{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/5/2012 8:40:22 AM
37
Flying aircraft carriers
Could the US ever build one? If so, would it be any useful? Could it turn the tide of a war?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] XoG Suppressor So, pretty much the [url=http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/P-1112_Aigaion_Heavy_Command_Cruiser]P-1112 Aigaion[/url].[/quote] I was thinking exactly that.
-
It would be the most useless thing ever built, it would be easier to take down than a conventional aircraft carrier, and conventional aircraft carriers can already reach most, if not all, land mass with current aircraft.
-
It would be a gross waste of resources. Can you comprehend how much fuel there must be to keep that thing flying? Too much. In my opinion, airships were the past, and they are now the future.
-
Dragon, check out the CL-1201 that I linked.
-
Guys guys guys. [url=http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/cgi_skybase3.jpg]The original flying aircraft carrier[/url]
-
I HAVE ANSWERS. But really; let's look at the 3 various potential types: Avengers-style powered VTOL carriers: These are practically impossible; aircraft carriers weigh about 100,000 metric tons. The most powerful jet engine in the world produces 63 tons of thrust - you'd need at least 1600 of these engines to keep the ship flying. The combined amount of air these beasts would suck in would make it far too turbulent for an aircraft to land safely, or get too close. Furthermore, you would have to prevent aircraft from getting sucked in, or having small bits and pieces sucked in - it's not uncommon for military aircraft to lose small panels, etc in flight. Having such a thing happen on-deck would be catastrophic. Besides, without fuel to burn, those engines won't produce anywhere as much thrust as normal (realistically, you simply wouldn't have those engines), meaning that it'd require more engines and more power output and more weight. Blimp-style aircraft carriers: Slightly more realistic, but they would have to be enormous, and they'd only carry a small load of aircraft - they built some Zeppelin aircraft carriers in WW2, but they were dangerous for numerous reasons; one of those blimps could only carry 3 of today's F/A-18F naval fighters. They'd also be vulnerable without advanced defences. Flying aircraft aircraft carriers: Already exist - in WW2, they experimented with a B-29's and B-36's - small custom-built planes would be extended out of the plane, rev up their engines, and be launched. To return, they would fly under the mother-plane, with a hook extended, and catch onto a bar, which would then haul them back into the plane. With a specially designed mother-aircraft, this could be a viable method, as it doesn't create as much of a target, and it doesn't have to be as vulnerable (it can manoeuvre, hold it's own weapons, accelerate out of areas, etc). A well built aircraft with enough wing area could carry a couple of F/A-18F's. ----------------------------------- However, in the end, it's just far cheaper and easier to launch from land and sea.
-
Skybase!
-
Since in-air fueling came into being, I do not think there is any need.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] StoPlayinGame [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Garshne [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OdorousLicense3 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Garshne [url=http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-madness-of-the-lockheed-cl-1201.219823/]We can build it, we have the technology.[/url][/quote]What the hell is that?[/quote]That, is a flying aircraft carrier. That they were going to build in the 1950s. Because Cold War crazies. Those aren't missiles under the wing, they're [i]jets[/i].[/quote] Garshne, where the -blam!- did you find those crazy information...[/quote]Nationstates.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Garshne [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OdorousLicense3 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Garshne [url=http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-madness-of-the-lockheed-cl-1201.219823/]We can build it, we have the technology.[/url][/quote]What the hell is that?[/quote]That, is a flying aircraft carrier. That they were going to build in the 1950s. Because Cold War crazies. Those aren't missiles under the wing, they're [i]jets[/i].[/quote] Garshne, where the -blam!- did you find those crazy information...
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] baldeagle24 Are we thinking Avengers here?[/quote]
-
That was tried with the B36 Peacemaker Bomber as well. Small craft called Goblins would rest in the bomb bay and be released if attacked by enemy fighters. This was for he reconaissance variant of the B36 i think (google the cameras it had, they were huge). Of course, there was no way for the goblin to get back into the bomber or had a decent carrying capacity for bullets or fuel.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] XoG Suppressor So, pretty much the [url=http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/P-1112_Aigaion_Heavy_Command_Cruiser]P-1112 Aigaion[/url].[/quote]I killed it once, never again.
-
As I recall, the US did try this back in the 30's with a pair of Airships. Held a few fighters, which were recovered by matching airspeeds with the Airship, then flying the fighter onto a hook on the ship's underbelly. Needless to say, they were beset by all the same problems that saw the death of rigible airships.
-
And make it not vulnerable to arrows I hope?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] DarkSunnyboy1 No, no. [i] Invisible[/i] flying aircraft carriers.[/quote]Nope. Flying aircraft carriers carrying flying aircraft carriers is way better.
-
You mean like the one in [url=http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/806/806647/ace-combat-6-fires-of-liberation-20070719044756644.jpg]Ace Combat 6?[/url]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Garshne [url=http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-madness-of-the-lockheed-cl-1201.219823/]We can build it, we have the technology.[/url][/quote] I want to work for them so bad.
-
[url=http://tokyobuy.com/images/4543112-46737-9.jpg]SCV-70 White Base[/url] from Gundam comes to mind (and the variant o it from Stardust Memory, I have a toy of it somewhere). [Edited on 08.05.2012 1:07 AM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sgt Commando [url=http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x230/Janesee2/SupremeCommanderCzar.jpg]The Aeon have have one.[/url][/quote]Lol I remember that thing. Dat glassing beam
-
[url=http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x230/Janesee2/SupremeCommanderCzar.jpg]The Aeon have one.[/url] [Edited on 08.05.2012 12:57 AM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OdorousLicense3 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Garshne [url=http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-madness-of-the-lockheed-cl-1201.219823/]We can build it, we have the technology.[/url][/quote]What the hell is that?[/quote]That, is a flying aircraft carrier. That they were going to build in the 1950s. Because Cold War crazies. Those aren't missiles under the wing, they're [i]jets[/i]. [Edited on 08.05.2012 12:57 AM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Garshne [url=http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-madness-of-the-lockheed-cl-1201.219823/]We can build it, we have the technology.[/url][/quote]What the hell is that?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scoopicus Actually, I guess such a thing could potentially run on nuclear fuel. Or perhaps internal helium tanks to provide lift rather than something mechanical. Still, at that point it would be of more use as some sort of aerial destroyer than a carrier. Though I suppose it could double as that.[/quote]The CL-1201 answers all your nuclear powered needs!
-
Actually, I guess such a thing could potentially run on nuclear fuel. Or perhaps internal helium tanks to provide lift rather than something mechanical. Still, at that point it would be of more use as some sort of aerial destroyer than a carrier. Though I suppose it could double as that.
-
[url=http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-madness-of-the-lockheed-cl-1201.219823/]We can build it, we have the technology.[/url]
