Here's What You Need to Know: The plan was more realistic than you think.

A 1973 study looked a launching tiny jet fighters from airborne aircraft carriers.

This fascinating feasibility study says right off the bat, “This investigation has studied the feasibility and usefulness of an airborne airbase and has found it to be technically feasible and potentially valuable to the nation as a rapid deployment multi-purpose strike system. It has the potential for intercontinental response, with large combat forces, before an aggressor can fully mobilize for invasion of neighboring countries.” 

In addition to looking at the feasibility of an airborne aircraft carrier based on commercially available jetliners, the study also investigated if small jets, so-called microjets, could successfully preform. One of the study’s stated objectives was to “develop a micro-fighter point design such that a number airplanes can be transported intact with a 747/C-5 class carrier aircraft and have a capability of being air launched and recovered from the carrier.”

The Fighters

The investigation had a number of constraints and was technically complex. One of these constraints was the realization that small jets in the 7,000-10,000 pound range would have to be somehow deployed from the carrier’s center of gravity to maintain the plane’s positive flight characteristics. They could not simply be launched from the rear of a C-5’s cargo bay.

The microfighters themselves had a number of constraints as well. Their wingspan would have to be no more than 17.5 feet across, which was the maximum length that would fit inside a 474 fuselage. Since the microfighters would be launched and recovered by the air carrier, they would not have traditional landing gear, but rather landing skids with a brake parachute for emergency landing.

They also could only hold a minimum amount of fuel internally, just 2,500 pounds. For comparison, the F-16 Fighting Falcon carries 7,000 pounds of fuel internally, in addition to 3,050 pounds externally on conformal fuel tanks. The F-16 is a significantly higher-preforming bird to be sure, but microfighters would have a very short flight time, despite having just a single engine. They would not even carry much as far as weapons—just 400 rounds of 20 mm ammunition for two onboard cannons, though the study later said fighters could be equipped with small air-to-air missiles.

Five designs were considered in accordance with these constraints, and included a variable-sweep design, one delta wing, a canard configuration, and a traditional swept-wing fighter. The most promising design was a modified delta wing with small winglets on the wing’s outer edge.

The Carriers

The carriers themselves also had several design requirements, including dual launch bays that could also recover micro jets, booms for in-flight refueling, and the ability to preform other functions when not transporting microfighters, like troop transport or tanker.

Both the 474 and the C-5 Galaxy were considered, and several loading configurations were tested. The 474 won out. Though the C-5 Galaxy was easier to modify, it had lower future growth expectations, whereas the 747 was estimated to have a greater maximum payload, and greater range at maximum payload.

Feasibility

After lengthy diagrams and explanations of flight minutia, the study concluded that by 1980, the airborne aircraft carrier would be feasible, “The concept of a micro-fighter/airborne aircraft carrier is technically feasible and could be operational by 1980 with emerging technology. Operational feasibility requires technology demonstrations of air launch and recover and on-board handling of the fighters.” In addition to the feasibility conclusion, the study stated that, “the system concept offer the potential of great national benefit in a policy world that leans toward a low profile American overseas while being responsive to diver needs of our allies,” though we’ll likely never see an airborne aircraft carrier.

Caleb Larson holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on U.S. and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics, and culture.

This article first appeared in 2020.

Image: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Thomas Gooley