ITT: We design Airborne Aircraft Carriers

>>31140240
Parasitic fighters are cancer.

File: the future of aircraft carrier warfare.png (11KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 800x600px

>>31140240
LEAKED PHOTO OF USAF PROTOYPE
STRAIGHT FROM AREA 51
CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK

>>31140357

Nice try, Lockhe

File: Virtus_dropping_orbiter.png (717KB, 718x528px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 718x528px

>>31140240

2 b52s and a massive wing
made for shuttling huge ass shuttle things.
Now imagine what would happen if we mutiplied
The number of small planes strapped to its underside.
CHECK IT.

File: Cl-1201 drawing.png (41KB, 700x454px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 700x454px

Gonna have to be specific.

What kind of performance do we want out of the carrier? What payload, range, and endurance do we want? What kind of aircraft do we want docking with it?

>>31140357

Why do the houses always have smoke coming out of the chimneys?

>>31140240
Good luck reattaching to the carrier

The carrier would obviously use nuclear powered engines otherwise it wouldn't be feasible for it to stay airborne very long. We want unlimited range. Crazy idea anyways. Fuck it. Nuclear engines. Like the ones from project Pluto.

Next we give it a huge wingspan, with an ability to fly as slow as 100 knots. This is so slower support aircraft like Ospreys, C-2 or helicopters would have a prayer at landing on it.

Top speed is almost irrelevant, but if it would make 0.9 imn at altitude that would be nice. Let it get in the mid 20-30 thousand feet for cruising, but it would have to stay down below 15k ft during flight ops otherwise the maintainers on the flight deck would get hypoxia fast. Or maybe the maintainers could wear a vest with an O2 candle and a little prachute in case they fall over the side. It would also have to fly slow any time personnel were on the flight deck. Or we would have to dramatically change how flight deck ops work. We could probably use a lot of automation on the flight deck however for little emergencies like if you had to tow someone free of the landing area you would need human beings.

The hangar bay would need to be pressurized to allow maintenance to go on. It would have to be large, either that or have few aircraft on board.

>>31142678
I'm going to nix your idea for the nuclear engines, specifically the ones from Project PLUTO, simply because they were specifically designed to be a single-burn rocket. There was no multiple flight value from them, and they were also designed to spew their radioactive waste behind them, making a huge cone of fallout wherever they traveled. Project PLUTO was sort of like a cobalt bomb, a terror weapon so horrifying we never got past initial testing stages.

File: Jrd9rdI.jpg (118KB, 960x500px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 960x500px

>>31140240

>>31142678
>>31142801
Nuclear engine that powers an electric drive. Scale up this technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b_YQgfa7OA

>>31143246
this looks fucking stupid

File: Fo4-jet-airliner-full.png (747KB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 1440x810px

Jet airliner

>>31140240
but why?

>>31143882
what the fuck are those engines

>>31144032
Nuclear reactors

>>31144042
why are they shaped like that?

>>31143246
>take off on runway
>get sucked into fuck-hueg turboprop engine

>come in for landing
> get incinerated by fusion-powered Uncle Funkle Sam engines.
Hollywood is a hell of a drug

>>31143246
doesnt even have ramp

>>31143246
why does it have such jagged edges?
Is that supposed to be for stealth?

>>31144112
To suck in air

>>31144237
the shape isnt very aerodynamic

>>31140240

>blended ellipsoidal nuclear powered rigid hull airship
>several dozen swiveling electric ducted fan propellers on either side provide thrust
>uses its own coolant (steam) for buoyancy rather than hydrogen or helium
>3/4 mile long with specially designed "dingy" planes to ferry personnel to and from the craft as well as various combat and reconnaissance aircraft
>flight deck and runway is on the top surface which planes land on
>when not in use, aircraft are stored under the flight deck in a hangar and are transported to the surface by an pneumatic elevator
>airships forward speed reduces the (relative) landing speed of incoming aircraft trying to land and makes the whole process much easier, though an arresting cable is still present for safety reasons

>TLDR; nuclear powered airship with flight deck on top of the envelope and a small hangar underneath the envelope

>>31144421
it just works

>>31144489
>steam as coolant

>>31144518
but why doesn't it have some sort of convex nose in the middle?

>>31144421
neither is ur mum LOL

File: iron vulture.jpg (23KB, 400x274px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x274px

>>31144489
carrier airships are the way of the future.

>>31144489
I like it.

>>31142514
The question you should be asking is...
Why is the wind blowing in two different directions?

>>31144489
>>31142678
Why not a flight deck that is below the top and inside the carrier, perhaps in each wing? When a plane is landing, it comes directly at the carrier from the front and tries to latch onto the usual arresting cable setup. If it misses, it goes straight out the other side and tries again. When launching, the front doors remain closed or semi-closed so that the maintennance crew can reasonably do work without being blown away. To store the plane, they just taxi off to the left or right.

>>31144032
>fallout 4
>expecting sense

How much energy would you need to make a vtol carrier?

Looking at heavy lift helicopters you need about 7 megawatts to lift 10 tons. An older carrier like the enterprise is 94,000 tons so you would need 65,000 megawatts? Nuclear vessels are only around 200MW range. I can't find what the the lightweight liquid metal reactors can output but even matching airliners looks difficult.

>>31144118
You know, I hadn't ever realized that one of the runways flies RIGHT FUCKING INTO THE INTAKE OF THE PROPELLOR.

File: Banshee from Yukikaze.jpg (405KB, 950x672px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 950x672px

>Not having a nuclear-powered triplane flying wing.

>>31145728
The issue with nuclear-powered aircraft is the second major reason we shit-canned Project Pluto (the first is that we were afraid the Russians would make one too). You would be dumping shitloads of radiation into the atmosphere.

File: 1472328614696.jpg (44KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 512x384px

>>31140240
Airborne aircraft carriers are the most retarded idea ever. Planes need to RTB rather quickly after missions because it takes a lot of fuel to stay airborne. The amount of power to keep a fucking aircraft carrier in the air for extended periods of time would likely remove any capability it might have had.

>>31144118
>>31145719
I always thought the layout on >>31143246 worked kind of the same as a Nimitz deck layout, so the shorter deck forward is used for catapult launches and the larger angled deck at the rear is for landings, but it still doesn't change the fact that if you bolt on landing you either have to make an insane turn 3 feet off the deck or get sucked into the fuckhuge lift fan. It works better if you reverse operations, ie launch to the rear on the angled deck and have landings arrive head-on at the front, but you lose all benefits of the things own airspeed and in fact make things considerably harder for yourself. Most likely it's yet another rendering project by someone who glanced at a few reference photos of carriers but didn't actually have the slightest idea how operations take place.

Here comes the snow

>>31140250
True

I think a fuckhuge Airlander can act as a helicopter carrier. IIRC, it can carry like 5 tons

>>31142514
To indicate that the new pope was chosen, duh

File: Tupolev_TB-3 (1).jpg (50KB, 1034x549px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1034x549px

Pic related Zveno-SPB, used by soviets in WW2

>>31145741
>You would be dumping shitloads of radiation into the atmosphere.

I'm not talking about nuclear powered ramjet engines.

>>31145741
>The issue with nuclear-powered aircraft is the second major reason we shit-canned Project Pluto (the first is that we were afraid the Russians would make one too). You would be dumping shitloads of radiation into the atmosphere.
Power to weight ratio is a bigger problem, nuclear reactors have long endurance but very low peak power to weight ratios.

>>31145744
>takes a lot of fuel to stay airborne

Are you an AE major at ERAU?

>>31140391
ENEMY SNIPER, GET DO

File: Eva2-22_C0136.jpg (63KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 960x540px

>>31143246
>>31142838
Flying wings is where it's at

>>31144118
>>31145766

It's from doctor who. UNIT helicarrier.

>>31145741

No, in closed cycle designs you take air from the intakes and pass it past the coolant loop from the reactor which in combination with the compressor heats up the compressed air in the main engine compartment and makes it aggressively shoot out the expansion chamber out the back, where the airflow turns the turbine that rotates the compressor.

File: 1472425086225.jpg (30KB, 1035x1035px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1035x1035px

>>31145966
NGE had some of the dopest aircraft design I'd ever seen right next to ghost in the shell

File: goblin.jpg (245KB, 1800x1166px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1800x1166px

pew pew motherfuckers.

File: ICBM_Su-35WTF.gif (92KB, 960x378px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 960x378px

I warned you about ICBMs, bro

>>31145966
NGE: The only place where a Flanker pilot can no longer feel like a badass

>>31145741
>You would be dumping shitloads of radiation into the atmosphere.
Thats not how nuclear reactors work.
Please if you dont know what you are talking about dont say your opinion on it.

File: ac80.jpg (29KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 800x450px

Why not a huge fucking airship/blimp like the one in Ace Combat 3?

>>31144596
Tail spin was pretty /k/ sometimes

>>31149167
elaborate

I think we have the whole concept of an airborne aircraft carrier wrong. It doesn't need to actually carry the planes. All it needs to be is a place for planes to refuel and rearm. With that in mind, the carrier only needs space for one or two aircraft, and modules where rearming equipment goes. Refueling can be done as is, with conventional booms and hoses. For air forces using pretty much only one kind of aircraft, the planes might be able to dock instead of landing, which would save a lot of space and weight, but would be even harder to develop.

>>31145744
let's make it solar powered then :^)

>>31149496
That actually seems like a practical approach to said issue, the only flaw i'd see is the launch capabilities of it. They had to launch fighters one at a time with that right? Been a while since AC3. Not to mention the strain those landing clamps must put on the wings.

File: 1455671752948.jpg (290KB, 1480x755px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1480x755px

It's an airborne aircraft that carries things, is that good enough?

File: 1458182168550.gif (768KB, 200x147px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 200x147px

>>31144135
>ramp

File: drawings_summer_12key_62.jpg (26KB, 331x363px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 331x363px

>>31145705
A fucking lot.

Someone calculated how big the helicarrier's fans would need to be, and, well...

>>31151039
It kind of looks like an Ekranplane though. So it if was flying low.

>>31142514
Because the German Death Machine never stops.

>>31151011
Looks like it

https://youtu.be/V0kvEBFnZ94

I remember crashing into it a few times due to target fixation

It was covered in AA guns and missile launchers

The concept of an airborne aircraft carrier has always seemed cool to me, but I've never been able to see an efficient application of them. If your objective is to reduce RTB times, you can achieve similar mission capability by cycling aircraft between the hot zone and a nearby carrier or airfield. If it's for deep penetration into the hot zone, when would we *ever* see a need to fly such an expensive asset that deep into enemy territory, with the range on aircraft that we have now?

To me, the DoD expending effort into this (even for cargo aircraft conversion to a drone mothership, as they plan) seems like a waste. I love how they look, so somebody please convince me.

>>31151039
>airborne aircraft

File: VerifiableIllinformedAmethystsunbird.webm (130KB, 270x480px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 270x480px

>>31151487
>144p

File: CZLtx1DUsAA_i1g.jpg (41KB, 576x521px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 576x521px

>>31151881
wrong webm but fuck it

>>31151642
A flying carrier is less vulnerable to slower cruise missile attacks and strategic weapons. They can see missile attacks coming from a lot further away and have more time to prepare countermeasures, while being in the air means they have a better chance of escaping a nuclear attack.

The latter part kind of spills into the concept of the "submarine carrier" too.

>>31145728
That episode was pretty spooky.

>>31142838
This was the coolest mission in ac6

File: tumblr_n6diuoGVpH1txx6x7o5_400.jpg (38KB, 330x250px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 330x250px

>>31151642
I think that was kinda-sorta the idea behind the 747 ACA study. The ability to store, launch, recover and rearm was integral and it's hard to argue how well laid out everything is. I'd hate to think how expensive it would've been though, and the likelyhood of collision between the microfighters and their mothership.

Is it doable? I think so, the problem is expense and the limited endurance, range, and carriage capacity for the microfighters including limited room and size for avionics. They could only succeed in sheer numbers, and loss of the mothership would leave them without any way of getting home with such limited range.

File: 1470367691675.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

>>31143246

>>31154422
TBQH The only good thing about Yukikaze was the mechanical design. Overall it was just kinda boring outside of the air combat scenes, but perhaps the book is much better.

>>31144809
Because if they fuck up the landing, the plane crashes into the superstructure.

File: yukikaze finale.webm (3MB, 536x400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 536x400px

>>31155618
I thought it had a pretty good atmosphere.
Plus, dat audio, dat radio chatter, all those bloops and bleeps Yukikaze makes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OFS-5_L6G0

>>31155763
If a plane screws up a landing on the top surface of the carrier, it also crashes and everyone goes down in flames.

>>31143246
>Harriers

why

>>31149167
fund it

>>31157289
this is an EXCELLENT idea.
a single spark can bring down billions worth of planes and material, thousands of lives!
but such is the price for being immune to torpedos.
also who needs stealth technology if you can simply hide in the always present clouds.

>>31157739
Helium, moron.

>>31157765
welcome to /k/, is this your first day on the meme train?

>>31157775
>I was only pretending to be retarded
Such a funny meme bro

>>31157779
>has never seen Archer
oh boy.

File: 1464115958361.jpg (959KB, 1740x2625px) Image search: [Google]

959KB, 1740x2625px

>>31157289
we can do better: make it environmentally friendly

File: for the last time, HELIUM!.png (297KB, 543x564px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 543x564px

>>31157765
>>31157779
hello newfriend, lurk more before acting like a smartass.

File: latest.jpg (577KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 1280x720px

Ace combat 4 did it already. When I become Howard Hughes 2 imma build this bitch.

>>31157806
that looks about as aerodynamic as an open plastic bag.

>>31157817
The gaping maw is the 'hangar' and it is open on the other side. So it's akin to a plastic bag with a hole in the bottom.

<< Commence attack on Moby Dick and Geigis >>

>>31157837
Mobile 1 fox 2

>>31157856
*MOBIUS
Nigger phone

If you go nuclear you eliminate the fuel problem. The most powerful reactors today can reach over a gigawatt

Anybody who isn't an idiot knows the only good way to do this is stratospheric or suborbital dirigibles. It is the only way to sustain flight for extended periods of time while remaining out of range of most (but certainly not all) anti air weaponry. More likely than not, it would probably end up merely being a refueling station. Maybe if the situation warrants it, or if its practical, it would carry 2-4 fighter bomber aircraft.

>>31149167
Duuuuuude its so stupid but I want it

File: dc.png (33KB, 1103x547px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1103x547px

>>31140240

only viable option

>>31157878
This. A refueling station is a pragmatic idea. A flying 'carrier' is improbable.

File: 1459534861488.png (39KB, 1660x780px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1660x780px

Boeing's design study for this is a bit of a hoot.

>We looked at the C-5 Galaxy as well but basically it's made by Lockheed and sucks so guess we've got to use the 747, I'm sure whoever sells 747s would be pleased to hear that...

File: 1376453414951.jpg (56KB, 264x292px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 264x292px

>>31145903

This. Time to guestimate

>1 190 MWe reactor (using Nimitz)
>probably 5000 tons for the core, shielding, turbines, heat exchange system
>power-to-weight ratio: 0.038 MWe per ton, or 38 kW per ton

Meanwhile, A380 produces something like 40 MWt (thrust) across 4 engines, for a combined weight of, say 20 tons? Let's assume 50% efficiency when converting MWt to MWe, so 20 MWe

>power-to-weight ratio : 1 MWe per ton, or 1000 kW per ton
>26 times more energy density than a sea-water cooled Naval reactor

Even if the Nimitz reactor weighs half as much, that's still only 13 times more energy dense.

Whatever, pulling shit out of my ass. But whoever invents a practical, light weight and SAFE air cooled nuclear reactor will indeed become a RICH RICH man.

>>31158013

Whoops. Donno why you'd convert the thrust to electricity, since you'll be using the thrust to fly the plane.

In which case, 52 times more energy a given naval reactor from 4 A380 turbines.

>>31140240
Just make big gliders with airstrips and shieet.

>>31157793
Make the WHOLE thing covered in solar panels, but reinforce them.

File: 57386e99b25bd_b88146153z.1_20160515203419_000_g0ei6r36.1_1-1bjgrkp.jpg (99KB, 1000x614px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1000x614px

Start with the basis an a An-225, but scale that shit up.

i don't know how to do the size-power ratio, but large enough to have the same kind of power-weight ratio as it did earlier, but with GE 90 engines (each about twice as powerful as the D-18 mounted now). or if we are going full sci-fi, nuclear reactor powered engines with similar power

The "hangar" section is from the front of the wings to the rear end of the plane, fuel and people and that shit can be stored in front. Fighters as small as possible to be in the plane, either a shitty remake of the goblin (i think all modern planes are to big, even smaller ones like the gripen), or something entirely new, with similar size.

Or if you have a plane that big, turn it into a flying Ticonderoga

File: Yukikaze wallpaper.jpg (3MB, 5000x3162px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5000x3162px

>>31154422
>>31155618
>>31155823

Yukikaze reminds me Ace Combat.

The only practical way to do it is with gliders. Think about it for a minute, if we attach the gliders to the underside of a rigid hulled airship, we would have to worry about launching them. All they'd have to do is detach. And if we made them drones, we wouldn't have to worry about recovery since they'd be expendable.

>>31158527
get out gliderfag

>>31140240
The ideia of Airship-Carrier is dumb. Too slow and big.

Free target for any niggers with a AA Gun.

File: Arkbird01.jpg (52KB, 512x256px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 512x256px

>>31140240
What about orbital carriers?

ITT /k/ invents something that will crash and kill thousands of people.

>>31160481
That would be better

But with nuclear propulsion, preferably fusion based. It could fly in any atmosphere and scoop nitrogen and other gases for propellant to use in space. Throw in a warp drive and it can project freedom across the galaxy.

>>31160481
I've always wondered, is there actually any merit to the Arkbird concept? Or was it just "We needed an excuse for it to fly low"

Some initial screwing around in KSP suggested that dipping into the atmosphere to alter your orbit horizontally doesn't really work at all, let alone offer a more efficient alternative to just doing a rocket burn at the highest or lowest point, but I don't actually understand physics so there might be something I'm missing.

>>31162700
The fact that it can be an energy-efficient SSTO in which weight wouldn't be much of an issue is a big yes.
No need for multiple launch vehicles.
also,
>KSP
Mah Nigga.

>>31162700
I wondered that too. I thought about making a fuckhuge SSTO in Realism Overhaul with engines edited to futuristic specs, but my PC doesn't like RSS.

If I had to guess, the answer is "yes, kinda". Especially if it uses hybrid propulsion and can save a ton of fuel with an air-breathing mode. Imagine if you had to completely reverse your orbit for any stupid reason. It would be way more efficient and safer to do a reentry burn, turn around in the air, and burn to your desired orbit.

And probably also to go from an equatorial orbit to a polar one and viceversa.

But there's little reason to include aerobraking in simple orbital maneuvers unless you're coming in fast from a solar orbit or another body, like the moon, or have a really high apsis

>>31149167
this is kinda a good idea. imagine an aircraft with a nuclear payload goes rogue and you need to get fuckers up there at the speed of FUCKING FAST

>>31142705
SHOO LIND SHOO!

>>31144536
Not him but the steam would be coolant while it's still liquid water. Would be recycled essentially. Dunno how practice it'd be

File: banshee-09.jpg (111KB, 769x1000px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 769x1000px

>>31145728
Woot ! A Banshee Mk III

>>31143246
A better one from The Winter Soldier.

File: winter soldier.jpg (60KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 960x540px

>>31143246
A better one from the Winter Soldier

>>31164537
>>31164547
Oops, forgot pic

>>31162700
>I've always wondered, is there actually any merit to the Arkbird concept?
Kinda. The idea with the Arkbird is that you dive down into the upper atmosphere where you can aerodynamically maneuver to change your orbital inclination before firing your engines to bring you back into orbit. In doing so, you can "save" a lot of Delta-V necessary for maneuvering by having a significant portion of the work done by aerodynamics rather than engines. From what I hear, that's what the X-37 is supposed to do.

However, the altitudes they show it descending to in the game are not realistic at all. Those kinds of maneuvers would be performed at extremely high altitudes and very high speeds - something like descending to *maybe* 100km to do your maneuvers while going just under orbital velocities (something on the order of Mach 20) before firing your engines to get back into orbit.

>>31144596
Greatest fuckin show on toon Disney

>>31149496
Because they crash into telegraph poles

>>31142514
They have to use their fireplace to keep warm.

File: arms_fort_spirit_of_motherwill.jpg (79KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x768px

What about walking carriers :^)

Does anyone here remember the helicarriers from "sky captain and the world of tomorrow"?

That movie's diesel punk setting was so awesome

>>31142490
Those little dots spanning the wing and the pop out cheek thingies are turbines for VTOL. Absolute madness.

>>31165444
this looks like some chrome hounds on steroids shit

>>31167404
Its from armored core, made by from soft who also did chrome hounds

File: Valiant-_Close_to_ground_-_Copy.jpg (21KB, 702x397px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 702x397px

https://youtu.be/x5byddvkl_4

What about using your helicarrier to clear poison gas so your soldiers can kill ayy lmaos

>>31164373

Mk. III ?

>>31151225
Not unfeasable tbqh

>>31157806
That's AC6, numb nuts.

>>31150840
Could we upscale NASA's high altitude flying wing project?

>>31167383
Not VTOL. They're just to provide an extra boost for takeoff

>>31167841
>Valiant
That was the least believeable part of that thing. America wouldn't name it that. We'd name it something good like
>Enterprise
>Freedom
>America
>Barack Hussein Obama

File: 1446347215361.jpg (290KB, 1650x1272px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1650x1272px

beep beep

>>31144489
>this

>>31154958
>Tfw the next Ace Combat is PS4 VR exclusive.
I just want it for my PC, man... The footage looks like the fantastical style/setting of AC6, and that was fun as hell.

>>31170264
Last time they made an AC for PC, they shit the bed

>>31158397
both are by Bandai Namco

File: cloudbase.jpg (114KB, 800x540px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 800x540px

Another contender is cloudbase

>>31169738
It's British, or UNIT at least, as it's from doctor who. We have a pretty good record for naming things.

>HMS Ark Royal
>HMS Vengeance
>HMS Gay Viking

>>31173389
I watched those episodes a while back and from what I remember the helicarrier was American, just with a very british name

>>31170264
It's not VR exclusive. You will be able to play the game without the VR headset.

>>31140240
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/boeing-patents-laser-nuclear-fusion-jet-engine

fusion
powered
aircraft

>>31169727
Nope, it's honest-to-god VTOL.

bnumpan

>>31144118
The runway going towards the forward port rotor looks like it's just for landings.

>>31149919
>All it needs to be is a place for planes to refuel and rearm.
Fighter pilots can't stay in the cockpit for 72 hours straight.

>>31169738
It's not the same as a regular naval carrier, so they might use a different naming scheme.

>>31173389

>it's the current year
>not naming it Achmed or Muhammad

File: Sukhoi Su-34 (Russian Сухой Су-34) (export Su-32, NATO Fullback) Russian twin-seat fighter-bomber India China Iran Syria.jpg (350KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1024x681px

>>31177186
>Fighter pilots can't stay in the cockpit for 72 hours

>His fighter doesn't have a toilet, a kitchen, and a place to lie down

Hahaha silly merican

>>31151642
Forget aerial carrier, an orbital platform with aerospace aircraft capable of atmospheric re-entry. Although I suppose at that stage you might as well just launch ICBMs or kinetic rods instead...

>>31154374
Investment into sea carrier-borne AWACs (potentially in long endurance drone form) seems like better value for money.

>>31177347
I've always wondered, can the SU-34 actually be used as a fighter? Or did the changes to make it a better strike aircraft mean it's too heavy/lacks certain systems / would probably break something in a dogfight

>>31177347
The toilet is just a tube you shit in. The kitchen is just a food heating unit. It's not anything special and the same can be accomplished in other aircraft easily.

>>31180182

Not to mention the toilet is located between the seats, so your buddy has to suffer sitting next to your putrid poots.

>>31142514
In better countries than yours people heat their homes in the winter.

>>31157824
>So it's akin to a plastic bag with a hole in the bottom
I.E. A kite.

File: NB-36H.jpg (3MB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2400px

>>31145744
simple

File: 1455724012570.jpg (334KB, 1403x1800px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1403x1800px

egg plane

File: 1461584926611.jpg (41KB, 800x264px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x264px

>ITT: Imperialist swine mull over how to achieve something that the glorious design committees of the Soviet Union achieved long ago, to great success in the great patriotic war.

>>31181851
But can it retrieve those planes while being airborne?

File: Aviamatka_01.jpg (18KB, 701x343px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 701x343px

>>31182055
One variant could recover one aircraft.

>>31182984
I demand more pics

File: Zveno-5.jpg (28KB, 630x443px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 630x443px

>>31182994

>>31169861
high C-five!