Would a helicarrier be possible?
>>7957419
I guess, with light enough materials.
No. What would be the purpose? If the technology existed to make a giant floating carrier so fuel efficient it could be used as a reliable way to transport air assets, the same tech could be used to make the air assets so fuel efficient they didn't need a carrier to begin with.
>>7957482
>What would be the purpose?
Ask DARPA, they're interested in building one.
>>7957482
B-b-but I need to look cool. Same reason why melee exists in the WH40K universe
>>7957482
It wouldn't have much purpose, unless it was also heavily armed with destructive offensive capabilities.
>>7957419
Yes, but it wouldn't stay up for very long due to the massive amount of fuel/energy it would need.
basic physics says no
go look at how much fuel & engine power a chopper needs
>>7957482
will aircraft carries disappear when fuel efficiency is better? Response time is the main purpose
>>7957419
It's imposible to land on a moving object without the wind pushing you off.
You would need some sort of locking mechanizism. Pilots have a hard enough time landing on naval cariers, how are they going to pull off an airborn carrier ?
If anything I would want to consider the practicality of airborn battleships and the like.
You're in the air so you could probably fire off a artillery shot and get it to land somewhere 10 km away with advanced fire systems.
No and you're an idiot for asking
>>7957502
There's a reason why carriers use nuclear reactors instead of some outdated piece of shit internal combustion tech.
But to make it fly you need a lot more.
>>7957527
>It's imposible to land on a moving object without the wind pushing you off.
landing behind some wind shields and no problems.
> fire off a artillery shot and get it to land somewhere 10 km away
The Paris Gun in world war 1 had a range of 120 kilometers.
>>7957419
You'd need much much bigger rotor blades:
http://www.wired.com/2012/07/could-s-h-i-e-l-d-helicarrier-fly/
Pic related. Estimated rotor diameter is ~227 m. This might be possible with current or near term materials(there are proposals for wind turbines this big), but it would probably be anemic as fuck.
Although in real life the rotors would need to be spaced further apart, because of vortex effects and so planes can actually land on the damn thing.
>>7957517
why do you need an aircraft carrier to float in the air all the time?
This concept is a lot more practical than a helicarrier. You stuff a 747 full of fighter jets. You can get like 10 of them in there. Fuck, there are like 10 on that helicarrier.
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/529372.pdf
with enough energy, anything is possible.
>>7957486
>nyds
>space asians
>>7957572
there isn't enough energy in the visible universe to get me a gf
>>7957563
But wait there's more!
Lockheed proposed a giant nuclear powered airplane that carried 22 fighters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-1201
It was supposed to fly continuously and be resupplied in the air.
>>7957585
People would have lived aboard the damn thing
>>7957553
>You'd need much much bigger rotor blades:
...or they could just spin them faster. They can be like huge nuclear jet engines rather than helicopter blades.
>http://www.wired.com/2012/07/could-s-h-i-e-l-d-helicarrier-fly/
Goes full retard right off the bat:
>First, some assumptions.
>The helicarrier in the movie is about the size and mass of a real aircraft carrier.
Yeah, let's start by assuming a VTOL aircraft is built with the same insensitivity to mass as a surface ship...
There's no point in reading beyond that. This assumption is unforgivably stupid.
>>7957419
Definitely possible.
You can imagine that it would be powered by some high-efficiency, high-power-to-weight nuclear system, such as a fission-fragment reactor, using superconducting motors to compress and accelerate the air, and further increasing the thrust by having the air carry away the reactor waste heat.
In the MCU, we see the SHIELD Helicarrier operating in two modes: floating in the sea, and hovering in air. Possibly, it could also land on solid ground or float in a lake. Presumably, it is also capable of high-speed flight, at least comparable to an airliner if not actually supersonic.
A system like this could make sense if we assume that it's capable of producing fuel for its aircraft when landed with a source of water, or using water-dipper drones, or that its aircraft are electric-powered. Hydrogen or ammonia fuel could be produced at high rates.
Explosives and rocket propellant can also be produced largely from air and water, without an oil supply line or carbon capture. For instance, Astrolite contains only nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, and is remarkably potent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrolite
>>7957482
I don't think this is a very good argument.
Not every aircraft is going to be designed to hold itself up, helicopter type shit sure, but I think that fighter jets are a huge hole in your argument.
>>7957482
You're not taking into account nuclear reactor scaling factors.
A helicarrier could easily be the smallest feasible design for a manned nuclear aircraft with properly-shielded, crash-proof reactors and reactor redundancy so a shutdown of one doesn't mean immediate catastrophic loss of propulsion.
What about a hybrid airship?
>>7957482
Your an idiot
just of the top of my head
>it allows personal places to sleep eat so that they dont have to sit in the cockpit the whole time
>fuel source could possibly not scale down well
>allows damaged aircraft to land and be repaired
>allows carrier to carry all resources not needed by the assets so that you dont loose it all every time one is shot down
>>7957801
>>7957840
And I pray tell what isotopes would you use to power a fighter jet without irradiating the pilot/control electronics and support crew to death? Not to mention, how do you prevent a fighter jet from turning into a dirty bomb when it crashes
>>of producing fuel for its aircraft, water dippers, hydrogen, ammonia, carbon capture. ASTROLITE! Radioisotope power!
You took a helicarrier, something that is utterly ridiculous, and made it even more utterly ridiculous. Do current seaborne ships produce fuel and explosives at sea?
>>high-speed flight, at least comparable to an airliner
that is fucking crazy anon, not only are you making the largest rotorcraft you are making the fastest one. Pic related is the Eurocopter X3, it is supposedly the fastest helicopter in the world at 472 km/h, in comparison airliners fly at about 870 km/h.
What exactly is the benefit of an aircraft carrier that can hover?
I can't do this. I can't do this anymore. I shouldn't be writing well thought out responses to kids on the internet.
>>7957871
>it allows personal places to sleep eat so that they dont have to sit in the cockpit the whole time
and why does said sleeping eating place have to hover?
>>>allows damaged aircraft to land and be repaired
and why does said repair shop have to hover?
>>>allows carrier to carry all resources not needed by the assets so that you dont loose it all every time one is shot down
what happens if said carrier gets shot down?
>>7957904
same reason helicopters need to hover.
>>7957911
but why do you need a combination bed, breakfast, and aircraft repair shop to hover?
>>7957896
>And I pray tell what isotopes would you use to power a fighter jet without irradiating the pilot/control electronics and support crew to death?
Alpha or beta emitters. Specific radioisotopes don't emit a wide variety of hard-to-shield radiation like fission reactors do. You can pick ones that emit charged particles only.
>Not to mention, how do you prevent a fighter jet from turning into a dirty bomb when it crashes
You don't. Not completely. However, you can design in ways that limit the spread of the material, and they are short-lived radioisotopes.
>Do current seaborne ships produce fuel and explosives at sea?
To a certain minor extent, yes. An aircraft carrier is like a floating city. All sorts of small-scale processes are run onboard. They're working on processes for aircraft carriers to produce fuel for all of their aircraft. They're hampered by wanting to specifically produce kerosene, which means they have to capture a lot of carbon from an environment where it's only available at trace levels. Hydrogen or ammonia production would be much easier.
>>>high-speed flight, at least comparable to an airliner
>that is fucking crazy anon, not only are you making the largest rotorcraft you are making the fastest one.
I don't see it as a "rotorcraft" in the sense you're implying. More like a VTOL jet.
>What exactly is the benefit of an aircraft carrier that can hover?
Are you seriously asking what the benefit is of an aircraft carrier that can be anywhere in the world overnight, rather than being subject to ocean navigation issues and speeds?
Your objections here seem to be mostly be based on an implicit assumption that we're talking about something to do next year or thereabouts.
>>7957913
because how else will you get those things to a location that's inaccessible by land and sea?
>>7957551
That's a big gun.
>>7957917
>>that is fucking crazy anon, not only are you making the largest rotorcraft you are making the fastest one.
>I don't see it as a "rotorcraft" in the sense you're implying. More like a VTOL jet.
To elaborate on this, helicopters have a rotor area much larger than the shadow of the landed craft, while the SHIELD Helicarrier is depicted with relatively small ducted fans, maybe about one tenth of the deck area.
It's clearly a design based on accelerating a small amount of air to a high speed, rather than a large amount of air to a low speed.
Helicopters can't fly very fast because their rotor tips are already travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of sound. As they approach the speed of sound, the rotor would be supersonic on one side and have zero airspeed (and thus generate no lift) on the other, which would be chaos. Ducted fans don't suffer from these problems. It's also hard to fly them at higher altitudes where the air is thinner, allowing lower drag and higher speed.
>>7957917
>>Alpha or beta emitters. You can pick ones that emit charged particles only.
And those isotopes would be what?
>>More like a VTOL jet.
That's hugely inefficient. You need to carry more more propulsion power than necessary that you won't be using much at all, meaning less room for other stuff.
>>Are you seriously asking what the benefit is of an aircraft carrier that can be anywhere in the world overnight,
No, I'm asking why it needs to hover.
>>something to do next year or thereabouts.
Well if we're talking about the distant future, then perhaps we'll have developed technologies that make flying aircraft carriers obsolete.
>>7957933
>>Are you seriously asking what the benefit is of an aircraft carrier that can be anywhere in the world overnight,
>No, I'm asking why it needs to hover.
Could seriously be a comedy quote to a movie.
>>7957933
>And those isotopes would be what?
There are lots of choices. One is phosphorus-32: ~0.7 MeV beta, ~14 day half-life. Each gram of a fresh batch puts out over 1 kilowatt per second in high-energy electrons.
>>>More like a VTOL jet.
>That's hugely inefficient. You need to carry more more propulsion power than necessary that you won't be using much at all, meaning less room for other stuff.
More power? Sure. More room? No. Helicopter rotors are huge. Jet engines even for VTOL thrust are compact.
Anyway, once you're landed in an ocean or lake, all that power is available for other purposes, like fuel production.
>No, I'm asking why it needs to hover.
If it flies without hovering, then it needs wings and it needs to be able to land somehow. You have to design the whole thing around the aerodynamic and landing requirements. I think this becomes untenable at a much smaller size.
>perhaps we'll have developed technologies that make flying aircraft carriers obsolete.
That's not what the question was, though.
>>7957925
Find a relatively flat spot and land some C-130s there.
And why should you bother landing on a place that isn't flat? What is the point of an aircraft carrier on land? Why go through all the effort for complicated carrier takeoff and landings on LAND! You can just build a forward airfield for that.
Or heck, why even bother landing at all? You've got nuclear power, just fly around in circles. If you do that you have no need to hover.
>>7957955
what the fuck are you talking about?
>>7957955
>You can just build a forward airfield for that.
That's hardly the same sort of thing. Consider:
Helicarrier option:
- fly Helicarrier to location
- BAM, sudden airfield!
Build a forward airfield option:
- establish supply line to location with no airfield
- begin construction project
- fight off attacks without airfield
- complete construction project
- eventual airfield
This is sort of like asking, "Why have aircraft carriers at all? All the important strategic targets are on land. Just build airfields wherever you want to fly aircraft."
>Or heck, why even bother landing at all?
How would you maintain or repair an aircraft you can't land?
>>7957517
Well we don't have fleets of ships in a giant ship carrier.
If we could build these things, it would be rendered useless by building drones that could stay in flight for long periods of time without it.
A fitted aircraft carrier would have the benefit of being able to counter torpedo attacks, by a duration of sustained lift.
I think it would be better to exploit the ground effect with a combination of lifting surfaces and a hull fixed with hydrofoils.
A leveled, fast moving aircraft carrier spells out shorter landing and take off speeds, and also a more optimal geometries for counter-electronics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqxygnJIQVo
Another concern would be the airspeed over the flight deck, but there might be a means to employ a series of strategically places diffusing and splitting canards to allow for a safer environment for deck crew.
>>7957419
>kajillion terawatts/sec to keep it in the air
>only advantage over normal carriers is its harder for subs to destroy it
>all your budget goes on keeping it in the air
its possible but retarded . you could use airships but whats the point .
closes practical thing to this is 250-350 km LEO military space station .put missiles on it and in the future when there's jet\rocket hybrid engines fighter-spaceplanes .
>>7957953
0.175 micrograms of phosphorus 32 cost $1,442.63. I can't get any actual number on current jets, but I fighter jet probably needs more than a megawatt of power.
Power output is 1 KW per gram. Assuming a magical world where can convert these electrons directly to work we need 1 kg. 1 kg of phosphorus 32 costs ~8.24 trillion dollars. This is impractical.
https://us.vwr.com/store/catalog/product.jsp?product_id=9302526
>>fuel production
you keep saying this, but you have not shown any calculations that this is feasible. Reminder current aircraft are powered by hydrocarbon fuels, and will be for the foreseeable future.
>>7957962
>>establish supply line to location with no airfield
you can parachute equipment in with cargo planes.
>>- fight off attacks without airfield
so now you're performing a HUGE VTOL landing in enemy territory, a time during which said helicopter would extremely vulnerable.
>>7957990
>0.175 micrograms of phosphorus 32 cost $1,442.63.
Don't be an asshole. You're talking about the current sale price, including distribution cost to civilian users, with all the controls and regulatory oversight involved, not the cost of producing it in bulk.
They wouldn't be *buying* it from current suppliers, you dumb fuck.
>you have not shown any calculations that this is feasible.
Are you just going to type in one thing after another that makes me say, "Don't be an asshole."?
>Reminder current aircraft are powered by hydrocarbon fuels, and will be for the foreseeable future.
>implying it's a bigger issue to build aircraft fueled by ammonia or liquid hydrogen than to build a nuclear-powered hovering aircraft carrier
Could you ever stop being an asshole?
>so now you're performing a HUGE VTOL landing in enemy territory, a time during which said helicopter would extremely vulnerable.
>calling it a helicopter
>disregarding that it's fully capable of deploying its planes while hovering
>woah, it's a VTOL landing in enemy territory! everyone always dies when they land a helicopter in enemy territory! VTOL landings are only for safe spaces!
>suggesting that you're safer conducting a lengthy construction project in enemy territory than conducting a single vertical landing under extensive air cover
Are you literally a butt? Do you just have an anus in the middle of your face?
>>7957925
>because how else will you get those things to a location that's inaccessible by land and sea?
And where would this be?
https://www.google.com/search?q=f18+range
>>7957419
This is dumb, so easy to shoot down. One of the advantage of using a ship is that they are actually quite hard to sink. With this all you need to do is take out the propellers, you don't even need to breach the hull.
I notice that this pop-sci is acceptable but my threads on hoverboards got completely ignored. Why is that?
>>7957419
>Possible
Yes.
>Viable/Practical
LOL NO
Even if there was absolutely no cost associated with keeping this thing on the air, it still is 100 times more vulnerable to attack than a sea-based aircraft carrier.
>>7958070
Because Spielberg isn't cool anymore, and Marvel wankery is.
>>7958108
Interesting theory.
>>7957419
Possible with today's materials?
Probably.
Would it be one of the most ludicrously expensive things ever build with insane running costs? Yup.
But the worst part is really when it gets blown up by a stay $500,000(pulled straight from my ass) missile or kamikaze attack.
If it's for a videogame, then you better break out the phlebotinum.
>>7957527
Airborne carrier would not have as much motion as a naval carrier...
It would be far easier to land on airborn carrier then naval
whats up with so many faggots saying it's possible but simply not feasible?
It's absolutely not possible, atleast not in the way it is done in the movies.
There is no way you could lift this thing with a couple of propellers. You also can't scale up propellers to arbitrary size.
>>7958774
>no maths to back up his claims
You can't just look at something and say it's impossible
>>7958370
>Airborne carrier would not have as much motion as a naval carrier...
LOL
>>7958784
>i need to do a bunch of math equations to show you how stupid it is to think modern propellers and power plants could generate 100,000 tons of thrust.
stfu faggot. go finish an undergrad course in fluid mechanics before you run your ignorant mouth.
>>7958819
>modern propellers and power plants
>NO NEW TECHNOLOGY ALLOWED IN THE VTOL AIRCRAFT CARRIER DISCUSSION
>OF FUCKING COURSE
>IT'S 2016, JESUS
>>7957419
Would it be possible?
Yes.
Would it be practical?
No.
>>7957928
for you
>>7958819
If you can't back up your statements with math and data, they are just opinions.
A key reason for not doing this is there really isn't anywhere that's so far from the sea that you couldn't just use a standard carrier. Unless you're targeting the middle of the Sahara or deepest Siberia, the range of a fighter is probably going to be enough to travel from the nearest accessible body of water.
I would also be wary about flying something with 4 huge great weak points anywhere near enemy territory in the first place.
>>7958894
This
>>7957983
is this image to scale?
>>7958904
something like this would only be useful, as an example, on Venus as a cloud station
>>7958923
On venus this might actually be easier, because the atmosphere is so dense, you'd get much more lift. That said, you could just use big balloons, but that's another discussion.
why not just make a blimp with a flat top?
>>7959430
The problem with blimp with a runway on top is that it's top heavy, and will want to roll over so all the weight is on the bottom.
>>7959430
this
>>7959447
wew, I didn't notice the solar power part of that before. Didn't realize they were proposed that far back.
>>7959470
they also didn't have drones back then. Imagine a drone mother ship helicarrier dirigible powered by hydrogen instead of helium. Sucking up water from clouds and splitting hydrogen via solar. Even if all the drones are lost you can drop it on the enemy like a giant bomb.
Now imagine what happens when Russia makes one in response to the US making one. Then china, then Korea, then the middle east. Then imagine what happens someone figures out how to break the encryption and hacks them. An entire fortress in the hands of a foreign enemy. It' s the Skynet scenario except instead of a heartless AI it's some human fighting for an ideological cause with deadly weapons. The only people who win in war are the ones who are selling weapons for profit.
>>7958904
>A key reason for not doing this is there really isn't anywhere that's so far from the sea that you couldn't just use a standard carrier.
That's some bullshit, though.
A carrier-based F-35 has about a 1000 km range. That means a 500 km radius, without in-air refuelling. They can reach across something like England, but not deep into a continent, unless they've got air bases in between, for tankers to take off from.
Even if you've got the range, flying out farther from the base means slower response to changing conditions and fewer sorties with reloads.
>>7957913
So it doesnt wake up the inhabitants or disrupt repairs when your mother gets out of bed
>>7958894
i just did you fucking mongoloid. show me ANY thrust system in existence that isn't nuclear that could give you the force required to lift a carrier IE 100,000 tons.
>>7959495
So you want to make a giant slow moving target filled with flammable gas. Sounds like a great idea that totally won't go up in flames when a surface to air missile is launched at it.
>>drop it on the enemy like a giant bomb.
and how do you drop an dirigible full of hydrogen?
![Gold_Aigaion[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hi1tdOa.jpg "Gold_Aigaion[1].jpg")
>>7957701
it's literally something from ace combat
>>7959510
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picoo_Z
Heres your system dude calm down
>>7958864
even the bleeding edge of technology can't produce the kind of power you would need. you are talking unobtanium tier levels of material science. rotors can only get so large, its literally the bottleneck of wind power right now. 100 m blades is the goal and we are can barely hit 90m.
like some other anon said, your rotor diameter would need to be near 200 m in order to lift a carrier.
i wouldn't expect you to understand with your limited view of solid mechanics.
>>7959522
>we can scale flimsy plastic rotors up no problem to lift a carrier
stop posting, you are a fucking moron.
>>7957483
This.
It's a flying drone carrier
>>7959500
>but not deep into a continent
Which is why you have long range bombers and cruise missiles at a fraction of the price of 1 flying carrier. Besides, why would a fighter need to fly that far into a continent without support?
>>7958894
So why do the arguments against the helicarrier require math and data, but the arguments for it do not?
I don't need to do a fucking equation to show how a helicopter won't fly in space.
>>7959510
Get 156 Antonov 225s(gross weight 640 tons). Attach cables to them and special cable attachement points to them. Launch all of them, carry out a series of complicated docking maneuvers, so that all Antonov 225s are flying in a V formation all attached by long cables.
Provided all Antonov 225s are loaded to the maximum capacity, the combined lift force of the aircraft will be at least 100,000 tons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya
The thrust of a Rocketdyne F1 engine is 1,746,000 lb at sea level. So with 116 engines we can lift 100,000 tons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1
>>7959567
>156 Antonov 225s
listen m8. technology doesn't scale like that. you can't just strap together a bunch of planes rated at such and such value and expect their carrying capacity to scale linearly.
>The thrust of a Rocketdyne F1 engine is 1,746,000 lb at sea level. So with 116 engines we can lift 100,000 tons
uh-huh, and how much of that 100,000 tons has to be fuel?
>>7959565
>>but the arguments for it do not?
Those are just opinions too.
>>7959510
>that isn't nuclear
>modern propellers and power plants
STOP
I'll be interviewing with Lockheed Martin next week, I'll be sure to ask the program director I'm interviewing with.
>>7959581
Did you not ask:
>show me ANY thrust system in existence that isn't nuclear that could give you the force required to lift a carrier IE 100,000 tons
You asked if there was any propulsion system in existence that could generate a force of greater than 100,000 tons. You did not specify for how long or whether it was practical, just that it generated >100,000 tons of lift
>>you can't just strap together a bunch of planes
you are flying a bunch of planes in formation connected by long lightweight tethers. They aren't bolted together, you are only connecting them with tethers so you can say they are one system. Yes, it will be non-linear. Yes, the cables will produce drag. However, if we are clever about how we fly our aircraft in formation, we can have following aircraft take advantage of the upwash created by leading aircraft which can reduce drag.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2009/aug/13/commercial-aircraft-formation
This is a completely contrived system for the sake of argument
>>7959530
If sand was fuel it could run off your vagina
Gonna be possible with LENR
>>7961722
i shiggy diggy do
End this stupid argument, I did the calculation, with four 90 meter diameter propellers you would need a total of 160 gigawatts of power which is 10x more than the output of the biggest nuclear power plant in existence
>>7957419
Yes, especially if you make it a rigid airship like the USS Akron.
But its impractical compared to using ground airbases and mid-air refueling.
>>7957527
Modern ground artillery already has ~20km range. Rocket artillery has a greater range. Tube artillery could have greater than 20km range, but its designed to support nearby forces, not cross-continent forces.
>>7957962
>locate suitable terrain
>parachute men and equipment or air assault with STVOL/VTOL
>setup airhead
>horizontal engineers improve runway and other surfaces
>its good to go
Helicopter FARPs don't require much, tactical and strategic aircraft wouldn't be based in a dangerous area unless nessesary.
Or
>Capture a working airfield
>repair/improve it to needs
>>7961768
not to mention it would be a waste of money because it would get banned instantly due to being a threat to wildlife and people
[\math] AA^TA=\frac{n}{3}A [math\]
[math] AA^TA=\frac{n}{3}A [\math]
[latex] AA^TA=\frac{n}{3}A [\latex]
>>7961951
Show me the way
[math] AA^TA=\frac{n}{3}A [/math]
