW2 with better planes available. Not to mention the fuel, extra weight, how the hell you get the fighters back on the bomber, and where the fighter pilots sit were all pretty big issues with the idea.
I personally wouldn't be surprised if we already have solar powered drones that fly for days or weeks on end without stopping already giving them the ability to go such far distances that a C-130 just wouldn't be required.
However, those would most likely be surveillance drones, with maybe light missile capabilities. Something more "robust" dropping out of a C-130 would probably be a shit in the pants moment for the enemies. Especially if it dropped out of a AC-130 gunship.
Who will be the family member who is the villain? Uncle Rico who lives in his van in Antarctica surrounded by king penguins and imported polar bears with lasers who drive dodge chargers?
The Akron-class airships from the 30s' had an interior hangar with a small wing of planes-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron-class\_airship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron-class_airship)
As a comment below said, maybe the idea was to “grab” the plane mid-flight, and not have it go “in”, because you’d never have the airflow to successfully keep speed and position. Still pretty nuts if you ask me.
I had the same reaction, but it wouldn’t be much different than refueling midair. You position your craft just under the belly and an arm secures the plane, then just shut down the engines and pull her in. What could possible go wrong?
I think not making a plane that looks like a civilian plane, that would give the enemy an incentive to destroy civilian planes in the future, was a great idea.
The Indian Navy uses a P-8I Poseidon that they equip with a few Harpoons under the wings; it looks kind of close to a civilian aircraft but with a few distinct differences
I do not want to think about the mechanics of trying to get all of those fighters into and out of a super cramped "hangar" area of the plane, move them all over the place, in a design where everything needs to be as light as it possibly can be. Ugh.
There would be *so many* different little tiny problems and maintenance issues popping up over time. No thank you.
Yeah. Only it was supposed to be small helicopters manned in a prone position for black opps close air support and heavy ordinance special forces couldn't carry. Other means were then otherwise funded.
I listened to a WW2 fighter pilot interview and after the war he was a new plane tester.. this was (in another form, jets landing on the wings of a big plane), something he helped test, but a handful of tests in there was an accident and they scraped the concept.
Hefty detection footprint, none to little defensive and evasive capabilities, and one strike annihilates a whole squad of fighters. Weighted with the planes, their payload and fuel it's a sitting duck.
Carrier ships and in-flight refueling are probably better solutions to most operations.
It's not 100% the same but reminded me of the Prydwen from Fallout 4 (and the show) that could launch/land Vertibirds while moving or stationary.
For the Brotherhood.
The engineering to make this happen would rival the space shuttle program. I know, I know. This concept doesn’t involve space travel and all that goes into it, but just the sheer engineering that it would take for this to work would come close to said program.
Preaty neat concept... but Boeing being Boeing will end up accidentally opening the hangar door mid air because the locking mechanism got dislodged after hitting some bad air...
If you think this is cool check out the video Growling Sidewinder did in DCS which features the Lockheed CL-1201 design study aircraft. It was never built but it was designed to be an airborne aircraft carrier that was nuclear powered. It could stay in the air for over a month and launch smaller aircraft from it. ENORMOUS wing span. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJuVE8z2tp4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJuVE8z2tp4)
I know very little about physics or planes. But i remember hearing that planes need to be balanced or they will tend to pull to the side that has the most weight on it. So after a quartrt of the plane is deployed, the plane becomes a dangerous kamikaze bird.
Launching from a moving airborne platform sounds doable and deeply rad. Returning to a moving airborne platform sounds like a good way to blow up several dozen airplanes.
Launching has been “doable” since at least the 1940s. It’s how the [X-1 broke the sound barrier](https://youtube.com/watch?v=pKzP5CPk6HI). The returning part sounds technically possible, at least the theoretical physics of it. But doing it is so dangerous and impractical that it isn’t worth trying.
Weren't all these tests done before fly-by-computer-control?
Well, they said similar things about rocket first stages. I’d think a recovery could be done and done efficiently but I doubt it would be two jets sliding smoothly into each other. Better might be a lowered , wide platform that then collapses down on the jet. Then tows it physically into the parent jet. Key thing there being a large target that keeps the two independent centers of mass separate until they are secured
Like helicopers landing in rough weather. Iirc: If they try to land normally in boats, the constant movement makes it extremely hard to do a soft touchdown. So they instead drop a sort of cable that its anchored into the vessel. Once secured, a motor starts to slowly pull the helicopter into the boat. Way safer as the movement is easier to control
Wouldn't the refueling probe provide some inspiration for a winching method to draw a plane into a cradle sufficient to carry it back inside?
What if the smaller aircraft had a set down pad similar to a helipad on the top of the carrier? That then brought the aircraft in from the top Thunderbird island style? Some sort of speed match, and land. It's still a wild idea Would that give more room for error and correction by both parties?
This is closer to the “two planes merging into each other” idea. Given the variability in wind at speed and aerodynamics of interacting high speed bodies, this would be more dangerous than a winch that would engage the two through solid bodies at range before pulling them together. Now, if your helipad idea involved the use of activated electromagnets …. 🤔
We'll start trials Monday, il ring the patent office.
Not enough electrical power Nothing wrong with using high pressure mechanical actuators USAF regularly plays with 10~12K psi pneumatic systems. For example, the ejecting pistons for missile launches need quite a bit of instant force to make sure the missile is clear of the airframe before it's propulsion fires
Okay, now I’m curious though! With modern tech do you happen to know the efficiencies of electromagnets? How big would that structure need to be to generate the power to cause a jet, built with the connection in mind, to “stick” securely to it? Assuming they have matched airspeeds.
I think the area under the 747 would be safer for a pilot to approach. From above they would need to avoid hitting the vertical wing at the tail. One little mistake would kill everyone
Could mod the tail like they did for carrying shuttles?
Yes, but then the 747 becomes a easily spotted target I think the only reason to do this was to pose as a commercial flight to untrained viewers, if not an all out stealth strike mission The shuttle carrier is a peacetime craft with nothing but the pursuit of space as a goal
The issue would be the time to recover. The time from the first plane beginning recovery in a system similar to what you described and the last plane, would be very long to say the least. This thing will be recovering aircraft in the sky for *hours* with that method. Thats a very juicy target.
If they scaled back on how many fighters are carried, add popout AA turrets & A2A missiles, this would still be a great covert mission platform for a movie The primary issue I was thinking of would be how heavy all those planes are, plus fuel & replacement ordinance
That’s true but would that be more vulnerable than a naval aircraft carrier? Presumably a portion of the launched aircraft could also act as patrol units as well.
An aircraft carrier can receive planes fairly quickly with the arresting wire system. The ship is also maintaining a constant, straight forward heading, which is relatively easy to land on in calm seas. A plane version would be moving through the air at a few hundred mph, necesitating turns to stay in the area of operation, also dealing with turbulence which can cause sudden dramatic fall in altitude, while the awaiting planes would be in a constant holding pattern adjacent to the carrier. That presents a bunch of other variables as well. The increased loitering time also would mean less fuel available for the actual mission. Of course, other aircraft could be providing security, but if it were to be attacked during recovery, it's pretty much a guarantee that you'll lose all of those planes, or they at least won't be returning to the carrier. Its similar to what the U.S. did to Japan at Midway. Harass the recovering carriers, and they can't re-arm and re-deploy.
To your last point: yeah that’s kind of what I’m getting it. There are ways to harass a carrier group. But that said, an air based platform can of course cross over land. That’s a pretty strong technical advantage over naval groups. The vast majority of earth’s surface is covered by water and sea-based movement is likely much more logistically manageable. A boat can often hold approximate position with almost zero energy requirement for example. In short I do think that the issues you raise are likely a huge part of why this idea never really saw much success particularly in the mid-air recovery aspect. I do suspect that a bomber type aircraft could now in the modern era of drones make use of a squadron of deploy-recovery escort drones, however. Air space gets hot, punch out your covering drones, recall them when safe to do so etc. A full on air carrier would seem to have to be a specific war theater need. Like an invasion of interior Asia or something.
I feel like any physical tether would drastically alter flight characteristics of the smaller aircraft and could potentially result in whipping effects, at least for anything flexible
Would it maybe be more efficient in/from space? I mean if the mothership is in orbit, and the jet had steering rockets, the latter should be able to guide itself into the path of the mothership… danger would be I guess if it missed entirely… ain’t no coming back from that
Yeah space would make it easy, honestly. We do it already when we dock with ISS etc. But it’s less practical as you now need spaceships instead of airplanes and the geometries and materials most suited for one aren’t the same as the other. The shuttle, a single dual-operating ship, proved how hard this was. It’s better to have a flying carrier sending out and recovering drones/small jets from atmosphere. The real question is if it’s worth recovering them. Space shuttle parts come back thanks to gravity. If you recover a drone/small aircraft you will have to have half its fuel for the return. Or you could just use twice as many or go twice as far with disposable ones. So the real question is how valuable is the airframe compared to distance gain by not needing it to fly back?
Isn't that already what the art depicts?
It’s very close to that at least, yes! It doesn’t necessarily point out that the recovery apparatus could create a large target at distance that would shrink once physically engaged, but it does show someone collapsing inward at least. I didn’t point out that the artist had depicted something similar because I was just hoping to help folks think beyond the constraints of how “hard” it would be to land a plane on another moving plane. Clever engineering, possibly like what is drawn here even, make it feasible and doable. The real question is in the practicality of it. But in terms of engineering it’s not an impossible feat by any means.
Assuming the same procedure and roughly the same hardware for mid-air refueling could be used to capture and haul-in an aircraft for docking, the biggest challenge
Both had been done with airship aircraft carriers even earlier. Those were lighter planes with lower speeds but apparently it worked out well enough.
That would be applied physics. This is entirely unrelated to theoretical physics.
Both you and everyone else understood what they meant
And now they know how to say it correctly too! Isn’t the world a great place!
He isn't referring to the field of study, obviously. Learn context.
What were they referring to then? Also, how do you know their gender?
Context
What context?
Put an adjective and noun together and it can be an open compound word or it can be just an adjective describing a noun. In this case it's the latter. Why? because the other doesn't make sense in the context. Instead of theoretical physics he could have written the physics theoretically. Reading comprehension.
The problem is that’s also wrong. It’s the incorrect adjective, even just modifying physics, and even in your alternative form. It’s is actual discussion about actual physics that is called something that is not theoretical physics. The word “theoretically” has no place in the discussion.
In this case the term "theoretical" is used in the colloquial sense, which means "hypothetical". The problem is your inability to interpret the nuances of fluid language. You didn't even understand my last explanation as evident in your last reply. You're like a computer code that must be communicated with literally and at irksome length and detail.
They did it in the 20s, drop and recover, from blimps.
May
June
Would recovery really be that bad? Just fly up to the plane with a hook like on a carrier and latch on. Unless the wake is like really, really bad I can’t see it being any more difficult than a carrier landing.
But the X1 was'nt all the way inside the 747. It hang on the bottom of the aircraft so the pilot could climb in the cockpit of the X1. They tried the returning part but it was way to unreliable back then at least. And how many plane could it really carry when it needed a big ass fuel tank to be able to refuel the fighters.
It doesn’t have to be all the way inside to count.
But if you want more than one it'll have to go in another hole
In air refueling is very close to what it would take to “land” a plane inside another plane. It would require a lot of testing and probably some very specific adjustments to both the parent plane and the landing plane, but it’s doable.
It doesn't need to return, just land. This design would be pretty great if we lived in WW2 technology
I like how it has a refilling station and somewhere between no fuel and enough for maybe two planes.
Air tankers carry the fuel in the wings, not the fuselage.
Regular airliners carry their fuel in wing tanks. The kc-135 does the same but also has multiple fuel tanks on the fuselage. To the time of about 14000 gallons. More depending on how you want to classify the center wing tank.
It's the first step towards gundams let em figure it out
Planes? Nah... drone carrier. Would be an insane platform
ya it would only be tactically beneficial if they could return where they took off, otherwise they'd either have to have range to land somewhere safe or be disposable. figure that's why this didn't leave the design stage
Enter the “Loyal Wingman” concept. In the age of the drone fighter aircraft, you could launch several fighter aircraft from an AWACS like platform, all of which would carry their own AA or AG ordinance and could be lost with no consequence since you don’t have the “meat packet” in it to worry about.
Carrier has arrived
I had to upvote this one. Don't know why no one else caught it
It might make sense to have enough range on board to land somewhere safe. The single larger aircraft is inherently more energy efficient (wetted area and lower design speed) and fighter engines are incredibly inefficient at low speeds - bringing fighter jets to speed and altitude this way gets over the most energy inefficient part of the flight. You'd get a lot of extra range out of a fighter jet by doing this...
If they can do midair refueling it's already substantially equivalent to connecting to a recovery arm.
If there were no aircraft carriers and then landing a fighter jet on a ship at sea would sound equally or even more bonkers.
I'm not sure about that... An aircraft carrier at sea is essentially a floating landing strip that can move. This is not even remotely the same as trying to land a plane on a landing strip.
But the landing strip is extremely short. In case of the planes, At least both airplanes are moving at the same speed. Trained pilots seem to be pretty good at flying close (airshows) and physically connecting with other planes (refueling).
I think it might be easier to land on the carrier plane, as you just need to match it’s speed fly close as a recovery arm could connect and pull you in.
Yea as a prior fighter jet crew chief I wanna add my professional opinion of this concept... "Wtf were they smoking?"
Kinda like this? https://youtu.be/YL9sNrOlK-I?si=dj2uEk1avH90h8wC
> Launching from a moving airborne platform sounds doable and deeply rad. Returning to a moving airborne platform sounds like a good way to blow up several dozen airplanes. —1970s Boeing version > Launching from a moving airborne Boeing platform sounds sounds like a good way to blow up several dozen airplanes. —2020s Boeing version
They did try a system to let parasite fighters hook up to bombers midair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin > The first test flights revealed that turbulence during approach to the B-29 was significant, leading to the addition of upper and lower fins at the extreme rear fuselage, as well as two wingtip fins to compensate for the increased directional instability in docking. > The two Goblins flew seven times, with a total flight time of 2 hours and 19 minutes with only three of the free flights ending in a successful hookup.
Absolutely deranged, thank you.
…Nope. Too awkward and vulnerable.
Not really much harder than aerial refueling
I would have loved to have been there when the Air Force walked into the room to propose that to some Boeing Engineers.
Believe it or not [parasite fighters](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin) weren't a new idea
And were "successfully" deployed in WWI. But by the time this proposal came about I assume the level of acceptable accidents had dropped significantly.
More so, most of it was still based on WW1 technology when it was actually ready, but that was in WW2 with better planes available. Not to mention the fuel, extra weight, how the hell you get the fighters back on the bomber, and where the fighter pilots sit were all pretty big issues with the idea.
Soviets succesfully used the concept to blow up a bridge or something too with their weird prototype thing
Watch it come back with a C-130 and a bunch of drones coming out the back ramp.
I personally wouldn't be surprised if we already have solar powered drones that fly for days or weeks on end without stopping already giving them the ability to go such far distances that a C-130 just wouldn't be required. However, those would most likely be surveillance drones, with maybe light missile capabilities. Something more "robust" dropping out of a C-130 would probably be a shit in the pants moment for the enemies. Especially if it dropped out of a AC-130 gunship.
It’s so cute!
“Goblin parasite fighter” kinda sounds like my ex wife
Boeing engineers wondering where they put all the failure points.
Actually that probably would of been around the time that Boeing made actual good aircraft.
And then they asked Lockheed Martin and they came up with something even more insane.
Turns out simply giving pilots some uppers is a lot cheaper.
And a fleet of tankers
And probably safer.
AF "we want a plane with a door that can open mid flight" Boeing: "say no more, fam"
*Here’s one we prepared earlier…*
Opens automatically too! Extra feature!
i think you meant "randomly"
Technical knowledge aside, don’t kill me engineer crowd….. this is the best comment so far🤣🤣🤣🤣
Boeing staff about to discover "righty tighty - lefty loosie" rhyme
“Carrier has arrived”
"Your command?"
"Instructions?"
Fast n Furious 12 is going to be wild
Who will be the family member who is the villain? Uncle Rico who lives in his van in Antarctica surrounded by king penguins and imported polar bears with lasers who drive dodge chargers?
Logical.
Might work ok for like a drone platform.
Ace Combat 7
Hey, I've seen this one before!
Carrier has arrived
The Akron-class airships from the 30s' had an interior hangar with a small wing of planes- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron-class\_airship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron-class_airship)
That scene from Indiana Jones and the last crusade with the biplanes on the zeppelin makes so much more sense, thanks!
Kirov reporting
Inspiration to acecombat
You know, they had me persuaded until I saw the “recovery bay.”
On the plus side, it doesn't need runway space for a plane to land inside. It just needs to go 1 mph faster than the mothership and ease in.
You’re not wrong. I still don’t believe it works in real life. But you’re not wrong.
I'm probably 100% wrong, but I appreciate the vote of confidence.
As a comment below said, maybe the idea was to “grab” the plane mid-flight, and not have it go “in”, because you’d never have the airflow to successfully keep speed and position. Still pretty nuts if you ask me.
I had the same reaction, but it wouldn’t be much different than refueling midair. You position your craft just under the belly and an arm secures the plane, then just shut down the engines and pull her in. What could possible go wrong?
Wait I've seen this in Ace Combat before!
*Mage 1, we’re going to Wendy’s.*
I'm sure they'll do something like this with drones in the future
I think not making a plane that looks like a civilian plane, that would give the enemy an incentive to destroy civilian planes in the future, was a great idea.
The Indian Navy uses a P-8I Poseidon that they equip with a few Harpoons under the wings; it looks kind of close to a civilian aircraft but with a few distinct differences
Still better than snakes on a plane
I’VE HAD IT WITH THESE MUTHAF***IN PLANES ON THIS MUTHAF***IN PLANE!
I think this is probably modern dronedesign at this point.
So basically a Protoss Carrier
Slightly Brotoss
Now as a long range drone platform you got something
As a Star Wars nerd at age 12, I had almost this exact same idea.
I do not want to think about the mechanics of trying to get all of those fighters into and out of a super cramped "hangar" area of the plane, move them all over the place, in a design where everything needs to be as light as it possibly can be. Ugh. There would be *so many* different little tiny problems and maintenance issues popping up over time. No thank you.
Agreed, like how confident could you be as a pilot that something wasn’t damaged getting your plane in there.
**The real aircraft carrier; the mother of all aircraft**
Star Blazers
Yo dog, we heard you like planes so we put planes up inside your plane.
Much cocaine
Robotech/Macross and/or Battlestar Galactica, here we come!
Yeah. Only it was supposed to be small helicopters manned in a prone position for black opps close air support and heavy ordinance special forces couldn't carry. Other means were then otherwise funded.
I listened to a WW2 fighter pilot interview and after the war he was a new plane tester.. this was (in another form, jets landing on the wings of a big plane), something he helped test, but a handful of tests in there was an accident and they scraped the concept.
Is this even possible ??
Hefty detection footprint, none to little defensive and evasive capabilities, and one strike annihilates a whole squad of fighters. Weighted with the planes, their payload and fuel it's a sitting duck. Carrier ships and in-flight refueling are probably better solutions to most operations.
Was thinking something similar for drones?
Aircraft carrier aircraft
The 747 has a lot of lift, but that much?
Based on it’s max payload of 124 tons, it could carry nine F-16s, just as an example. Crazy!
I feel like we're gonna come back to this with the whole cca and drone swarm concepts
Cool video about the concept https://youtu.be/drnxZlS9gyw?si=Cid1UX_rfgwZNm3f
Carrier has arrived
UNSC Infinity carrying frigates
The modern and frankly more accurate term is called a marsupial platform.
Or maybe they will use drones. Once launched, it will not return to the aircraft.
This looks like some kind of G.I. Joe toy…some assembly required
They forgot to start their design process by « what is the need ? »
It's not 100% the same but reminded me of the Prydwen from Fallout 4 (and the show) that could launch/land Vertibirds while moving or stationary. For the Brotherhood.
For the Brotherhood.
[Mustard's](https://youtu.be/drnxZlS9gyw) video on this is great, as always.
If you shoot that down, does it count for 25 kills?
Carry your super expensive fleet in a single unarmed carrier that also flies? Lol why not just throw the money into a fire?
shit, you telling me we could have had the Prydwen?
Set condition one, launch alert Vipers
There’s a cool fat electrician video on this and why it didn’t happen
Imagine having to trust Boeing that every one of those planes have enough screws.
This concept is literally straight out of Ace Combat
The engineering to make this happen would rival the space shuttle program. I know, I know. This concept doesn’t involve space travel and all that goes into it, but just the sheer engineering that it would take for this to work would come close to said program.
I would totally trust Boeing to make airplanes designed to fall.
And now they are filled with 150 uncomfortable cardboard seats.
ARSENAL BURD!!
I hear the doors just fly off and you just fly out. They still use that design today in passenger airplanes.
Yo dawg, I heard you like planes, so we put planes inside of your plane that can also act as a mobile refueling station. This shit is off the chain
Crimson Skies, anyone?
10 fighter planes in a trench coat acting like a cargo plane is hallarious
“DHL here, we have a package for you with *extra plane*” (Highway to the Dangerzone starts playing)
This idea is going to have its revival moments but with drones instead
…Interesting but it would only ever be a surprise tactic once. Not viable for the expense.
I’m thinking of how hot a jet fighter must be on return. How would all of the heat be dissipated?
Preaty neat concept... but Boeing being Boeing will end up accidentally opening the hangar door mid air because the locking mechanism got dislodged after hitting some bad air...
*Ace Combat intensifies.*
The concept would be great for smaller drones though.
Not much room for error.
Just imagining the amount of fuel it would need...
*Carrier Online*
Similar thing in modern times, but launching only destroyer kamikaze drones. No need to return!
This… actually could work today with miniature fighter jets that are actually drones operated remotely or by AI
If you think this is cool check out the video Growling Sidewinder did in DCS which features the Lockheed CL-1201 design study aircraft. It was never built but it was designed to be an airborne aircraft carrier that was nuclear powered. It could stay in the air for over a month and launch smaller aircraft from it. ENORMOUS wing span. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJuVE8z2tp4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJuVE8z2tp4)
Probably could be designed to launch and recover thousands of drones now
--- "All callsigns check in" ---
I know very little about physics or planes. But i remember hearing that planes need to be balanced or they will tend to pull to the side that has the most weight on it. So after a quartrt of the plane is deployed, the plane becomes a dangerous kamikaze bird.