Regular aircraft carriers where extremely flammable and filled with explosives.

Originally they had wooden decks, boatloads of fuel, and no meaningful armor. Nowadays their made with ~70,000 tons of steel, and fire is still a major concern.

Hence why damage control was (and still is) so important, which the American Navy was very good at.

While not technically an aircraft carrier but capable of carrying, launching and landing aircraft, the example of USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) comes to mind:

On 12 July 2020, a fire started on a lower vehicle-storage deck while the ship was undergoing maintenance at Naval Base San Diego. It took four days for firefighters to extinguish the fire, which injured at least 63 sailors and civilians and severely damaged the ship. After a lengthy investigation into the cause of the fire, a sailor was charged with arson but was acquitted at trial. Repairs to the ship were estimated to take up to seven years and cost up to $3.2 billion, so the ship was decommissioned on 15 April 2021 and sold for scrap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bonhomme_Richard_(LHD-6)

Neither of the 'airship' aircraft carriers described in the article failed due to fire.

Helium airships are not particularly flammable.

They don't deal with rough weather well, though.

Also, isn't Helium non-renewable (at least on Earth) and becoming quite scarce?

Everyone thinks we're working on fusion reactors for electricity. Silly fools. Of course it's for creating more helium. /s

A recent find in Minnesota may change that outlook: https://interestingengineering.com/energy/minnesota-dream-he...

Helium airships were not flammable.

Airships are cool but are a large easy target.

So are regular aircraft carriers - hence they're traveling with escorts :).

An airship however is way easier to shoot down using non military technology that some nutjob group could afford. They're slow, big and a lot less armored than ships, and they'd make the news if shot down, which is what the above actors are after; in this world I don't see them like a safe solution for transportation.

In the context of aircraft carriers it probably is never a good idea to have them directly at the front. If it is close enough to be shot down by a Texan wielding a sawed of shotgun it probably is too close to the front. Same is true for the ship kind, if you can walk up to it with a welder and cut holes into its armor plating it is too close.

In the context of transportation planes seem to have significant issues dealing with loons wielding laser pointers. So unless you classify those as military technology you will have a hard time finding something cheaper and easier to get your hands on.

Yeah. But regular aircraft carriers are smaller for carrying similar aircraft groups, because they only need to by less dense than water, not air.

Once someone figures out the Stealth Airship design, warfare will change!

Just knock out their radar from orbit and seed some clouds ahead of the invasion

I'd watch that movie.

Yes, the notion of an airship as aircraft carrier was really only viable for a short time when aircraft engine technology wasn't good enough for high-altitude flight.

With the incorporation of superchargers and turbochargers in aircraft engines (and an overall increase in power), this drastically increased the altitude limits for propeller aircraft.

When the airships could still fly higher than aircraft, that reduced their vulnerability to direct attack.