Nope
>>29325445
No.
No, and also no.
Isn't this some shit from final fantasy?
>>29325471
>Avengers movie.
>>29325445
Even if it could work I imagine the upkeep and maintenance to cost more than a current CBG, not to mention the cost in man hours fixing the damn thing.
>>29325471
>flips
>most powerful race in the world
Most flips I see are 5'5 and complete twinks, what makes them "powerful".
>>29325557
you might be surprised by Filipinos are frighteningly strong. i have seen one guy play division 2 football
>>29325557
Virtually all of them are strapped with an automatic handgun they hand-crafted in their garage. On top of that, their small stature makes them small targets and thus very hard to hit.
>>29325557
but anon, that's why
they are super hipsters who think they are so fuckin cool for being twinks in foreign countries where no one else is as small as them, and they have the tightest buttholes
>>29325632
STOP making fun of pinoys!
>>29325445
>Airborne aircraft carriers
No. They'll just get blown up by some hotshot asshole in an F-15.
>>29325599
>Oddjob
>>29325781
There is a difference bettween the flying flattop and moby dick.
>>29325445
Mechanically I guess there's nothing keeping it from being possible.
Worth the cost? Fuck no.
But if we are just looking to burn tax dollars I suggest a star destroyer. Or for just a few dollars more, pic related...
>>29325529
i think you mean saints row
>>29326891
>Mechanically nothing wrong
>4 turbines that size could keep something the size of an aircraft carrier afloat.
If I was a bit more autistic, I'd go do the math on how fast they would need to spin, but I guarantee it's something retarded.
>>29325445
Better yet, put some building on there and have a flying city.
>>29327386
There is someone that has already done it, just Google it.
Fans size needs to be tremendously bigger to spin at reasonable speed.
Not worth it and extremely easy to sink.
>>29326891
qhat the fuck is going on in that battle
>>29325644
kill the ostrich like i give a fuck
>>29327519
>battle
>not star war
>>29327386
I meant physically. I think it COULD be possible, but seriously it would be a nightmarish thing to build for.
>>29327519
In the old EU the New Republic after return of the Jedi was able to "liberate" some star destroyers and give them new friendly names like "Liberty" or stuff like that. Idk if they ever got a super star destroyer though. But that's what it looks like.
>>29325445
No, fuck Marvel.
>>29325471
This is sad cause i know the guy on the left
>>29327386
>>29327502
http://www.wired.com/2012/07/could-s-h-i-e-l-d-helicarrier-fly/
>>29325445
Absolutely not.
However, I'd be curious as to the viability of a more sane airborne carrier design (assuming cost wasn't a factor)
Could you have a giant flying wing full of A4-skyhawk size fighters or something? Possibly also with the assumption it uses specially built runways (or if you really want to push your luck, perhaps the sea?) so as to ignore logistical constraints on the carrier itself.
What's the biggest upward size limit on a winged aircraft carrier? Is it aerodynamic, structural/material limitations, or based on other factors like available landing sites? If you ignore landing sites, what's the next limit?
Would an airborne docking system be viable with modern computer guidance? Is it possible to do the connection between the two aircraft magnetically, or via clamps, or something (to reduce required accuracy on the pilot's part or reduce the risk of damage), or would you have to stick to a trapeze sort of system?
On a similar tangent, are there any scenarios where (again, assuming cost is not a factor) a submersible carrier is viable? (Something I've got in mind at the moment is a carrier you can move somewhat freely without it being seen from satellite - you'll be noticed/vulnerable when surfaced which is a problem, but more free in transit if you're not being shadowed.
Obviously I'm aware such things aren't cost-effective or reasonable to ever expect in real life, but I'm very interested in how realistic fictional models could be and what the best capabilities you could cram into one are. Primarily with physical possibility, then with actual military viability, before (as the least important factor) cost.
Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-1201 , except under conventional power, is pretty close to what I have in mind.
>>29325781
>Galm 1
>airborne carrier
Hresvelgr was a command cruiser/bomber, you mong. Garuda 1 was the one who took out Aigaion.
>>29328089
It did carry aircraft though. (Espada 1 and 2 were almost certainly launched from it, as was Pixy and probably the Misc. SU-37 that was in the area too.)
>>29327519
New Republic-controlled Executor-class duking it out with an Imperial Remnant Executor. I can think of several things wrong with how the battle is being portrayed, but that's Star Wars. Navies in space.
>>29328109
They were? It's been forever since I played Zero, I thought all the fighters were just escorts.
>>29328209
I'm sure Pixy if nothing else was launched from the damaged Hresvelgr (otherwise, how would Galm miss him during the battle?)
>>29325445
>airplane that carries more airplanes
Why?
imagine it thisway
>boat that carries more boats
>cars that carry more cars
>>29325445
The real question is why not a submersible aircraft carrier?
Much stealthier than a surface carrier, and when submerged it's exposed to much fewer (and shorter ranged) threats.
>>29327620
They did have one named Lusankya for a while. Going by Wookieepedia it looks like that's the one portrayed, with that emblem.
And it seems by that very picture being on the page as the Lusankya engaging the Reaper.
>>29328114
Specifically ww2 navies in space. Frankly I can think of a whole lot of logistical reasons not to use a super star destroyer as the new republic, but sometimes you just need that much dakka
>>29325445
let's remember that in the movie when the rotors got taken out that thing just dropped like a fucking anvil
>>29328274
Ah fuck I forgot the lusankya, but that whole arc was odd.
>need to hide a superstar destroyer bigger than manhattan
>park it under a borough in coruscant!
>make it secret imperial prison
>takes off destroying an area the size of Los Angeles on the way out.
>>29328232
>what is a truck hauling cars
>>29328258
Does that design include SLBMs that shrek everything below a certain altitude?
>>29328232
>boat that carries more boats
what are lifeboats and landing ship transporters
>>29325445
wouldn't those engines pose a significant risk to everything on deck?
>>29328426
>>29328325
yes retards examples exist but what military purpose does a tractor trailer with cars on it or lifeboat-ridden ship have?
A airplane carrying airplane does not serve military purpose neigher does boat carry boats
>>29328435
>fuel slick
>trip
>fall
>sucked into 80,000rpm 10m diameter turbine
>you are cut into thirty-seven pieces
>and then plummet 10,000ft to the ground
>and ruin someones picnic
>>29328623
Why did you ignore landing craft transporters?
A big ship carrying small landing boats which aren't capable of crossing oceans/seas themselves most certainly does/did serve a military purpose.
A plane carrying a plane has a very clear military purpose: It gets a group of fighter jets somewhere faster than a naval carrier could do at a distance further than they could fly themselves.
Now, is it cost effective? No. Is there a large risk of your very expensive carrier plane getting blown up? Yes. Does it still have a defined purpose, even if it sucks at it and will thus never be built? Yes.
>>29328641
Considering the area you'd cover in your new state of being; it's safe to say you'd ruin more than one picnic.
>>29328641
More like,
>be anywhere within 50 meters of turbine while at hover power
>sucked into 80,000rpm 10m diameter turbine
>you are cut into mist
Yes, they could build a flying carrier.
No, it really wouldn't be worth it.
However, it would be cool as fuck.
Submarine carriers would be cool as fuck, too.
Superior flying aircraft carrier coming through.
>>29328751
>>29328751
I never understood why it didn't have a reactor powering it, you'd think Belkan space magic would demand it.
>>29328764
It's a flying boat, the flying part is basically a turbo mode that wouldn't be used in normal day-to-day operations. It probably does have a reactor.
>>29328751
I always wondered how they landed on that thing without those little fighters getting fucked up by the wash/vortices/whatever. The only shot we saw was them performing a nearly vertical dive before landing.
>>29328761
Where the fuck do they store those fighters? They can't just leave them lashed down in a flying wind tunnel all day.
>>29328791
I think the big beam thing is a crane that pulls them into a side hangar or something.
>>29328764
Estovakia doesn't believe in Belkan space magic.
fuck off
>>29328258
assuming this magic under water carrier could carry enough planes of substantial size to even pose a treat, then assuming again that this magic submersible carrier could possibly let those planes land again or are you just assuming that a friendly carrier would be able to accommodate several more planes in its already full complement, assuming that enough of both carriers had lost enough planes in whatever engagement they may have hypothetically been in.
>>29325445
It should be much more blimpish/baloony and for starters should just use VTOL aircraft.
>>29325445
only even practical in the movies and comics with super high tech stuff thats just below star trek tier
>>29328743
>sail as a ski jump
I like this.
>>29328815
>fighter pilots can fly indefinitely
Flying carriers aren't cost-effective, but don't pretend air-to-air refuelling is the same thing for anything short of an Su-34.
>>29328817
>this magic submersible carrier could possibly let those planes land again
Why couldn't it?
Just VTOL or STOL them. The bigger problem is the vulnerability of the sub-carrier on the surface.
>>29328623
>what military purpose
>what are logistics and life preservation
Or does "military purpose" only cover direct combat uses in your world?
>>29328751
I died laughing the first time I saw that thing being refueled by SIX tankers. Imagine the logistics nightmare keeping that thing in the air would be.
It would definitely need to be nuclear-powered to be worthwhile.
>>29328014
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-1201
how many lockheed engineers work at namco?
You see Ivan...
>>29328751
>>29328898
I forget, did the escort planes need tankers too? Or were they powered by dancing angel magic?
>>29329794
Probably estovakian black magic but I'd bet the explanation would be they didn't need refueling at the time that Aigaion was taking on fuel. Or they would have been refueled after that. Garuda kind of did interrupt a refueling operation.
Would a submarine aircraft carrier (submerged transit, surface plane launch) have submarine escorts?
If yes, would they be purpose built (to better escort on surface too), or just regular attack subs?
>>29328014
i basically agree with this guy. I mean the government has come up with some truly odd shit before. If the DOD or DARPA or whatever came up and dropped like a 400 Billion dollar check on your desk and said..we want 2 flying aircraft carriers in any shape/configuration/power source that currently is viable/exists. Make it happen..how do you go about it?
>Russia invents flying aircraft carrier
>Europe shits itself in fear at the new flying red menace
>America panics for all of ten seconds before someone reminds everyone that pic related exists and has existed for rather some time
>>29330073
Because using an AAM with a nuclear warhead can lead only to good things.
>>29325471
I am a Flip and what the fuck is up with this picture?
I see this almost every month as if it was some decent meme...which it is not.
>>29330315
Competely agree.
If I did that I would rather use a farmer or a laborer, not some faggots who think they're hot shit.
Not that I actually agree with the statement.
>>29329932
The United States has already had 2 flying aircraft carriers: U.S.S. Akron and U.S.S. Macon.
>>29328435
The turbines are the least of the designers worries; Thermodynamics pose a much bigger problem.
You know how much fuels is needed to get a rocket just into the clouds? Let alone keep a much larger, heavier object there indefinitely?
Only a blimp could possibly work short of an impossibly powerful fusion reactor.
>>29330373
i was thinking more narratively
i can sidestep 90% of physics, but not realizing a giant fan designed to suck in air is going to suck in air is too much for me.
>>29328805
This, if you fly through the Aigaion, you can see hangars in the walls.
>>29329932
like this
>>29325445
Better off building submersible carriers.
>>29328913
Jesus FUCK
>>29330578
I need that in my life in bomber format.
jesus christ a squadron of those things could single-handedly crater the middle east, armed with nukes of course
>>29328679
the only advantage i can think it would have would be speed. you're not going to get that any closer to an enemy border than you would an aircraft carrying without it getting blown the fuck out. especially given the size of the fucking radar signature, as opposed to trying to hunt a battle group in open water.
it wouldn't even practically extend the range of your aircraft because of above.
i doubt you could get a structure carrying a significant amount of ordnance, fuel and aircraft off the ground and still maintain structural integrity personally.
>>29330611
>>29330578
>>29330625
Last one
>>29330625
>2 million pound payload
>almost 500 man crew
jesus fucking christ lockheed.
>2 million pounds of nukes per aircraft
>plus you could suicide mission the thing if needed since its a flying reactor and fuck shit up that way
the future was much brighter in the past
>>29328913
>how many lockheed engineers work at namco?
all of them.
>>29330373
rockets carry their own oxidizer, so it's not a good example.
the real issue is maintaining structural integrity with all that weight.
>>29330639
what gets me is that a fucking 707 can dock in the back of each wing by the ailerons.
>>29330611
>I need that in my life in bomber format.
>jesus christ a squadron of those things could single-handedly crater the middle east, armed with nukes of course
Actually you could probably quite easily build that now.
Which low temperature superconductors and computer controlled electric motors you can get close to 100% efficiency.
You would have to calculate the power the reactor can produce and maximum possible thrusts but the marvel style flying carrier may even be possible. The only difference is instead of giant fans you would have arrays of 100 or more smaller ducted fans. Because electric engines are so simple it can be effective to have many small ones. It also allows them to be replaced mid flight.
>>29325586
>one flip can play pretend football at a pretend professional level
No wonder the chinks are ready to roll over a state that is only relevant for its muslin guerrillas and US ally/base status, I'm not sure and no one cares.
>>29330578
so would the pilots walk through the wings down into their planes, or did they just sit in them the whole time?
>>29330730
Walk down, it's supposed to fly around for weeks.
>>29330775
>>29330730
you know the flying fortress? the CL-1201 is a flying fucking airbase.
from wingtip to wingtip is as wide as a nimitz class is long.
and I figure it would probably need 5 miles of runway to effectively take off and land.
not to mention the obscene operating costs.
but if you made it a bomber, I think Curtis LeMay would rise from his grave, visit it, and personally fly the first flight, even as a ghost.
that would be the ultimate Air Force One/SAC Bomber.
>>29330835
I would make it a seaplane, because it's nuclear/electric water is no concern. It would be a giant flying wing, at the rear would be an extendable pod with electric water jets.
For take off the water jet would be lowered, it would propel it fast enough to fly on ground effect, then it would be flying a few meters above the water with the pod still under generating thrust. once flight speed was reached it would switch to using hundreds of ducted fans mounted on the top of the wing and retract the water pod.
I don't think it would be any more difficult than a nuclear sub. The technology needed has only been around 10 years or so they couldn't build this in the 1970s.
>>29330667
How on earth would something like that even be managed without risking damage to both aircraft or at least people moving between them? (i.e. turbulence or something moving the 707)
>>29330642
>Fly towards enemystan city
>They're fucked if they shoot you down
>They're also fucked if they don't shoot you down
Is this the ultimate trolling aircraft /k/?
>>29331495
No different to inflight refueling.
>>29328014
hmm, cut holes in the floor of an An-124 and we might be onto something
>>29331544
Transferring people/cargo and transferring fuel are two quite different things.
Fuel doesn't care if you shake about a little, people tend to fall over.
It might just be my imagination but it also seems the 707 would probably be closer to the CL-1201 than you'd get for re-fuelling alone (although even if it wasn't, the sheer size of the thing's still an issue) increasing the risk that if something goes wrong and the 707 is a writeoff, it'd have a worrying chance of bringing an airplane that cost more than every NASA program thus far down with it.
>>29331522
if it carries pic related, yes
>>29331544
aircraft create wake turbulence in the air much like a boat. Find a youtube video of a tanker taking fuel off another tanker, they go all over the place.
planes fly because of newtons third law. They push down as much air at as much speed so the force of air going down equals the force of gravity acting on their weight. something this heavy would push down a lot of air. This thing doing a low fly by at a superbowl would send people to the hospital.
>>29325445
It could, but it's sorta pointless, because who needs aircrafts when they have so much energy, just go straight to the space ships.
>>29328743
What would happen if you combined CATOBAR with a ramp? Would it be better or worse?
>>29331588
nose gear collapse from hitting ramp at speed.
>>29325445 (OP)
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145690
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H.W._Bush
Rough calculation. Helicopter with 2 40 meters rotors and 200MW engines will able to produce 500 tons lift tops.
To lift 100000 tons heli needs 3000 times more powerfull 600000MW engines.
No. Not possible.
>>29325557
Drugged up Flips during the Moro rebellion were tough enough to make the US Army go "we're gonna to need a bigger gun" since their .38 caliber revolvers were not cutting it. They switched to .45 cal revolvers as a stop-gate, and this prompted the development of the 1911.
>>29328089
Still some asshole in a F-15
>>29331968
Not exactly. The .38 Long Colt was just a terrible design. It was a blackpowder cartridge with bullet-dimensions similar to a 9mm (if I remember correctly, the 125gr was the standard for the American army). It carried only half the force of a 9mm.
Those Juramentado of the Moro rebellion abused that by garroting all their limbs preventing their blood pressure from dropping like a brick the second they got hit. Alledgedly combined with
It was both a terrible weapon and simple medicine that allowed them to keep going.
The drugged ones were the Zulus and Sudanis which prompted the design of soft-point bullets by the British when their .303 didn't do as much as they should.
>>29327620
not without a material for the rotors that could withstand such spin velocities
these things will rip themselves apart
>>29325445
I'm too lazy to post the math, but I was asked about this a while ago, and assuming the mass is similar to that of a Nimitz, the thrust needed to keep it at the altitude shown in the movies would mean that the thrust from a single engine is enough to scour the flesh from the bones of people beneath it.
The real weapon is not a floating air base, it is simply flying it over shit you want dead.
>>29325445
>could it work
Yes, we could make this work wit 1950's technology / metallurgy
>>29325471
>>29333038
Accidently posted to soon, I was Goin to go into the orion project and how in the 1950's we could have made 8,000,000 ton ships that were fucking interplanetary. We could use nuclear pulse propulsion on anything big enough and be able to keep them up for somehwere between hours and years. for smaller ships we'd still be to use giant thermo-turbofans (basically project Pluto but with a jet turbine system built around it, with the first compressor also providing more of the thrust and basically acting like a propeller. That could keep them up for years.
I'm on like 3 hours of sleep so fuck making this nice to read
>>29333110
Also it wouldnt be worth it, look up the Uss Akron airship if you want a real life example of an air carrier.
Wed just use nukes in real life, there are many nuclear sam and a2a missles for taking out bomber clusters.
Go home.
>>29328014
>Obviously I'm aware such things aren't cost-effective or reasonable to ever expect in real life,
Well, not lately, anyway.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_(ZRS-4)
Fun fact: there are more airplanes under the sea than submarines in the sky!
>>29327985
his math is all kinds of fucked up though
>>29326891
Use fusion power. It takes about 6 Gigawatts for several minutes to lift the space shuttle to orbit.
Might as well go orbital platforms.
Imagine the kek of dropping a 100lb anvil on your enemy instead of 2000 lb JDAMs or nukes without the fallout. :}
>>29325445
>aircraft comes in for a landing
>aborts
>gets sucked into fan
>>29326891
>Rebel super vs Imperial super
>>29331603
Couldn't you spring-load (or something) the catapult as well so that it (relatively) slowly pushes the nose gear up along the curvature of the catapult?
What's the viability of a modern airship carrier?
Would you need VTOL docking with it or would it be capable of travelling fast enough for jets to fly near? (don't laugh, i'm thinking of hybrid airships, not Hindenburgs.)
Would you need specially modified fighters to speed-match with a hybrid airship (such as blown flaps, etc) or would it be fast enough that the only modification needed would be some method of docking?
>>29330535
I like it but what keeps them flying?
>>29327985
>http://www.wired.com/2012/07/could-s-h-i-e-l-d-helicarrier-fly/
Flawed, he should have used actuator disk theory (or momentum theory) to get the power requirement.
>>29326891
>Mechanically I guess there's nothing keeping it from being possible.
You guessed wrong.
>>29330313
>nuclear warhead
A regular warhead in one of the intakes, and your carrier is toast.
>>29333962
something like this is probably closer to what it would look like...as to what would keep it flying..shrugs* nuclear reactor with jets...shit load of normal jets and thrusters? i dunno
>>29328014
A submarine launching UCAV's would be pretty fucking reasonable I'd guess. You'd need them to be semi-autonomous and somewhat stealthy along with some VTOL- capability for landing purposes.
I think you could pull it off, if it is more beneficiary than a normal aircraft carrier is an entirely different point.
>>29334052
It wouldn't be as you can launch UCAVs off regular carriers.
>>29325557
They only things they could brag about are their award-winning whores and place to get fucked up (malls, nightclub, malls, brothels, malls, malls, and malls).
>we have shit public transportation, crumbling infrastructure, weak military and our anus is ripe for chinese ancshluss-ing, but hey, at least we have our own miss universe
>>29332862
adamantium?
its not like wonder materials dont exist in the marvel universe
>>29334186
Only advantage could be the stealthiness of the ship doing the launching and perhaps its evasive capabilities.
But I agree, a normal ship would probably function better in the same role; it's a pretty big stretch that you'd be able to keep a submersed aircraft carrier as silent as the current launching platforms.
>>29326891
>fighting two-dimensionally in space.
>>29334238
It's easier to build a drone that can be launched from a torpedo or missile tube on a sub than to build a sub to launch drones.
Replace cruise missiles with drones.
>>29332562
>Those Juramentado of the Moro rebellion abused that by garroting all their limbs preventing their blood pressure from dropping like a brick the second they got hit. Alledgedly combined with
>It was both a terrible weapon and simple medicine that allowed them to keep going.
Lolnope. There was drugs involved. Coca Leaf to be exact.
Pretty ancient tactic in the Philippine Isles. Pre-Colonial Filipino warfare was heavy on missile throwing like slings, darts, javelins, arrows, and later on, muskets, but this eventually stopped when one side's warriors - who have been drugging themselves silly and ritualistically preparing for melee combat- get called in to charge, breaking off the skirmishing phase.
Also Juramentado was the Spanish term for the sworn professional warriors of various Filipino Chieftains (hence "Juramentado:" = "Sworn man"). But the phenomena of going berserk is locally called Amok/Amuk/Nag-amok.
>>29334358
>have no sense of scale
>wondered if you could just stick a small fighter like the F-5 or A-4 into a 747 for an ad-hoc flying carrier (in the realm of fantasy, obviously)
>look up the specifications
>all of their wingspans are too large
>even too large for a c-5 galaxy and possibly An-225
>even if you folded the wings and unfolded them just before dropping (where they hang outside of the hold anyway) the length of the small fighter means you could probably only cram like 5 in there at best.
Why is life so cruel?
>>29325445
Theoretically yes it is possible. Practical and cost efficient? HELL NO.
>>29331573
Oh my god, boys, we don't even need to arm the things. Armor the fuck out of the underside and let it do low passes over the desert all day and night. Nothing would be left standing.
>>29331588
>>29331603
You shouldn't need both, but it f you did you'd have to use a steady incline rather than a curved ramp.
>>29325445
>could it work
yes
>worth the cost
no
>>29328312
>takes off destroying an area the size of Los Angeles on the way out.
The imperial that was still in control of it did that, the new Republic had no idea it was there.
>>29328812
Yet they let Belkans build them the Aigaion.
>>29334936
Wasn't it more that Belkan engineers went to Estovakia and built it there?
(Although it being built for export probably makes more sense, unless it was somehow intended to protect people from asteroids by flying over cities and using it's sheer size or something.)
>>29330578
Could you actually build this thing?
Do we actually have the engine technology (or the capacity to develop it) and strong enough materials? or is this basically ace combat tier?
>>29334358
>>29334457
hmm.
looked it up.
if we used the old goblin parasite fighters but drone-ified them, it could work with a C17 or a C5.
with either of those aircraft, you could probably carry 15+ goblins.
come on boeing, get on it.
>>29334358
Wasn't there one of these where it carried tiny manned fighter (and IIRC was projected to cost like a billion dollars a pop)
>>29330578
>CL-1201
>>29333110
>project Pluto (nuclear engined nuclear missile)
If this is what the Americans dreamed up, just what the fuck did the crazier Russians have in mind?
>>29336050
http://www.boeing-747.com/special_boeing_747s/boeing-747-aac.html
this is probably what you mean
>>29328258
As a submariner I can't help but shit myself thinking about how long the qual process would be on something that goddamn huge.
>>29337238
>qual process
Forgive my ignorance:
What?
>>29337215
fund it
>>29337266
Part of being a submariner is qualifying as a submariner, earning your dolphins. In that process, you have to learn just about everything about the boat. You have to know the purpose, location, and power source of every single component, where the valves that operate them are, etc. For your standard submarine it can take anywhere between 6-10 months (some people do it faster, but still) to actually become qualified. That's months of nothing but qualifying as well, non-stop studying and whatnot.
I dunno if it'd even be logistically possible for people to qualify on the entirety of a carrier like that. Subs are so much more advanced than surface ships and so much can go wrong much faster, so you can't afford to have people who don't know how to do literally everything. Everyone is a firefighter, everyone knows basic maintenance, everyone can at least hold their own in almost any area of the boat. A carrier sub would be so retardedly complex and the qualification process would be such a pain in the ass, I'd be surprised if one could ever be crewed properly.
Is it a thin aluminum shell filled with hydrogen built to look menacing and nothing else?
If yes, than I guarantee North Korea is working on one right NOW.
>>29337330
christ, that sounds like a royal pain in the ass.
qual'ing on a typhoon class would've been a royal pain I'd imagine.
so in actually being on patrol in a sub, what's the worst part?
subs interest me, but it seems like it wouldn't take long for people to start losing their shit.
>>29330578
'merica
>>29330338
i'm not sure if this looks relatively comfy, or absolutely terrifying.
>>29333833
>Lost Fleet is no longer canon
Dammit Abrams.
>>29334263
Remembering the novel that's based on, it's a prelude to a boarding action.
>>29331573
>>29334763
Planes fly because of newtons third law. They push down as much air at as much speed so the force of air going down equals the force of gravity acting on their weight. Something this heavy would push down a lot of air. This thing doing a low fly by at a superbowl would send people to the hospital.
>Special Attack: Joshua's Shout
>>29339716
>This thing doing a low fly by at a superbowl would send people to the hospital
Out of interest, does this mean there's an upward weight limit at which the displaced air renders takeoff impossible?
(Because it'd tear up the ground under it or cause waves large enough to damage itself, although my physics understanding is limited and so that latter one might not be possible.)
>>29339921
What're the odds something like this could handle the weight of say, a C-130 landing on it? Could you build one strong enough, or would it be too heavy to float?
>>29325471
Sigh those memes, sometimes are going to be the death of them.
>>29325445
The amount of energy it would take to make an aircraft carrier fly would be fucking outrageous.
Not to mention the fact that we do not have engines capable of producing that amount of thrust, we don't have fuels that contain a high enough energy density, and even if we did, the concept itself is fucking stupid.
>>29327519
That's the Lusankya, previously an imperial prison ship, captured by the new republic in what has to be one of the biggest bluffs of all time
>>29328743
That looks seriously cool.
what about to blips holding a platform?
>>29334358
>>29334457
>>29336030
Damn guys the radar cross section of those birds is too damn obvious. They're also too damn slow. they'd be shot down long before they ever got to their targets.
>>29339497
Blame Disney for that one.
>>29341523
>they'd be shot down long before they ever got to their targets.
i think the idea is that they stay out of range of interception and the fighters fly in
plus, (thinking more 80s/90s than stealth here, since the 747 ACA concept was of that time) the 747 nose can carry a bigger radar than any reasonably sized fighter, so it could presumably detect an inbound interceptor and launch a parasite plane to counter it in time (or possibly, and this is my own off-the-cuff idea, launch a wing-mounted missile of it's own using that radar if the inbound plane is likely to be able to out-BVR the parasite planes.)
>>29328014
I want a submersible, heavily armoured, nuclear powered, battle carrier that can also fly.
>>29341632
Hello?
This is Ivan Ivanovich from Yuktobania division of ceвep Osea ocнoвaтeль oтpacли, I have offerings which you may be to find to be of the interesting. If you are considerings leaping from water when blowing of the ballast to be flying then this vehicle is the one for your best usings
Picture is attach. Minor cosmetic damage from misusings of laser-pen to be noted please, due to shipping cost return is not possible if you are finding yourself unsatisfied by purchase.
>>29341699
Ivan thank you, forgot to mention it also has to be VLO and have grape soda fountains.
![1287646375683[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VLcqPqt.jpg "1287646375683[1].jpg")
>>29327598
blaster battles in SW are known as "lightfights"
>>29337215
Could something like this be useful for patrolling an area like cold-war Russia?
(i.e. where you want to cover an entire border, but can't practically stick airbases everywhere you'd need them to give sufficient fighter cover)
>>29334358
Imagine a C-130 filled with drones:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/drones/darpa-wants-swarms-of-cheap-gremlin-drones
>>29341826
ah yes, is no problem. Comes with tactical vodka dispensers, can easily be converted to dispense grape drink.
>>29325445
No and no.
>>29325557
Being huge isn't everything, Bruce Li wasn't exactly huge but I'm pretty sure he could pull your arm off and beat you to death with the wet end.
(I know he's not a flip).
>>29334263
Its not just me then? Fuck everytime I watch star/star trek/pretty much any science fiction film/series when they're basically 'dog fighting' within a hairs breadth of each other......WHY ARE YOU SO FUCKING CLOSE? WHY HAVE YOU GOT LIGHTS ON? WHY CAN I HEAR ANY EXPLOSION NOISES? REEEEEEEEEEEE
>>29334052
>submarine carriers
No. Just no.
Leave them the fuck underwater where they belong.
>>29328014
This is all very well and good. But a better idea is to take these mobile carriers and just put them on the ground near where you want to be. It's called an airbase, they've been working pretty well for a while now.
>>29342370
>But a better idea is to take these mobile carriers and just put them on the ground near where you want to be. It's called an airbase, they've been working pretty well for a while now.
your smartass reply would be a lot smarterer if you had read the part where he said
>Obviously I'm aware such things aren't cost-effective or reasonable to ever expect in real life, but I'm very interested in how realistic fictional models could be and what the best capabilities you could cram into one are. Primarily with physical possibility, then with actual military viability, before (as the least important factor) cost.
(and also if it didn't also look like it dismissed the entire idea of an aircraft carrier, not just a flying one.)
>>29330709
>close to 100% efficiency
ok
>>29330835
It's also entirely conceptual. Might as well bang on about Habbakuk.....
>>29325445
>Could it work
I'd have to estimate that the stability of something like this would be so low, you could probably blow it up by dropping a staple off-center onto it.
>is it worth the cost?
What, to build something that would require fucking Exotic Unobtainium just to stay aloft, never mind during a storm?
Considering the cost to build this particular hulking mass of shit would be in the range of QUADRILLIONS of dollars due to the quantity of necessary theoretical elements to make it physically stable, and you could easily build something comparable but over 10 orders of magnitude less deadly for maybe a couple billion, not to mention you'd need something to the effect of a non-baryonic harmonic resonance stabilizer to keep the elements from annihilating everything from here to the moon and a power source greater than the Sun to power both that AND the lift engines, I'd have to say... no.
7/10 - IGN: An interplanetary engineering disaster
>>29342384
TL:DR faggot.
>>29342421
>replies to the lockheed cl-1201 of tl;dr posts without calling it on being tl;dr.
>replies to a short post explaining how silly that was with "tl;dr"
>>29325445
Superior in-atmo ship coming through.
>>29341286
I KNOW!!!!
I would pay money to see detailed schematics and specifications.
Deck layouts get me hard for some reason.
>>29325445
ITT: People who never passed high school physics.
>>29337300
Conversions of civilian vehicles to military ones should only be done as a last resort.
Or stealth, I guess.
>>29342224
Not really. The 747 isn't hardy enough, and it doesn't have enough planes or range too patrol that much space as often as you need for it to be effective.
>>29342543
The math that physics uses to prove itself breaks apart at the beginning of the universe. I guess that means anything is possible. And anything is impossible, too.
>>29325445
There's an easy way to figure this out: has the commercial sector done it? If not, it's a bad idea.
>>29325445
Would collapse under it's own weight.
At the cost of 12 F35 you could design it to work mechanically, but physics will always fuck you over.
>>29342543
90% of the people saying a flying carrier are viable have abandoned the insanity of the OP image and gone for 747s+tiny planes, giant flying wings, or airships.
(all of which are much more physically viable, albeit with no real military use.)
>>29326891
The turbines would have to spin at such ludicrous velocities I can't even imagine the amount punishment whatever bearings they use are gonna experience. Also, the engines would need massive quantities of fuel to operate effectively. Where are you gonna put that? It's gonna have the effective range of a Tesla
>>29346384
>Also, the engines would need massive quantities of fuel to operate effectively.
Electric fans, reactors.
(It's still unbelievably, incomprehensibly stupid, but "how will you get the power for the blades to spin" is one of the easier questions
>>29339513
>Boarding a super star destroyer
They're fuckhuge, it would take weeks to clear it. Sounds like a really bad idea to even try.
>>29346384
>I can't even imagine the amount punishment whatever bearings they use are gonna experience.
They could use air bearings as opposed to traditional roller bearings to keep the rotor centered, and high powered magnets to keep it attached to the ship vertically without introducing friction into the design. Even better, this could limit the entire design to one moving part, making it stupidly reliable for something that big.
As for fuel, I would personally fit it with Thorium reactors and make the rotors electric. It's the only viable solution for any form of longevity.
>>29336050
>>29337215
>>29337300
>>29342556
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/529372.pdf
Pretty interesting document on this thing.
I quite like how as a Boeing document, it's remarkably quick to dismiss the capabilities of the C-5.
What would cost more (both to purchase and to run), a big flying aircraft carrier or a sub carrier?
What would be more useful?
egg plane
>>29328751
Logistics nightmare
>>29326891
Capture a star destroyer
Laser fire changes color for easy team identification
> Or: Chief, change the gas supply in the turbo laser batteries. All of them.
>>29346693
Did you not notice THE WHOLE OTHER SDD right next to it?
Half-crewing's a thing, ya know.
>>29350708
imagine being one of the poor fuckers that have to paint the rebel emblem on the side kek
>>29337168
Let me tell you a cold war secret:
The Russians were always more fearful of War than the Americans.
We have always been the crazy ones.
>>29325445
Is that an aircraft harrier?
>>29351648
Hey, it means jobs for the New Republic.
>>29333673
Actually doesnt this make more sense?
Wouldnt it be easier to make a low orbit Carrier/ mobile base?
Power consumption would be reduced as would vulnerabilty. Also I dont know if anyone has mentioned it yet bu how loud would any sort of helicarrier actually be? This would also be a lot quieter.
And as stated it could make use of a variety of kinetic weapons as well as some sort of ODST type solider as well
>>29353329
>as would vulnerabilty
i dunno, everyone would be able to see it and it'd be vulnerable to A-SAT missiles.
>>29342705
Are you on drugs or just very, very stupid?
>>29353329
How would you get fighters dropped from orbit back up to the carrier?
>>29354060
>How would you get fighters dropped from orbit back up to the carrier?
With a really big trampoline.
TRAMAPOLINE?
TRAM-BAP-OPILINE?
>>29356826
not only did i fail to upload my image, i failed to link to >>29354073
>>29334214
The only reason why there are so many malls is so we can get out of the heat and walk/sit around with aircon.
>>29351648
droids
also can you paint in space? i think they would have to laser burn it into the hull or apply some kind of metal layer/exotic space chemicals.
>>29334358
This would be great if filled with drones.
Have it flying in the back protected by F35s and watch the enemies face when one radar contact turns into 20 drones just swarming in
>>29341350
IS THAT FUCKING RISE OF LEGENDS?
I loved the shit out of this game, it was so goddamn cool. Fuck. I think I still have the discs at my parents house, and I'm going back this weekend for Easter. OH HELL YES.
>>29325445
Dunno about a flying CVN, but the idea of CIWS blimps amuses me.
>Literal barrage balloon
>>29358826
RoL and RoN get far too little credit
>>29361457
RoN is the absolute shit, love that game. Are they coming out with anything new? I would fucking love a new, enhanced rise of nation.
>>29339716
Lockheed CL-1201 test pilot journal:
> Day 31:
> because of the enormous costs involved in building and flying the 1201 (roughly 1/3 of the GDP of every NATO member nation), the decision was made to make the maiden flight a full-length test of the aircraft's endurance
> so it wasn't until yesterday that we discovered that, because of the ground effect generated by the 1201's enormous wing, landing the aircraft is impossible
> we made 28 separate attempts to land on the 100,000 foot strip especially constructed at Edwards, but only succeeded in flattening every structure between Mojave, California and Tuscon, Arizona
> the decision was made to take up a flight path over the Pacific Ocean and wait for Mission Control to come up with a plan
> as we're nuclear-powered and have a little extra food, we should be able to stay aloft comfortably for at least another week
>>29362080
what about groom lake? how long is the runway? i know it was a emergency space shuttle landing site.
>>29362080
Lockheed CL-1201 test pilot journal
> Day 42
> we finally off-loaded the last of the non essential crew on the 727's we had in the hangars, bringing total crew on board to 50
> we also salvaged the last of the in-flight peanuts and drinks before sending them off, which is a welcome addition to our existing stocks
> Mission Control is still working on a solution to our problem... to no avail
> we could have just left with the departing crew, but the worry was that instead of simply splashing down into the Pacific, the 1201 would descend, then enter Ground Effect mode and orbit the planet endlessly, destroying everything in its wake until the reactors burned through their fuel
> this would take 18 years, 6 months and 26 days according to Mission Control
> also, destroying the 1201 would mean that the entire Command Crew would be shot for treason upon landing... that came from the President himself
> we have also been forced to alter our flight profile to a higher altitude and fly in wide, irregular patterns because our previous tight circular flight path generated a minor tropical depression that inundated San Diego with 12 inches of rain
> morale is strained, but holding steady and we have instituted a series of recreational activities to raise the crew's spirits
> on a related note: I am afraid that some of the crew have taken liberties with our coed staffing arrangement and begun relationships amongst each other
> as of yet this has caused no problems, so I am not specifically inclined to issue any orders on the matter
> besides, it helps with morale
>>29328325
Sure. We can even name it the Hrimfaxi.
>>29362292
Lockheed CL-1201 test pilot journal
> Day 128:
> SUCCESS!
> Airman First Class Rogers' contraption has netted (pardon the pun) our first taste of real food since we took off
> he simply wove together several of the refueling drogue chutes and trailed them behind the aircraft
> we then descended to a few thousand feet altitude and flew through several flocks of migrating sea birds
> viola, we have taken on 1,200 lbs of fresh meat...... it's seagull meat and tastes like well, seagull, but it's meat and it beats the shit out of Mission Control's idea
> that was to kill and consume the lower ranking members of the flight crew, by the way
> still no word on how to land, by the way
> we had planned to use our copious flight time to set a few records circumnavigating the planet, but the UN passed a resolution involving the flying of several hundred tons of fossil material across the surface of the Earth and well, that idea got the kibosh
> we have instead relocated to the South Pacific where Major Daniels can pursue his meteorological research without destroying any coastal cities
> if we bank at exactly the correct angle at the right altitude and speed for long enough, we can actually generate our very own hurricane
> we shut them down before they get too big, but if we wanted we could probably whip up a real shit kicker of storm down there
>>29342485
Hollow fellow planetmans. What server do u play on and what faction
>>29362292
>>29362525
This is great.
>>29362525
>>29362292
This actually has me thinking, if you're going to build something like the Cl-1201 wouldn't it be better to just keep it flying indefinitely?
There must be a way of offloading reactor waste into a 747 and re-fuelling it using the same. Plus it might increase airframe life to only have to go through 1 cycle.
Course, if there's a failure you can't repair in mid-air you'd have to land it anyway, but you could surely design an aircraft that size to have a reasonable number of components that can be hauled up with a 707 and repaired internally.
GUYSSSSS what about this?!?!?!
>>29363361
What is this, Area 88?
On the topic of airborne aircraft carriers, wouldn't it make more sense then to have an orbital aircraft carrier? Of course this would also mean designing aircraft capable of multiple atmospheric re-entries
>>29363361
this is now a Homeworld;deserts of kharak thread damit.
>>29363743
i can't see how
orbiting nuclear missile launcher sure (violates multiple treaties but treaty compliance is the least of your worries), but an orbiting airplane dropper seems pretty useless.
if you aren't orbiting the right area you'll be no faster than a regular flying carrier in responding to a crisis (and quite possibly slower), recovering fighters is significantly more difficult, and you're probably even more of a target since anyone capable of launching a rocket has a chance at taking you out (unlike with an atmospheric carrier where they have to be within range)
if you wanted something shaped like a nimitz like in the OP image, sure, building it in space is better (because that way you can dispense with the stupid fans and build it piece-by-piece in orbit.)
>>29325471
>>29363361
Put a sea carrier on it and then put a land carrier on that and then put a sea carrier on that and then put a land carrier on that and then put a sea carrier on that and then put a land carrier on that and then put a sea carrier on that and then put a land carrier on that and then put a sea carrier on that and then put a land carrier on that and then put a sea carrier on that and then put a land carrier on that and then put a sea carrier on that and then put a land carrier on that and then put a sea carrier on that and then put a land carrier on that and then put a sea carrier on that.
>>29325445
>>29326891
It would be far, far, simpler to build an orbital carrier than a flying one and also much easier to keep it up once its up[spoiler]That's what she said.[/spoiler] and even after you designed and builts the space to ground to space capable fighters, dropships bombers and supply craft, you'd still be well below the operating costs of keep several hundred thousand tons of heli-carrier airborne. Also fucking up a heli carrier would be as simple as pegging enough lifts fans with a large ground based railgun such that it co no longer maintain level and it would fall out of the sy from shifting internal weight.
>>29364106
And then put all of that shit on a helicarrier?
>>29328014
>Goblin.
[spoiler]THE BIG PLANE IS SHITTING LITTLE PLANES![/spoiler]
>>29342485
I wish a nigga would.
>>29364155
It wasn't as crazy as tip-tow
>>29364139
>Build an orbital carrier to drop CL-1201s into the atmosphere so they can drop 707s and F-104s
Who do I send my proposal to?
>>29330625
>2.3 million pounds of payload at 30,000 feet and 0.8 mach
YOU COULD USE THIS THING TO FIRE SPACE SHUTTLES INTO ORBIT
WHY THE LIVING FUCK DID WE NOT BUILD THIS
>>29365060
AND BY SPACE SHUTTLES I DO MEAN TWO AT A TIME SINCE YOU COULD SHRINK THE MAIN TANK AND SKIP THE BOOSTER ROCKETS FROM THAT HEIGHT AND VELOCITY, WHICH GETS YOU DOWN TO ABOUT A MILLION POUNDS PER ORBITER
>>29333882
not really, the spring compress an then release that would make the nose gear either colapse or bounce the AoA to stall levels
>>29365136
I was thinking more of a slow-release spring (basically, that pushes up more and more as the catapult gets higher, and since it's pushing from directly below it's less likely to cause the gear to collapse backwards.)
Although getting it to play nice with aircraft suspension would be a challenge.
At full release all it should be able to do is push the aircraft's nose up to the angle of the deck at the end, no further than that.
cyka))))
>>29328014
>On a similar tangent, are there any scenarios where (again, assuming cost is not a factor) a submersible carrier is viable?
You could probably turn something the size of a Typhoon into a submersible assault craft full of SAMs, cruise missiles, torpedoes, and Marines, with a few V-22s to get the Marines on shore.
>>29365305
critical question: could you keep the swimming pool while doing this?
