What's /k/'s consensus on literal Aircraft Carriers?

>>35005515
Because why?

The reasons the Soviets did it (other than to look cool) is to extend operational range of small biplanes like the I-153. Now that job is fulfilled by tankers and drop tanks not to mention the fact modern fighters and interceptors already have insane ranges compared to 30s counterparts.

>>35005515

They are unnecessary and stupid. They about as practical as a Battletech Mech.

>>35005647
>Not having a B-52 carry drones.

>>35005515
A 60,000 lb F-22 is a far cry from a 3,000 lb I-15.

>>35005515
Americans had some aircraft carrying airships

File: XF-85_Goblin_USAF.jpg (36KB, 450x257px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 450x257px

>>35005682
There was the goblin. Dropped from b-36. No problem for a b-52 if they wanted to do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin

>>35007913
Holy shirt no way

>>35005515

>Someones being playing Ace combat again

Anon why would you do that? It's a shit game for chinks and autists.

File: airship aircraft carrier retrieves plane.webm (2MB, 538x400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 538x400px

>>35005515
>>35007913
Might be more viable with small-mid sized drones.

Or wait until those hybrid airships go from testing to proven, do webm related and use the ship as a flying UAV command/communications node

File: 1251313235833.jpg (315KB, 1236x1602px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1236x1602px

Damn, I want new Crimson Skies.

the real question is why dont we have aircraft submarines that harriers can operate from