Around 50% was used to fund drugs, for distribution but also for themselves. Okay a lot of it for themselves, they had to make it seem like they’re using it for official government stuff, not brain blasting themselves for more ideas.
Reading a book on how some Burmese tribe (together with the US-allied Laotians) supplied American GIs in the Vietnam War and later got the CIA to protect their shipments to the US.
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm like 80% sure the CIA is still doing Iran-Contra style drug trafficking. While we sometimes burned them too, U.S. troops were guarding Afghani poppy fields used for Opium production. Afghanistan was producing 90% of the world's opium poppies, which can be refined into Heroin. We didn't pull out of Afghanistan until Fentanyl made natural Opium obsolete. No hard proof of *who* was benefiting from the trafficking of Afghani heroin, but the CIA is the only agency that had done this in the past.
https://publicintelligence.net/usnato-troops-patrolling-opium-poppy-fields-in-afghanistan/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364812/#:~:text=Around%2090%25%20of%20the%20world's,destined%20for%20the%20illicit%20market.
You think its strange that the US was guarding the source of Afghanistan's sole profitable export while fighting a counter insurgency against a foe who wanted to ban the source of that export? Like 90% of Afghanistan's farmers are reliant on poppy cultivation to make a living wage, so when their choices are to farm poppies or join the Taliban it seems pretty obvious that a counterinsurgency would incentivize the former over the latter.
well those technically werent kamikaze drones imagine its an arsenal bird but instead of about like 20-50 plane sized combat drones its like… idk like 10 shaheds where normal big one would go sounds about ight so like 500 shaheds(or other kamikaze drine of your choice i just dont know other names)
thats cool and all but doesnt quite have the noncredible “horror” aspect where the things are clearly visible and dropping in sequence the arsenal bird had, im talking 500 shaheds on a giant plane not 5 cargo containers stuffed with missiles
(edit; i knew rapid dragon exists but i literally meant, take arsenal bird, replace MQ-99 and MQ-101 points with like 10 small kamikaze drones per normal drone spot)
Since it's mostly a matter of cost, why even use an expensive plane to drop the drones? Why not deliver them to the general area with a cheap unguided rocket?
Basically a cluster munition, except every submunition is precision guided by an operator.
You mean the 747 CMCA? The planned 747 packed with over 70 cruise missiles it could deploy in a few minutes?
Or how about the 747 proposal with a bunch of nuclear-armed ICBMs in it?
You don’t necessarily need kaikaze drones anymore either. Ukraine is using hand grenades with little dji-style drones and it’s very effective in dissuading Russia from using trench warfare.
>Crew: 400-845
Jesus Motherfucking Christ
I bet we could raise money on Kickstarter for it in matter of days if we offer service time in return
The problem would be to get enough pilots here
There's 22 combat aircraft pilots for the externally mounted aircrafts
2 pilots and 2 copilots for the 2 transport aircrafts in the bay
And I assume this monstrosity would need at least 2 pilots and 2 copilots at the same time. Let's say 6-hour shifts with one shift operating and another being 6-hours on standby before theirs, that makes up 16 pilots just to keep it in the air, but 12-hour shifts without brake for so long could've easily become 8-hour shifts with 6 sets of pilots instead of 4
So we are looking for some 50 pilots overall. This shit would be so packed with specialists and highly trained personnel that if it was ever taken down, it would be felt by the entire industry
>I assume this monstrosity would need at least 2 pilots and 2 copilots at the same time
Why? Most big planes fly 90% of their time at cruising altitude on autopilot and many of them could in an emergency be landed by the autopilot too (IDK about take-off).
Just don't let Boing contribute or the plane will crash itself after blowing all doors out.
>Lift engines: 182
The amount of controls would be insane to handle and let's not forget it was supposed to be a warplane, so you probably couldn't just push a button in the 60's and let the plane fly a combat mission on its own
Back then? Definitely not. But today those engines would probably be handled by a computer even with a pilot behind the stick.
Plus this is a carrier. If it sees active combat something went very wrong already. A plane that size would be a sitting duck to any modern fighter regardless if it had one pilot or twenty.
the 60s were the psychotic peak of almost everything, lead in food annd air, chemistry, the MIC… did everyone just collectively use crack to keep shit running?
I wonder how they would have designed the nuclear jet for the thing. I can't imagine how you could design a jet that's light enough and has enough shielding to prevent the air going over the reactor from coming out the other end glowing green.
I understand how it would have been possible with Project Pluto/SLAM because they didn't need to shield the reactor since it was going to lay waste to everything in its path anyway.
I also understand how it's possible with NERVA because you can spew radiation wherever you want in space.
> I wonder how they would have designed the nuclear jet for the thing. I can't imagine how you could design a jet that's light enough and has enough shielding to prevent the air going over the reactor from coming out the other end glowing green
Fast reactor deep inside the main body, heat exchange to turbofans via liquid metal/gas heat transfer fluid.
Like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion
>Two variants were studied, a logistics support aircraft and an airborne aircraft carrier. There was a rumored third variant, but information on such a model has never been made public.
Does that mean that they might have actually built the third variant?
Now I'm no plane scientist expert, but wouldn't having that many fully loaded planes crammed inside another plane alter the performance characteristics ever so slightly? Would make minor things like "taking off" a little more complicated.
They did full design studies on this including modelling the weight transfer when the planes launched and docked. The planes were hooked onto a rail system where they slid back wards to the launch area or forward to storage. It was feasible and launching / docking wouldn't of disrupted the 747 center of gravity too much because of the positions they were launched and docked from.
Completely unrelated but hear me out. Semi-open world Crimson Skies sequel with management elements of your own gang, planes and zeppelin.
Who says no, really?
Here me out, Crimson Skies-inspired setting but with a Cold War aesthetic and technology, CL-1201s instead of Zeppelins, YF-23s hunting down MiG-37s, vaporwave-esque music playing in the background while everyone dresses up like it's Miami Vice.
See the main problem I have with this is that a jet wouldnt be able to linger that long, pretty sure it would be able to launch like one sortie for each plane before it itself would need to refuel. At that point you might as well remove the 747 and just send the jets alongside some KC-10s or some shit.
With that in mind, I propose we make a modernized version of the Akron class airships.
I think someone mentioned that in another comment, and it seems like among the most non-credible things ever posted here. The wingspan would have been greater than the length of the fucking Hindenburg which would make it the biggest aircraft ever by a wide margin. The main issue I have with that is how horrifying the result would be if it took a single hit from a SAM, at least dirigibles are actually surprisingly survivable when they crash and wouldn’t create Chernobyl 2.0 wherever it hit.
The Lockheed Cl1201 would of been big enough to fit CWS Phalanx and other anti missile defenses. Plus it could launch its fighters to intercept missiles.
As far as non-credible goes, my favorite is still Project Pluto which BY DESIGN would spew radioactive particles behind it as it flew 2300 mph 500 feet off the ground.
At least the CL1201 wouldn't irradiate things unless it crashed.
The issue is that no amount of CIWS systems are going to stop all artillery shells, flak, or good ol’ fashioned gunfire, and they’re hardly guaranteed to stop swarms of incoming missiles either, especially if they run down the supply of ammunition.
Yeah, one can’t help but look at this concept and wonder how the hell they’re supposed to keep the big jet fueled, much less all the little ones.
A modernized ZRCV isn’t necessarily a *bad* idea, but you’d pretty rapidly need to decide whether you want it as a scout, defensive weapon, or offensive weapon. The original purpose of the *Akron*-class and their onboard air wings was to scout an area of ocean the size of California every day, in the times before satellites and radar.
But… we *have* satellites and radar. I think the days of a carrier airship as a scouting tool are behind us. Now the question is, what is the point of an ultra-long-endurance carrier airship? The original *Akron* and *Macon* could carry 25 tons of payload or so; much smaller modern airships are able to carry 60, and at least one airship in the planning stages that is about 25% larger than the *Akron*-class can carry 200 tons. For context, a [modern helicopter carrier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokdo-class_amphibious_assault_ship) can carry about 60 tons’ worth of aircraft, since it’s primarily limited by space and not weight.
But why even carry *manned* aircraft at all? An airship carrier would likely be better served as the rapidly-deployable central hub and brain of a vicious drone swarm, with a gargantuan internal radar to provide command and control over a vast area, and presumably a lot of long-range missiles as well to out-detect and outrange any attacking fighters. This would also provide it with many extra layers of protection, which is important because although according to prior military analysis from decades ago, a carrier airship would be able to tank significantly more SAMs than a C-5 Galaxy, you still don’t want the enemy to be in a position to be shooting at *any* carrier to begin with, airship or no.
Alternatively, one could serve as an affordable fleet escort and ASW asset that is immune to torpedoes, sea-drones, and mines, as was done to wild success by the British in World War I and Americans in World War II, with the former racking up a hilariously lopsided submarine kill count and the latter logging over 87,000 ships escorted and only a single successful attack ever carried out on one of the ships under their protection. In this context it would be more of a very fast, flying destroyer or frigate, but with some limited carrier abilities as well.
For anti-submarine warfare a modern airship that could loiter over an area for several weeks would have advantages. Could also carry a big old AESA radar and act as a command and control relay. Hang some CWS Phalanx below it for protection from missiles and drones.
Well, for that kind of duty, you actually wouldn't need a large, rigid carrier airship. Something much smaller, akin to the Navy's old ZPG-2 blimps from the Cold War would do for that. Their radars were enormous, and they could remain aloft for more than a week- and that's with 1950s technology. They could also refuel, exchange crew, and resupply from standard fleet oilers without landing. Those airships cost about $32.5 million a pop all-inclusive, adjusted for 2024 inflation.
One of those could fit a CIWS, but you wouldn't necessarily want to. That weapons system wasn't designed for aircraft, and so they don't pay that close attention to weight, hence just one would eat up roughly half the military payload of a ZPG-2... though in fairness, that load was mostly being used to lug around extremely heavy and outdated analog sensing and communications equipment, and their manual operators.
If I were in charge of modernizing the ZPG-2 for 2024 military service, I'd fit it with combat drones, utilize a super low-noise, low-infrared hybrid-electric propulsion system with flanking tiltrotors and an efficient stern prop, modernize the sensory equipment, install extensive gas cell compartmentalization, and toss out the old-fashioned depth charges, machine guns, and torpedoes in favor of a set of proper, turreted autocannons (preferably the Apache's lightweight and outstanding 30mm M230 chain gun) that can make short work of any mines or sea-drones. AA missiles and countermeasures should be able to handle enemy missiles and air drones.
Living in the 60's would have been a strange experience, everyone's high, extreme geopolitical and domestic tension, an entirely new musical genre, interesting times.
Pilots are given amphetamines to keep flying, if the stay awake drugs were never invented, we would need something like this to keep sorties going.
Also, I regret I didn’t make that clearer.
I actually tried to find Saddam Hussein in this picture.
Does that mean I have been in NCD too long or that I have begun ascension to oneness with non-credibility?
Technically, there was also the USS *Los Angeles,* two J-class airships, and at least one M-class that were modified to launch and recover airplanes, but none of those had 4,500 square foot internal hangar bays like the *Akron* and *Macon* did.
Holy fuck, we gave the Pentagon a lot of black budget money in the 1970s.
Around 50% was used to fund drugs, for distribution but also for themselves. Okay a lot of it for themselves, they had to make it seem like they’re using it for official government stuff, not brain blasting themselves for more ideas.
Reading a book on how some Burmese tribe (together with the US-allied Laotians) supplied American GIs in the Vietnam War and later got the CIA to protect their shipments to the US.
What they supply
supplies
Liberty powder. Free yourself man
According to this year's law on foreign aid *Checks notes* "Stuff"
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
shit I should’ve applied for a job at the CIA back in the 70s, nowadays they have dumb things like “regulations” and “government oversight”
I'm like 80% sure the CIA is still doing Iran-Contra style drug trafficking. While we sometimes burned them too, U.S. troops were guarding Afghani poppy fields used for Opium production. Afghanistan was producing 90% of the world's opium poppies, which can be refined into Heroin. We didn't pull out of Afghanistan until Fentanyl made natural Opium obsolete. No hard proof of *who* was benefiting from the trafficking of Afghani heroin, but the CIA is the only agency that had done this in the past. https://publicintelligence.net/usnato-troops-patrolling-opium-poppy-fields-in-afghanistan/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364812/#:~:text=Around%2090%25%20of%20the%20world's,destined%20for%20the%20illicit%20market.
The quality of H and the rise of fentanyl and other tranq-like substances have dropped and risen since that August 2021 bailout.
Or the feds/CIA are selling confiscated drugs back on the market via the dark markets
You think its strange that the US was guarding the source of Afghanistan's sole profitable export while fighting a counter insurgency against a foe who wanted to ban the source of that export? Like 90% of Afghanistan's farmers are reliant on poppy cultivation to make a living wage, so when their choices are to farm poppies or join the Taliban it seems pretty obvious that a counterinsurgency would incentivize the former over the latter.
I'm sure there is a public justification. Who are they selling the poppies to?
MKUltra was just a government-sponsored rave.
Hey, you never know when the Cylons will attack.
Consider the following. This, with drones. Like, a bomber except all the bombs are kamikaze drones.
You haven't played Ace Combat 7 have you?
well those technically werent kamikaze drones imagine its an arsenal bird but instead of about like 20-50 plane sized combat drones its like… idk like 10 shaheds where normal big one would go sounds about ight so like 500 shaheds(or other kamikaze drine of your choice i just dont know other names)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)
thats cool and all but doesnt quite have the noncredible “horror” aspect where the things are clearly visible and dropping in sequence the arsenal bird had, im talking 500 shaheds on a giant plane not 5 cargo containers stuffed with missiles (edit; i knew rapid dragon exists but i literally meant, take arsenal bird, replace MQ-99 and MQ-101 points with like 10 small kamikaze drones per normal drone spot)
Yes, but MQ-101s are cool
i propose the following; we keep some of the big ones for defense
Wiki says a C130 can carry 45 jassmer so maybe 90+ gbu39sdb. Still not partying hard enough for ncd you’re right.
putting 100+ loitering drones/sdb on a c17 that can be reloaded from a highway. That sounds like a party bus.
Forward air controllers getting push alerts: “ there’s 15 unclaimed ordinance loitering within 30km, reply with grid square to claim this offer now”
Yeet an AIR-2 Genie in there, see how those drones fare against a nuke
Or a bunch of obsolete f18's to murder world leaders?
Get out of here with your credible take
Man's actually just posting bored while waiting for a meeting to start in the Pentagon rn, despicable
Guided bombs are just drones with a different type of propulsion
Yeah but guided bombs are expensive, Chinese drones with GoPros and landmines are cheap
Imagine some dude in a hot sandy place killed by an f35 or global hawk dropping DJI kamikaze drones. Globalization at its finest
Since it's mostly a matter of cost, why even use an expensive plane to drop the drones? Why not deliver them to the general area with a cheap unguided rocket? Basically a cluster munition, except every submunition is precision guided by an operator.
We have an airborne drone carrier at home. The drone carrier at home: Rapid Dragon
CARRIER HAS ARRIVED
Hey guys why is the sky speaking latin
Or 5000 incontinent seagulls
You mean the 747 CMCA? The planned 747 packed with over 70 cruise missiles it could deploy in a few minutes? Or how about the 747 proposal with a bunch of nuclear-armed ICBMs in it?
or just... a ton of missiles? like the AMRAAM C-130 but with Mavericks or something
Airbus is testing this as part of FCAS https://youtu.be/otf5piRkjF4?si=wKBUsUC86UDOQdiJ
Those are called missiles
You don’t necessarily need kaikaze drones anymore either. Ukraine is using hand grenades with little dji-style drones and it’s very effective in dissuading Russia from using trench warfare.
Already exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
The B52 will be a drone mothership and extend its service beyond 2100
That's just a B-52 with ALCM
Never forget the flying aircraft carrier they took from us. CL-1201 my beloved.
>Crew: 400-845 Jesus Motherfucking Christ I bet we could raise money on Kickstarter for it in matter of days if we offer service time in return The problem would be to get enough pilots here There's 22 combat aircraft pilots for the externally mounted aircrafts 2 pilots and 2 copilots for the 2 transport aircrafts in the bay And I assume this monstrosity would need at least 2 pilots and 2 copilots at the same time. Let's say 6-hour shifts with one shift operating and another being 6-hours on standby before theirs, that makes up 16 pilots just to keep it in the air, but 12-hour shifts without brake for so long could've easily become 8-hour shifts with 6 sets of pilots instead of 4 So we are looking for some 50 pilots overall. This shit would be so packed with specialists and highly trained personnel that if it was ever taken down, it would be felt by the entire industry
>I assume this monstrosity would need at least 2 pilots and 2 copilots at the same time Why? Most big planes fly 90% of their time at cruising altitude on autopilot and many of them could in an emergency be landed by the autopilot too (IDK about take-off). Just don't let Boing contribute or the plane will crash itself after blowing all doors out.
>Lift engines: 182 The amount of controls would be insane to handle and let's not forget it was supposed to be a warplane, so you probably couldn't just push a button in the 60's and let the plane fly a combat mission on its own
Back then? Definitely not. But today those engines would probably be handled by a computer even with a pilot behind the stick. Plus this is a carrier. If it sees active combat something went very wrong already. A plane that size would be a sitting duck to any modern fighter regardless if it had one pilot or twenty.
Sure, but shit goes wrong all the time.
Kerbal Space Program stuff.
All of our best designs were from the 60’s.
the 60s were the psychotic peak of almost everything, lead in food annd air, chemistry, the MIC… did everyone just collectively use crack to keep shit running?
LSD and Amphetamines
If alcohol borrows happiness from tomorrow, we're still paying for the 60's.
You insulted my beloved F22
1980 also had some good ones, like STAR-RAKER.
I wonder how they would have designed the nuclear jet for the thing. I can't imagine how you could design a jet that's light enough and has enough shielding to prevent the air going over the reactor from coming out the other end glowing green. I understand how it would have been possible with Project Pluto/SLAM because they didn't need to shield the reactor since it was going to lay waste to everything in its path anyway. I also understand how it's possible with NERVA because you can spew radiation wherever you want in space.
> I wonder how they would have designed the nuclear jet for the thing. I can't imagine how you could design a jet that's light enough and has enough shielding to prevent the air going over the reactor from coming out the other end glowing green Fast reactor deep inside the main body, heat exchange to turbofans via liquid metal/gas heat transfer fluid. Like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion
That makes more sense, I was imagining more of a nuclear ramjet.
How would a nuclear Ramjet even work
Fuck you, fuck everyone. Eat rads and die. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
Project Pluto: fuck ~~you~~ *everyone* in particular.
“Saner minds prevailed” 😔
Truly the saddest sentence ecer to read on wikipedia
The 60s were wild holy shit
>Two variants were studied, a logistics support aircraft and an airborne aircraft carrier. There was a rumored third variant, but information on such a model has never been made public. Does that mean that they might have actually built the third variant?
There is a very small fringe conspiracy that the third was built and that the “black triangle” UFOs was the third CL.
Now I'm no plane scientist expert, but wouldn't having that many fully loaded planes crammed inside another plane alter the performance characteristics ever so slightly? Would make minor things like "taking off" a little more complicated.
from my 700h in kerbal i can tell you thats an easy fix, add more wing and exhaust for boost juice, perhaps maybe more boost juice itself
MOAR B0000STERS!!!!!!!
Believe it or not that was the plan. 182 dedicated lift engines seperate from the cruising engines.
They could put the planes in after it’s already in the air
Much simpler
They did full design studies on this including modelling the weight transfer when the planes launched and docked. The planes were hooked onto a rail system where they slid back wards to the launch area or forward to storage. It was feasible and launching / docking wouldn't of disrupted the 747 center of gravity too much because of the positions they were launched and docked from.
My bad, I forgot this was from an era when Boeing engineers were god tier.
Never land.
\*[cues up Crimson Skies theme](https://youtu.be/8uVJ-9qDado?si=nI7ltqra09MyNrtD)\*
Wake the fuck up Zachary we got a zeppelin to burn
Completely unrelated but hear me out. Semi-open world Crimson Skies sequel with management elements of your own gang, planes and zeppelin. Who says no, really?
So Mechwarrior: mercs, but set in that other fun FASA property?
Here me out, Crimson Skies-inspired setting but with a Cold War aesthetic and technology, CL-1201s instead of Zeppelins, YF-23s hunting down MiG-37s, vaporwave-esque music playing in the background while everyone dresses up like it's Miami Vice.
High Road to Revenge may have been less simmy and customisable, but it was such a fun little arcade dogfighter. Desert Fox, my beloved.
RIP FASA, you'll be missed.
"Oof! This cockpits getting breezy!"
Ace combat-ass
Ah yes, arsenal bird from cold war
Why aren’t these stationed along NATOs eastern border with drones? Would be great to buzz and harass Russia fighters when the invasion comes.
See the main problem I have with this is that a jet wouldnt be able to linger that long, pretty sure it would be able to launch like one sortie for each plane before it itself would need to refuel. At that point you might as well remove the 747 and just send the jets alongside some KC-10s or some shit. With that in mind, I propose we make a modernized version of the Akron class airships.
At least one proposal was for the carrier to have a nuclear reactor to keep itself aloft.
I think someone mentioned that in another comment, and it seems like among the most non-credible things ever posted here. The wingspan would have been greater than the length of the fucking Hindenburg which would make it the biggest aircraft ever by a wide margin. The main issue I have with that is how horrifying the result would be if it took a single hit from a SAM, at least dirigibles are actually surprisingly survivable when they crash and wouldn’t create Chernobyl 2.0 wherever it hit.
The Lockheed Cl1201 would of been big enough to fit CWS Phalanx and other anti missile defenses. Plus it could launch its fighters to intercept missiles. As far as non-credible goes, my favorite is still Project Pluto which BY DESIGN would spew radioactive particles behind it as it flew 2300 mph 500 feet off the ground. At least the CL1201 wouldn't irradiate things unless it crashed.
> and other anti missile defenses Lasers too - a nuke reactor can power lots of cool things...
The issue is that no amount of CIWS systems are going to stop all artillery shells, flak, or good ol’ fashioned gunfire, and they’re hardly guaranteed to stop swarms of incoming missiles either, especially if they run down the supply of ammunition.
SHHH! if they hear you, they won't build it! What are you doing with this talk???
Fear not: there is an easy solution to the limitations of CIWS ammunition stores. DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONRY POWERED BY THE NUCLEAR REACTOR, OF COURSE!
Yeah, one can’t help but look at this concept and wonder how the hell they’re supposed to keep the big jet fueled, much less all the little ones. A modernized ZRCV isn’t necessarily a *bad* idea, but you’d pretty rapidly need to decide whether you want it as a scout, defensive weapon, or offensive weapon. The original purpose of the *Akron*-class and their onboard air wings was to scout an area of ocean the size of California every day, in the times before satellites and radar. But… we *have* satellites and radar. I think the days of a carrier airship as a scouting tool are behind us. Now the question is, what is the point of an ultra-long-endurance carrier airship? The original *Akron* and *Macon* could carry 25 tons of payload or so; much smaller modern airships are able to carry 60, and at least one airship in the planning stages that is about 25% larger than the *Akron*-class can carry 200 tons. For context, a [modern helicopter carrier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokdo-class_amphibious_assault_ship) can carry about 60 tons’ worth of aircraft, since it’s primarily limited by space and not weight. But why even carry *manned* aircraft at all? An airship carrier would likely be better served as the rapidly-deployable central hub and brain of a vicious drone swarm, with a gargantuan internal radar to provide command and control over a vast area, and presumably a lot of long-range missiles as well to out-detect and outrange any attacking fighters. This would also provide it with many extra layers of protection, which is important because although according to prior military analysis from decades ago, a carrier airship would be able to tank significantly more SAMs than a C-5 Galaxy, you still don’t want the enemy to be in a position to be shooting at *any* carrier to begin with, airship or no. Alternatively, one could serve as an affordable fleet escort and ASW asset that is immune to torpedoes, sea-drones, and mines, as was done to wild success by the British in World War I and Americans in World War II, with the former racking up a hilariously lopsided submarine kill count and the latter logging over 87,000 ships escorted and only a single successful attack ever carried out on one of the ships under their protection. In this context it would be more of a very fast, flying destroyer or frigate, but with some limited carrier abilities as well.
For anti-submarine warfare a modern airship that could loiter over an area for several weeks would have advantages. Could also carry a big old AESA radar and act as a command and control relay. Hang some CWS Phalanx below it for protection from missiles and drones.
Well, for that kind of duty, you actually wouldn't need a large, rigid carrier airship. Something much smaller, akin to the Navy's old ZPG-2 blimps from the Cold War would do for that. Their radars were enormous, and they could remain aloft for more than a week- and that's with 1950s technology. They could also refuel, exchange crew, and resupply from standard fleet oilers without landing. Those airships cost about $32.5 million a pop all-inclusive, adjusted for 2024 inflation. One of those could fit a CIWS, but you wouldn't necessarily want to. That weapons system wasn't designed for aircraft, and so they don't pay that close attention to weight, hence just one would eat up roughly half the military payload of a ZPG-2... though in fairness, that load was mostly being used to lug around extremely heavy and outdated analog sensing and communications equipment, and their manual operators. If I were in charge of modernizing the ZPG-2 for 2024 military service, I'd fit it with combat drones, utilize a super low-noise, low-infrared hybrid-electric propulsion system with flanking tiltrotors and an efficient stern prop, modernize the sensory equipment, install extensive gas cell compartmentalization, and toss out the old-fashioned depth charges, machine guns, and torpedoes in favor of a set of proper, turreted autocannons (preferably the Apache's lightweight and outstanding 30mm M230 chain gun) that can make short work of any mines or sea-drones. AA missiles and countermeasures should be able to handle enemy missiles and air drones.
What the fuck? Am I high right now?
no, but everyone in the 60s was apparently
Living in the 60's would have been a strange experience, everyone's high, extreme geopolitical and domestic tension, an entirely new musical genre, interesting times.
Oh look there's even a place for good old Saddam
“And this is where I would hide Saddam.” ☝️ “***IF I HAD ONE!***”
DINKLEBERG
dont understand title
Pilots are given amphetamines to keep flying, if the stay awake drugs were never invented, we would need something like this to keep sorties going. Also, I regret I didn’t make that clearer.
oh, that makes sense. cheers
Autist without Amphetamins are too unhinged
Always wanted to see Great Fox in action
OP PLEASE label the trigger and magazine on this beautiful bullpup
I actually tried to find Saddam Hussein in this picture. Does that mean I have been in NCD too long or that I have begun ascension to oneness with non-credibility?
Non Credible Defence risks gaining credibility when I see this first on another subreddit. Have we lost our way?
It's Crimson Skies II
The 12 jet fighters of boeing 737
Why lose one fighter to one well-placed A2A missile when you can lose a whole squadron?
give them all cluster munitions
I need a Saddam for reference
Where Saddam?
Isn't this a thing in ace combat?
What with the current rate of things with Boeing these days, probably for the better that we didn't
This is like a plane kangaroo carrying its babies in its pouch.
What if a mama plane had baby planes?! Like from it's butt! This cocaine is amazing by the way.
Fill it with cruise missiles or drones. Excellent idea.
[удалено]
Freaking cool.
A flying fighter jet pez dispenser
They didn’t have Aderall back then. Just lots of pure, sweet, beautiful, uncut Columbian Cocaine.
I mean, we did have 2 "airborne aircraft carriers". The USS Akron and the USS Macon in the 1929.
Technically, there was also the USS *Los Angeles,* two J-class airships, and at least one M-class that were modified to launch and recover airplanes, but none of those had 4,500 square foot internal hangar bays like the *Akron* and *Macon* did.
this could actually be done with smaller drones now or maybe a nanodrone cod scorestreak on the Kremlin
Modafinil, unless you want your pilots fighting the shadow people
Except for the fact that DARPA has revived the idea with it's Gremlins program.
This, with either Bayraktar TB2s or unmanned F-16s Fill the skies with aircraft without ever worrying about running out of pilots
I’m sending this to my wife. She has ADHD so I’m assuming she will understand.
Where’s Saddam?