MicroFighter/Airborne Aircraft Carrier

Did someone say "dirigible aircraft carrier"? Why yes, I believe they did!
How about "nuclear powered flying aircraft carrier"? Check and double-check!
Now, let's put those together...

nuclear-powerd-zeppelin.jpg


Ladies and gentlemen (and other sapients), I present to you the nuclear-powered dirigible aircraft carrier! Clearly the product of the Soviet aerospace industry, who seem to have a fascination with bizarrely-huge monstrosities, this fantastic device not only carries fixed wing aircraft but also features a helicopter landing deck, a passenger lounge, and roll-on-roll-off access for trucks (soviet nuclear-powered airship designers are clearly nothing if not whimsical). For military use, a variety of possible conversions spring effortlessly to mind.

I see no downsides to this clearly well-thought-out design.

I think I flattened the Statue of Liberty with a fleet of those on one occasion, despite the constant Chronosphere attacks...
 
Unlike an airplane, a conventional carrier can still float or even be towed away when damaged, unless sunk outright. An aircraft taken out of commission while in flight means the loss of the unit. And if a seaborne carrier IS sunk, there are lifeboats.

Fair enough.

I don't think an aircraft big enough to carrier a significant number of (full-sized, someone suggested?) fighters is going to be running anywhere fast enough to escape modern air weaponry.

Not outrun the missiles, outrun - or at least make life harder for - the approaching fighters. And yes, they're full-sized.

Here's a thought as to missions for such a creature, either the atomic dirigible or the CL-1201. Operations during nuclear war. An AAC is a lot more survivable in a nuclear environment than a carrier, at least if it's nuclear-powered and stays close to home. They could carry interceptors to defend against followup bomber waves, and the CL-1201 could (supposedly) continue operating for up to a month after its home base is destroyed.

Of course, the real reason for building one is probably the USAF trying to grab hold of the missions the Navy's carriers are used for IOTL, in terms of shows of force and so on. But that could be used as the public reason for building it.
 
Last edited:
I realise this concept is almost another unmentionable sea mammal.

Is there any good that could come from forcing a truly barebones fighter into production, though? I'm convinced now that literally every mission for an airborne parasite/carrier combo can be better done with refueling, except for maybe a Tom Clancy style surprise raid disguised as passenger planes. But the fighter mafia seemed to think that even the F-16 suffered from feature creep. Could a really basic, but high performance, production fighter have benefits in training?
 
Top