I thought my contempt for the Air Force had reached a limit. I was wrong. What an absolutely imbecilic concept. You're going to spend $1Billion to basically carry one or two stealth fighters (that are none to cheap themselves) and a handful of cruise missiles that will have to fly halfway around the world in access denied scenarios, just so the Air Force can claim that the Navy doesn't need carriers? This is a rice bowl issue. Namely, the Air Force wants a bigger one.

Sadly, there has been more than a little experimentation with this. In the end, however, it simply isn't cost effective. Even the largest "mother" aircraft could only carry a small number of other aircraft and only for a limited time/distance. Moreover, the ability to use air refueling fills the purpose in a cheaper and more practical way.

So lighter than air (or as light) airbases aren't possible? I suppose carriers move quicker and are easily defended? How about over land (Mongolia say)?

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj05/sum05/kramlinger.html We Europeans could put a Rafele or Gripen onto a exposed top deck of a A380 aft of the wing, a neuron or two in the belly, even a shorm shadow under each wing. Put a phased array in the fixed leading edge (we won't need the air conditioning packs anymore). Cut hatches in the glare fuselage and go on tour. Any opinions?

I don't think this concept has any merit regarding the mission proposed. Where it does have merit is in Air to Air refueling and using UAV tankers from a mother ship to refuel multiple aircraft 5, 6, 10, etc at once and eliminate or substantially reduce fuel queues.

The UAV to use would be along the lines of a HOVTOL concept that could connect to an underwing refueling postion (like a flying drop tank) or use the USNavy buddy system, or even reverse system where the UAV hooked up to a line trailed by the aircraft and pumped back up to the aircraft. HOVTOL allows the UAV to maneuver safely when close to another platform, as it is held steady by gryroscopic force. This also benfit also reduces the amount of computing power required to fly the HOVTOL, which in turn increases the fuel capacity.

Deploy as many UAV tankers to meet the refueling demand and then have them dock back with the mother tanker after refueling was completed.

 

An thoughts about the idea of putting a phased array in the fixed leading edge of the wing. The location is enormous and somewhat covert. I you just do that and you don't want to advertise the aircraft is anything other than a passenger a/c. Obviously the passengers will have a few problems breathing but no matter.

Instead of passengers, how about animatronic figures full of aviation gas? You could fill the seats and luggage rack too (the cargo space is a given). The 'trolly dollies' could run the AWACS in a pressurised area behind the flight deck. Hang on. Wouldn't refueling aircraft and hanging around with fast jets be a dead giveaway? Seriously (well, for hyperthetical purposes at least) a carrier aircraft concept would have to offer something that inflight refueling can't. Forward area aviation support from a carrier includes: 1-Guarded airspace 2-Pilot rotation 3-Aircraft maintainance and repair 4-Refueling and rearming 5-Command and control Unless a lighter than air craft could travel over 50 knots and do all of the above then I can't see the point in pursuing this. The closest I can imagine is some sort of massive flying wing with vaccuum cavities to keep the weight down. Planes are lifted to the outside of the wing and take off (vtol or a carrier that flies at/above take off and landing speeds). Gas (air) is introduced to the vaccuum cavities as ballast. Condensation of airborne water would probably be needed too. We are talking a monster flying wing here. It would have to carry the jets (six?) plus fuel, ammo, spare pilots, food, basic (most likely) parts and any sensors and landing gear required to fly jets off it. Maintaining ballast would be impossible I feel. The cost of a fleet of flying carriers (at least four, more likely forty) and the huge landing and hanger area would put it beyond practical use even if the design issues could be overcome.

If you get a cheap way to put mass into orbit, you could built a carrier for jets capable of re-entry. That's a big if though.

How are you going stop the animatronic gas bags lighting up in the toilet. In over eight hundred of them (the japanese model) at least one is going to want a fag (UK slang). I realise a covert radar equiped A380 would not be very covert if the A380 had a Grippen piggyback. I was kinda thinking of just the radar and processing crew and none of the other warlike stuff.

Will happen with UAV's

Perfectgeneral, I didn't say it was impossible. I said it was wasn't cost effective. By this I mean an airship could carry maybe two fighters (maybe four if they were really small). For the cost of that same carrier, a tanker could refuel a whole squadron of aircraft. As for an orbital carrier, the current cost of putting something into orbit is about $10,000 a pound. At that price, it would cost almost $2 trillion to put a Nimitz-sized carrier into orbit (not counting the cost of operation). To put it simply, there are better ways to spend defense dollars.