Flying aircraft carriers
- Thread starter spectrenihlus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Even though they would be absolutely awesome they would be about as useful as a floating boat carrier however awesome a floating boat carrier would be.
But seriously though that is absolutely awesome. Can you imagine one of those flying over you. Awesome. Am I saying awesome too much? Probably cos its so awesome.
But seriously though that is absolutely awesome. Can you imagine one of those flying over you. Awesome. Am I saying awesome too much? Probably cos its so awesome.
And to me, it doesn't.gigastrike said:...Awesome.
Make sense to me. A large mobile docking station that carries a ton of it's own fuel and allows shorter range aircraft to reach further inland (to places that naval carriers can't reach) without needing to create air strips.
1. Has the maneuverability of a thrown brick.
2. The strain those humoungous wings would be under means that a single rocket would likely be enough to make the whole thing tear off. See #1 for how easy it is to target and hit.
3. The weight. Oh, the weight of that thing. Powered by nuclear reactor? Yeah, good luck trying to make sure the crew doesn't die off radiation poisoning within hours. The reactor+ sufficient amount of lead alone would make that thing weight ridiculous amounts. Powered by fuel? see #4.
4. Force requirement to create enough speed to have sufficient amounts of lift: impossible. Even if empty, the wingspan would reach such proportions that lenghtening them would require such structural support that the weight increase would completely negate the gained lift, and even surpass it.
Now add crew, fuel/power-source, and the actual stuff it is supposed to be carrying. Yeah...
5. Cost. The cost to design, test, build and maintain such a monstrosity would likely be enough to double or triple the size of the conventional airforce of whatever country is stupid enough to try for one of those.
6. Logictics. It would likely require a fleet of smaller craft, or a craft of equal size, to keep the thing resupplied in air. And it needs to be resupplied in air, because if it lands, it means there is a humongous groundbase there, making that flying fortress functionally useless. Not to mention the ridiculous energy- and monetary expense to get that thing airborne again once it lands.
7. Functionality as mobile base: useless. You can't bring that anywhere near enemy territory (see #2), allied groundbases/ forward groundbases/ naval carriers combined can fulfill same mission in allied/neutral territory at a millionth of a fraction of the cost and difficulty.
Conclusion: expensive, functionally useless, easily downed, impossible to design and engineer (without unimaginable advances in materials science).
And with those advances... would come ability to create sturdy and safe enough fuel-tanks to create overpreassurized combat-rated fueltanks, giving conventional aircraft ridiculous ranges without compromizing safety.
Only the Rule of Cool is making me spare my words this much, instead of totally ripping the very concept of such an aircraft a new hole.
not an aircraft carrier but the monster raving looney party (yes they exist) whant to create gundam or mechs that would be awesome.
but then again this is the same party who want to draw lines on hills to tell you how high you are... yeah.
but then again this is the same party who want to draw lines on hills to tell you how high you are... yeah.
Nope.
Big target
Consumes way to much fuel
Nimitz class carriers pretty much have an unlimited range already
Big target
Consumes way to much fuel
Nimitz class carriers pretty much have an unlimited range already
Hell it might just be useful as a shock and awe ploy. If you see something that big coming in on you you might be too awed to be able to do anything.
It would make the entire system more efficient but its' also a HUGE target.
It would be a pretty awesome way to get an airfield somewhere though.
It would be a pretty awesome way to get an airfield somewhere though.
Unless they have some kind of missile diverting system, and stayed far away from the battle, it'd be good. But a well placed rocket could probably take out the propellers keeping it a-float.
Maybe when we develope kinetic barriers it'll be a success
Maybe when we develope kinetic barriers it'll be a success
1: The only kind of aircraft that uses maneuverability is a fighter. Old bombers couldn't come close to turning on a dime and thus always relied on air support (which is exactly what a carrier would have at all times).SakSak said:And to me, it doesn't.gigastrike said:...Awesome.
Make sense to me. A large mobile docking station that carries a ton of it's own fuel and allows shorter range aircraft to reach further inland (to places that naval carriers can't reach) without needing to create air strips.
1. Has the maneuverability of a thrown brick.
2. The strain those humoungous wings would be under means that a single rocket would likely be enough to make the whole thing tear off. See #1 for how easy it is to target and hit.
3. The weight. Oh, the weight of that thing. Powered by nuclear reactor? Yeah, good luck trying to make sure the crew doesn't die off radiation poisoning within hours. The reactor+ sufficient amount of lead alone would make that thing weight ridiculous amounts. Powered by fuel? see #4.
4. Force requirement to create enough speed to have sufficient amounts of lift: impossible. Even if empty, the wingspan would reach such proportions that lenghtening them would require such structural support that the weight increase would completely negate the gained lift, and even surpass it.
Now add crew, fuel/power-source, and the actual stuff it is supposed to be carrying. Yeah...
5. Cost. The cost to design, test, build and maintain such a monstrosity would likely be enough to double or triple the size of the conventional airforce of whatever country is stupid enough to try for one of those.
6. Logictics. It would likely require a fleet of smaller craft, or a craft of equal size, to keep the thing resupplied in air. And it needs to be resupplied in air, because if it lands, it means there is a humongous groundbase there, making that flying fortress functionally useless. Not to mention the ridiculous energy- and monetary expense to get that thing airborne again once it lands.
7. Functionality as mobile base: useless. You can't bring that anywhere near enemy territory (see #2), allied groundbases/ forward groundbases/ naval carriers combined can fulfill same mission in allied/neutral territory at a millionth of a fraction of the cost and difficulty.
Conclusion: expensive, functionally useless, easily downed, impossible to design and engineer (without unimaginable advances in materials science).
And with those advances... would come ability to create sturdy and safe enough fuel-tanks to create overpreassurized combat-rated fueltanks, giving conventional aircraft ridiculous ranges without compromizing safety.
Only the Rule of Cool is making me spare my words this much, instead of totally ripping the very concept of such an aircraft a new hole.
2: The wings have a large connection area, preventing them from shearing off horizontally. Vertically, other than a thicker structure at the point of maximum bending, the wings are supported by cross beams that also work as wings (increasing lift further).
3: With a wing-span like that, the speed required to keep it up would be decreased, offsetting the extra fuel required somewhat. The amount of fuel required to maintain speed rises exponentially with the speed, meaning that the lower required speed is a very major factor.
4: See #3.
5: Only 1 or 2 would ever need to be used at one time. They would be used as forward bases for short range bombers, conducting precision missions that targeted manufacturing centers. You wouldn't need many to do this, only enough to cover important areas.
6: A: It has a fleet of smaller aircraft (but I'll let it slide because the awesomeness of the plane probably distracted you). Besides, it's not like it would have to stay out for long. B: Based on the underside of the plane, I'd say that it lands in water if it needs to. No installation is required.
7: "Forward ground-bases" would require a good amount of time to create if an airstrip is required, plus they would be under attack the whole time. Naval warships have very limited launching range, and allied bases wouldn't be any better (if close to naval carriers at all). A flying aircraft carrier performs a job that nothing else can do and, as you probably know, people will pay a lot for the very best.
