Hypothetical technology: Is an Air Fortress possible?

Page 1 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Yupa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2005
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520
Location: Florida

11 Sep 2010, 9:03 am

Would it be possible for there to be a flying airbase?

In essence what this hypothetical device would be would be an armed flying aircraft carrier, a mobile, airbound fort from which aerial defense missions could be launched if necessary. While I don't imagine that the flying fortress would be kept in the air all the time, how do you think it would be powered for the amount of time it would have to stay in the sky?



jec6613
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 126

11 Sep 2010, 9:26 am

Actually, we already built one, it just never saw service. A Convair B-36 with three XF-85 Goblins underneath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin

Scale it up to the size of an Antinov An-225 or Hughes H-4 Hercules and add mid-air refueling, and you're basically done.

However, all such ideas were scrapped with the introduction of long range persuit and fighter aircraft and their further refinements through the 1950's. The P-51 series showed that long range fighter escort was possible and practical, and now with our current generation of fighters with mid-air refueling, they can circumnavigate without landing.



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

11 Sep 2010, 10:06 am

Well the sooner humans can work out at the sub atomic level how gravity works we stand more of a chance of being able to manipulate that in a way that would allow us to create a ship capable of anti-gravity flight.

It could be a while before we get close to it but another issue is that I am assuming there would be very complicated calculations and power requirements in getting it to work safely.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2010, 10:09 am

jec6613 wrote:
Actually, we already built one, it just never saw service. A Convair B-36 with three XF-85 Goblins underneath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin

Scale it up to the size of an Antinov An-225 or Hughes H-4 Hercules and add mid-air refueling, and you're basically done.

However, all such ideas were scrapped with the introduction of long range persuit and fighter aircraft and their further refinements through the 1950's. The P-51 series showed that long range fighter escort was possible and practical, and now with our current generation of fighters with mid-air refueling, they can circumnavigate without landing.


And they are very cost ineffective. Unmanned bombers and guided missiles can inflict far more damage. As to having a floating fortress, nuclear submarines fill the bill perfectly. Since it is easier to "fly" through the water (buoyancy) than through air subs are the way to go.

ruveyn



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

11 Sep 2010, 10:36 am

The closest thing Ive ever heard of to such a thing were the Akron, and the Macon. Rigid zeppilin-type dirigilbes used by the US Navy as expiramental "flying aircraft carriers" in the 1930's to scout the vast reaches of the pacific.

They used helium rather than hydrogen (so they wouldnt have ever burst into flame like the Hindenburg of the same era), they each carried about half of a dozen little biplanes. The planes were topped by special hooks to engage with metal rings on the undersides of the airships to catch and relaunch the planes in mid air. They were used as reconassance in naval excercises.

The idea is not as crazy as it sounds in the context of that era.

If the Japanese had stolen the idea they might have been able to use a small force of more advanced versions of these plane carring zeppilins to take out the Panama Canal at some strategic moment that might well have crippled the US in the Pacific War.

The Japanese did try to develop special submarines to carry aircraft for that very mission but the war ended before the subs were ready.

But in the post war era of jets and anti aircraft missles blimps became even more vulnerable as sitting ducks than they were during the war. So it wouldnt work today.

But blimps might be revived for passenger travel because you cant fly a blimp into a skyscraper ( you can but it would probably just bounce like a nerf ball)!

Theyve built expiramental heavier-than-air planes that run on solar cells.
So I would think it would be easy to build a lighter than air zeppilin than runs on a number of solar cells small enough not to cut into its payload.

But Im biased because I just like zeppilins (like some folks like steam locomotives).



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2010, 12:00 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Theyve built expiramental heavier-than-air planes that run on solar cells.
So I would think it would be easy to build a lighter than air zeppilin than runs on a number of solar cells small enough not to cut into its payload.
.


Very lightweight solar flyers. They cannot lift a serious payload.

ruveyn



Last edited by ruveyn on 12 Sep 2010, 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jec6613
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 126

11 Sep 2010, 2:46 pm

Additionally, we already have a similar technolgoy that can operate over 70.8% of the earth's surface, even if the US is the primary and nearly sole operator of such monstrosities: the aircraft carrier.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2010, 3:06 pm

jec6613 wrote:
Additionally, we already have a similar technolgoy that can operate over 70.8% of the earth's surface, even if the US is the primary and nearly sole operator of such monstrosities: the aircraft carrier.


Unfortunately CVs are sitting ducks. A missile carrying a relatively low yield nuke can take out a CV without even coming close. That is why the most important element in our defense triad is the SSBN which is every hard to find and kill.

ruveyn



StuartN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,569

11 Sep 2010, 5:23 pm

The US Army and Navy plan to deploy dirigibles (in Afghanistan and other war zones) within the next 1-2 years, for unmanned surveillance. There are some larger dirigibles in test, although I think a civilian Australian airship has the largest payload.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22 ... _december/
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/04/a ... es_041410/



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2010, 5:45 pm

StuartN wrote:
The US Army and Navy plan to deploy dirigibles (in Afghanistan and other war zones) within the next 1-2 years, for unmanned surveillance. There are some larger dirigibles in test, although I think a civilian Australian airship has the largest payload.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22 ... _december/
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/04/a ... es_041410/


The biggest airships ever deployed (using hydrogen which has more lift than helium) never had more than 80 tons freeboard lift (lift available for a payload).

ruveyn



jec6613
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 126

12 Sep 2010, 12:47 am

ruveyn wrote:
jec6613 wrote:
Additionally, we already have a similar technolgoy that can operate over 70.8% of the earth's surface, even if the US is the primary and nearly sole operator of such monstrosities: the aircraft carrier.


Unfortunately CVs are sitting ducks. A missile carrying a relatively low yield nuke can take out a CV without even coming close. That is why the most important element in our defense triad is the SSBN which is every hard to find and kill.

ruveyn

Two points:

1) Any flying airbase would be even more vulerable to a MIM-14 Nike-Hercules type missile than a CV would be. The CVNs are, in particular, armored against nuclear strikes.

2) The Operating Crossroads tests concluded that a CV (CV-3 was used, which proved far less survivable than the Yorktown-variants currently in service based on WWII combat performance) is survivable at a range of several miles away from a small to medium warhead. Given the Aegis Combat System intercepts with SM-3's at hundreds of miles with BMD equipped warships, which are always stationed with a carrier, the intercept distance is quite a distance away.

3) The delivery system to hit a CV is questionable at best, except to countries who aren't very likely to be hitting a CV. And the use of nukes is taboo - even one strike against the US will turn your home country into a glass parking lot.

The SSBN serve a critical deterrant role, but as an actual strike and diplomatic platform do not serve as great of a role as the twelve CVNs currently in service, mostly because the people who would likely use nuclear weapons currently do not care if they live or die. That said, they are still very effective, like when we surfaced one right outside of Chinese territorial waters during the latest issue with North Korea.



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

12 Sep 2010, 5:31 am

jec6613 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
jec6613 wrote:
Additionally, we already have a similar technolgoy that can operate over 70.8% of the earth's surface, even if the US is the primary and nearly sole operator of such monstrosities: the aircraft carrier.


Unfortunately CVs are sitting ducks. A missile carrying a relatively low yield nuke can take out a CV without even coming close. That is why the most important element in our defense triad is the SSBN which is every hard to find and kill.

ruveyn

Two points:

1) Any flying airbase would be even more vulerable to a MIM-14 Nike-Hercules type missile than a CV would be. The CVNs are, in particular, armored against nuclear strikes.

2) The Operating Crossroads tests concluded that a CV (CV-3 was used, which proved far less survivable than the Yorktown-variants currently in service based on WWII combat performance) is survivable at a range of several miles away from a small to medium warhead. Given the Aegis Combat System intercepts with SM-3's at hundreds of miles with BMD equipped warships, which are always stationed with a carrier, the intercept distance is quite a distance away.

3) The delivery system to hit a CV is questionable at best, except to countries who aren't very likely to be hitting a CV. And the use of nukes is taboo - even one strike against the US will turn your home country into a glass parking lot.

The SSBN serve a critical deterrant role, but as an actual strike and diplomatic platform do not serve as great of a role as the twelve CVNs currently in service, mostly because the people who would likely use nuclear weapons currently do not care if they live or die. That said, they are still very effective, like when we surfaced one right outside of Chinese territorial waters during the latest issue with North Korea.


It would be easier for us to just have a ship in space that we could launch smaller space / aircraft from.

Would be more practical to keep it up there and you could get a satellite system working to detect incoming attacks.



jec6613
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 126

13 Sep 2010, 5:04 am

PatrickNeville wrote:
It would be easier for us to just have a ship in space that we could launch smaller space / aircraft from.

Would be more practical to keep it up there and you could get a satellite system working to detect incoming attacks.

Putting something in orbit? What, exactly, kind of rocket do you plan on using? The shuttle can loft 105,000 lbs to LEO, the Saturn V 118,000 lbs, and the massive Ares V only 188,000 lbs to LEO. The max weight of just a single F/A-18 Super Hornet is 66,000 lbs, let alone the actual required facilities in space, or the expense to get it up there, or that now you must have it re-enter and be protected from that.

"Practical," is not what I would call such a plan. Building and lofting the ISS has cost roughly the same as building five Nimitz class CVNs, using the lowest estimate I could find ($35 Bn), and that's just a small science lab, let alone the massive costs for anything militarized to go up there.

Also, such a craft is highly vulnerable to a simple Aegis/SM-3 combination. When traveling in LEO such a base would be moving so quickly that it would be moving faster than the rocket coming in to blow it up. Such an interceptor need only reach the orbit of the base, the base itself would be traveling so fast, relative to the ground, that it need not do anything but sit there to damage or destroy such an orbital base.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Sep 2010, 6:14 am

jec6613 wrote:
PatrickNeville wrote:
It would be easier for us to just have a ship in space that we could launch smaller space / aircraft from.

Would be more practical to keep it up there and you could get a satellite system working to detect incoming attacks.

Putting something in orbit? What, exactly, kind of rocket do you plan on using? The shuttle can loft 105,000 lbs to LEO, the Saturn V 118,000 lbs, and the massive Ares V only 188,000 lbs to LEO. The max weight of just a single F/A-18 Super Hornet is 66,000 lbs, let alone the actual required facilities in space, or the expense to get it up there, or that now you must have it re-enter and be protected from that.

"Practical," is not what I would call such a plan. Building and lofting the ISS has cost roughly the same as building five Nimitz class CVNs, using the lowest estimate I could find ($35 Bn), and that's just a small science lab, let alone the massive costs for anything militarized to go up there.

Also, such a craft is highly vulnerable to a simple Aegis/SM-3 combination. When traveling in LEO such a base would be moving so quickly that it would be moving faster than the rocket coming in to blow it up. Such an interceptor need only reach the orbit of the base, the base itself would be traveling so fast, relative to the ground, that it need not do anything but sit there to damage or destroy such an orbital base.



The fortress in the air (so to speak) is a base hidden on the far side of the moon that can hurl very large rocks at earth using mass drivers. We could not counter attack such a fortress from this planet. We would have to go to the moon to take it out.

Robert Heinlein proposed such a thing.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Sep 2010, 6:59 am

jec6613 wrote:

Also, such a craft is highly vulnerable to a simple Aegis/SM-3 combination. When traveling in LEO such a base would be moving so quickly that it would be moving faster than the rocket coming in to blow it up. Such an interceptor need only reach the orbit of the base, the base itself would be traveling so fast, relative to the ground, that it need not do anything but sit there to damage or destroy such an orbital base.


It all comes down to buoyancy. Ships are the all time champions at schlepping lots of mass. Not dirigibles, not planes, and not even orbiting space craft. The freeboard payload capacity of the Apollo was what? 700 tons? And that is an over estimate. The only floating fortresses that can carry a significant payload are FLOATING fortresses, i.e. war ship or bulk carriers.

ruveyn



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

13 Sep 2010, 8:24 am

ScienceDaily (Sep. 13, 2010) — A new experiment proposed by physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) may allow researchers to test the effects of gravity with unprecedented precision at very short distances -- a scale at which exotic new details of gravity's behavior may be detectable.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111640.htm

Quote:
Of the four fundamental forces that govern interactions in the universe, gravity may be the most familiar, but ironically it is the least understood by physicists. While gravity's influence is well-documented on bodies separated by astronomical or human-scale distances, it has been largely untested at very close scales -- on the order of a few millionths of a meter -- where electromagnetic forces often dominate. This lack of data has sparked years of scientific debate.

"There are lots of competing theories about whether gravity behaves differently at such close range," says NIST physicist Andrew Geraci, "But it's quite difficult to bring two objects that close together and still measure their motion relative to each other very precisely."

In an attempt to sidestep the problem, Geraci and his co-authors have envisioned an experiment that would suspend a small glass bead in a laser beam "bottle," allowing it to move back and forth within the bottle. Because there would be very little friction, the motion of the bead would be exquisitely sensitive to the forces around it, including the gravity of a heavy object placed nearby.

According to the research team, the proposed experiment would permit the testing of gravity's effects on particles separated by 1/1,000 the diameter of a human hair, which could ultimately allow Newton's law to be tested with a sensitivity 100,000 times better than existing experiments.

Actually realizing the scheme -- detailed in a new paper in Physical Review Letters -- could take a few years, co-author Scott Papp says, in part because of trouble with friction, the old nemesis of short-distance gravity research. Previous experiments have placed a small object (like this experiment's glass bead) onto a spring or short stick, which have created much more friction than laser suspension would introduce, but the NIST team's idea comes with its own issues.

"Everything creates some sort of friction," Geraci says. "We have to make the laser beams really quiet, for one thing, and then also eliminate all the background gas in the chamber. And there will undoubtedly be other sources of friction we have not yet considered."

For now, Geraci says, the important thing is to get the idea in front of the scientific community.

"Progress in the scientific community comes not just from individual experiments, but from new ideas," he says. "The recognition that this system can lead to very precise force measurements could lead to other useful experiments and instruments."


This would take us a few steps closer to learning how to manipulate gravity for ourselves.


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)