So why don't they exist yet /k/?

File: 1454789519733.png (121KB, 235x250px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 235x250px

Because they're dumb and so are you

File: si.png (313KB, 429x471px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 429x471px

>>32182710
kill yourself
also
>posting a pleb-tier fictional carrier when shit like ace combat exists

because all it takes is one student pilot to fly a 172 into one of those blades and kill everyone.

>>32182710
Cost and the fact that they are way more difficult to defend than a normal carrier

File: Aigaion.jpg (65KB, 940x500px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 940x500px

>>32182710
Because its a stupid design, take out a single rotor and the entire thing drops like a sack of hammered shit.

Aigaion or bust.

>>32182710
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

>>32182710

Missing the wire on landing gets you sucked into a huge lift fan, destroying you and the carrier.

>>32182739
/thread

>>32182710

Because they're physically impossible to build with current levels of technology.

>>32182710

Why can't elephants jump? Why are the largest birds of flight about 35 lbs, like the albatross and California condor? The shit is just too big, and the amount of thrust to keep it in the air would be just too much.

>>32182710
Because the only real advantage is "it looks cool". It offers nothing over a regular carrier.

>>32182710
>So why don't they exist yet /k/?
Read the replies
Also
>HEY YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BE COOL? AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER THAT FLIES
>...BUT
>IT'S STILL IN THE SHAPE OF A BOAT

>>32183571
>It offers nothing over a regular carrier.

it can go over land

>>32183553
ostrich can get up to 350 lbs

>>32183622
Ostriches are not birds of flight, anon.

>>32182710
Imagine the suction force those blades would beed in order to keep the carrier aloft. Imagine flying aircraft near that. What do you think would happen?

A lighter than air vessel, maybe. Suspended by mechanical lift alone? No way.

>>32183629
bet you could teach them to fly a hang glider

>>32183606
You know what else is on land? An airfield. Hell, you could probably build 100 airfields in the time it would take to build one air carrier and for a fraction of the cost.

>>32183606
you
you mean where all the AA measures are, right

Air refuelers already exist and there is no reason to choose an Aircraft carrier in the sky over one in the water

>>32182809
Whats bigger that or Hrsvelgr?

>>32182710
Do you plan on building a battlegroup of heliburkes to defend it too?

>>32182809
>entire thing drops like a sack of hammered shit.
Sacks of hammered shit float though

>>32183553
Elephants are claustrophobic, and birds are descended from dinosaurs

It takes zero energy to stay afloat.
It takes the energy to power a small nation to keep something that large via rotors.

>>32183606
You know what can also go over land? An amphibious sea carrier with treads along the bottom.

>>32182710
How the fuck will that stay floating once you consider fuel and the weight of said fuel?

>>32183606
And whats the advantage of going over land?
The carrier is not a frontline fighter.

>>32183606
Airbases dumbshit

>>32184368
Make the engines nuclear ramjets. Supersonic supercarrier.

File: download.jpg (372KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1024x640px

>>32182726
This nigga knows what's up.

>>32184489
Why not a gigantic carrier that is permanently in low orbit but uses an incredibly long arresting wire / towing cable that can pull aircraft up from high atmosphere into the ship and lower them down gently when they deploy?

>>32184580
>snip the wire
>entire carrier gets flung off into interplanetary space, never to return

>>32182739
fpbp

Anything it flies over is destroyed by the massive exhaust

The incredible amount of energy and force to sustain it in flight would be phenomenal.

File: 1373435280643.jpg (177KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1920x1080px

ikr!

you could power an orbital death ray that could vaporize cities with the amount of energy needed to keep that piece of shit in the air

>>32184700
Probably

Fusion would make it kinda meh though.

>>32184667
How do the planes and people stay on when it's banking like that?

>>32185241
They don't, another reason is dumb idea.

>>32184580
The metal will act like warm play-dough in this situation and the cable won't support its weight

>>32183606
the land part is for the jets it caries

File: sB67DY0.jpg (356KB, 1020x1404px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1020x1404px

>>32182809
Arkbird a better

>>32182809
>>32185548
While I will admit that the Arkbird is by far one of my all time favorites, the Aigaion is more in line with what the OP was complaining about, namely an airborne aircraft carrier. Honestly the fucking floating ship design was kinda lazy, Aigaion just looks damn intimidating.

Also, Ace Combat 7 can't come soon enough, can't wait to see what kind of crazy superweapon pops up this time around.

>>32182710
because of money, and the constant fuckhuge power consumption it would have.

>>32184489
>crew goes deaf

File: 1480653232474.jpg (6KB, 250x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x225px

>>32184667
>carrier tilts
>all the planes slide off

File: Arkbird.jpg (107KB, 812x1000px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 812x1000px

>>32185723
Except the only redeeming quality to the Aigaion is that it's a flying aircraft carrier. The only thing differentiating it from a big sea-fairing carrier is that it can fly over land.

The Arkbird has superiority over 1/4 of all of the Earth's surface area from the vantage point of orbital space, and it can go halfway around the Earth within minutes. No one would dare fuck with us if we had an Arkbird

File: 09a4f5754c0792f186f4c2bb85d4b8b3.jpg (47KB, 564x439px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 564x439px

>>32185963

>PO on the watch wer plens go?
>we tilted sir!

>>32185988
you wouldn't need to mess with it

just fly a bunch of garbage into orbit and let the thing beat itself to death

>>32182710
There's more ocean than land. Why fix what ain't broke?

File: french_mega_land_battleship_by_anandafauza-d80k8t8.jpg (125KB, 1024x658px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1024x658px

>>32184339
IS THE TIME OF THE LAND SHIP FINALLY UPON US /K/?

File: Land battleship carrier.jpg (139KB, 513x695px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 513x695px

>>32186118
Surely you can do better than that.

File: 11_Geo_Belt.jpg (34KB, 562x570px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 562x570px

>>32186045
That would be a problem at low earth orbit, but the arkbird would probably orbit around the clark belt anyway if it wanted to be geosynchronus, then space debris is far less of a concern

>>32186118
>anchors
ded

File: Screenshot_2016-09-01-23-33-00.png (2MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1920px

>>32183666
I laughed way harder then I should have. I'm going to bed.

>>32184591
That's not how orbit works.

>>32184612
But that wasn't first post

File: qkk3BZ3.png (53KB, 900x487px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 900x487px

>>32182710
Because those rotors would have to spin at ludicrous speed to keep that thing flying, on top of that anything trying to take off would be sucked in.
THIS ON THE OTHER HAND WAS AN ACTUAL USAF DESIGN.
LOCKHEED WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING

File: Lockheed_CL101_1.jpg (58KB, 743x347px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 743x347px

>>32187123

File: mwprq3d.jpg (50KB, 378x500px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 378x500px

>>32187123
>>32187130
>4 nuclear powered ram jets
Noice

>>32187123
Getting paid

File: Enterprise(1).jpg (411KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1600x1067px

>>32185241
>>32185963
>>32186038
Aircraft carriers have anchor points in the deck to tie planes and other things down.

>Implying they don't

>implying one is not going to fly over your house now for posting this thread

>>32187231
Hey, my old ship
Really weird to run into Big E vets from the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s

>>32183666
Stop it satan
I'll due laughing

>>32182710
Because they would cost 20 trillion dollars each

>>32182710
$$$$$$$$
Also why would they

The biggest hurdle is the amount of power that you would need to make something that weighs roughly 100,000 tons hover in mid-air.

>>32187696
Air breathing rockets and a second (smaller) reactor.

I say rockets because there's no way you're lifting an aircraft carrier on propellers.

File: image.jpg (60KB, 800x434px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x434px

>>32182710
So why don't they exist yet /k/?

>>32183498
so much this, they could've at least designed the landing strip so that it provides a clear path to abort the landing

>>32182710
Because their AA guns suck and can't even lead their target

>>32182809
Heli carriers are retarded, but this is perfectly feasible, even with today's technology.

>>32185988
Fair enough, can't argue that.

>>32187805
because we managed a little sanity, and stepped back from that brink of M.A.D.

>>32185963
you can actually keep the gravitational inertia pointing towards the deck at all times if you also turn as you tilt you know like airplanes usually do.

>>32182710
no fusion reactors yet to power the fuckhuge turbines so it's not fuel efficient.

>>32182710
It would require x1000 power of than seafaring ship if not more. That makes it physical impossibility.

>>32182710

Because in the military lots of little things are almost always better than one big thing.

>now if I could only go back in time and warn the Fuhrer

>>32187738
Actually propellers would require less power than rockets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_loading

>>32188802
probably not, those props would have to be spinning at ridiculous speeds.
They would literally shake the ship apart

be ship big and proud, nothing can hurt me on the seas except a fuck expensive attack submarine that is also blind as fuck so i'm good if i play it smart. and my escorts can protect me.

then suddenly some retard puts rotors on me ti lift up in the air. oh this is glorious now i can go over land too not just sea!
suddenly a 40yo shitcan buk can take me down with little to no effort that costs less than a single aircraft i carry!

>>32188850
yeah airplanes are totally shaken apart by their turbines... yes. that happens every day.

>>32188870
OP stop trying. Helicariers a dumb.

>>32188870
The amount of thrust that the propellers have to generate would mean that they would have to spin at absolutely ridiculous speeds.
So fast in fact it would damage the ship structurally.
Someone did the calculations once.
It's just impossible to do with props.

>>32184667
And people say Ace Combat is unrealistic
>>32185241
Comic book "science"

>>32182710
Gravity

>>32185988
But what if Belkans?

>>32182710
Do you know how many times in marvel comics, SHIELD loses a Helicarrier?

It's a bit ridiculous, I think the only event that happens more often is the Watcher breaking his vow not to interfere.

>>32189163
>So fast in fact it would damage the ship structurally.
that's not how resonance works that's not how physics works. more speed != more whatever the fuck you are so afraid of. and also the larger size of the rotors means it wouldn't actually have to spin much faster than aircraft turbines. in fact rotors don't even need to spin that fast you do that to compress thin air for jets.
>>32188942
i'm not, i'm this guy: >>32188861

>>32189282
What I'm saying is the actual avengers helicarrier wouldn't be pheasable with current material sciences as they are not large enough, and would have to spin at astronomical speeds that would cause numerous complications.

>>32189282
Just do the calculations on why it wouldn't be possible to lift a 100,000 tonne aircraft carrier with only 4 rotors without having those fans spin at insane speeds you fuckhead.

>>32187993
>"perfectly feasible"
>kilometer-long seaplane
pick one

>>32189310
>and would have to spin at astronomical speeds
i don't think so, anon there is a practical limit to the speed of rotors the speed of sound.
basically the problem is horses.

you need 11 million hp to lift a modernized nimitz that weights half as much as it does now, that means you would need 146 engines like an Arktika class nuclear icebreaker has.

>>32189331
see: >>32189369

File: IMG_2274.jpg (18KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x168px

>>32186038

>>32189369
and you would need 42 times the propulsion capability the nimitz itself has now.

and this is not physically impossible mind you just the current nuclear propulsion tech is kinda underwhelming for this.

but let's assume in the near future fusion reactors become a thing... can it be done then? hell yeah it would be actually fuel efficient enough to fly almost forever.

>>32189369
Please read
"in regard to the actual avengers helicarrier"
We know you COULD lift a Nimitz, but not in the way the avengers have it engineered.
Quit moving goalposts

>>32189420
yeah well i was never saying this crap would work out or would be a good idea anon. that's all in your head. all i said is the resonance is the least of your problems and it would actually be doable nothing impossible about it, it would just be a waste of a small country's gdp and a single buk would tear it the fuck down.

>>32184753
Bad pilots are discharged from life if they fuck up a landing, what's the problem?

>>32184753

because the carrier can only fly on 4 engines, once that front one is gone, the carrier crashes

>>32188619
>implying the ability to literally shit death on all of mankind isn't worth
Pussy

>>32190179
meant for >>32189932

>>32182710
Because
>mobius 1 fox 2 *beep*beep*beep*

>>32189343
Both are ridiculous sci fi weapons but the Aigaion at least does not break current day engineering and physics. While constructing it would bankrupt a small nation, it at least is consistent with real world aerospace, propulsion and materials science.

The helicarrier, on the other hand, is powered by space magic. MCU is extreme "soft" scifi, while Ace Combat is "hard" scifi that while implausible, is no where near impossible.

for the energy expenditure and energy density needed to keep that thing in the air. you can have much smaller suborbital craft fly around the world in minutes.

File: Uss-akron-manhattan.jpg (157KB, 740x570px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 740x570px

we already did it

>>32190609
RIP in peace.

File: unlandcarrier.jpg (31KB, 544x145px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 544x145px

>not this

>>32186118
>single rpg round to track


Well boys...

>>32182710
gravity

>>32183640
Almost as much suction as i got from your mom last night

>>32182710
actually physically impossible due to square cubed law.

>>32187805

You think it hasn't been built?

>>32185963
>Build bazillion dollar floating sky fortress
>Forget to put some hooks on the floor

>>32183666
I'd take this over the f-35.

>>32182710
There is literally nothing good about it, no reason to build it, it offers literally nothing over a sea based carrier, but would be obscenely expensive, unsafe, and the huge amount of fuel it would require just to move would be money far better spent on just building more CVNs and improving their technology and escorts.

File: image_2.png (66KB, 206x369px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 206x369px

>>32182739
Why would the ship not have guns surrounding every prop to destroy any threats? It would take a ballsy Jap to do that.

>>32182710

Lift to weight ratio.

And it is a stupid idea.

>>32182710
because if they could figure out how to make a fuel to keep a monstrosity like that in their air then aircraft wouldn't be needing to land in the first place

File: now we talkin.jpg (14KB, 276x183px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 276x183px

>>32184339

File: desert carrier.jpg (178KB, 1480x1201px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1480x1201px

>meanwhile on bizarro /k/

>>32182710
>>32182725
u gon let dat boi tak to u leik dat

have sum respek

>>32194378
This makes me incredibly happy.

>>32190643
I wish the Area 88 series and OVA had the crazy shit the comic and games did.

It takes around 4 megawatts of power to lift a V-22 off the ground. A nimitz class carrier reactors produce around 1000 megawatts of energy, but only around 40% is able to be extracted by the turbines. leaving about 400 megawatts. In theory you could lift around 2000 tons however the reactor itself likely weighs over 1000 tons itself.

It still might be somewhat possible with modern composites to have a very large aircraft with a small compliment of aircraft, depends how much weight can be taken off the reactor.

>>32182710
its beyond human comprehension
it'll take humans millennia to learn the true secrets of a fucking

>>32195642
>the true secrets of a fucking
>the true secrets
>fucking

>>32182710

>using aircraft to carry aircraft

File: images.png (11KB, 296x170px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 296x170px

>>32182710

Because Jeph Jacques really should never be remembered as a visionary for weapons platforms

File: [a-s]_dragon_ball_-_096_-_tails_tale__rs2_[7b4395fc].mkv_snapshot_02.48_[2016.10.18_21.42.46].jpg (102KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 640x480px

>>32195642
>the true secrets of a fucking

File: 32 r3421 t 542t 53.jpg (113KB, 500x547px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 500x547px

>>32195666
Nice trips satan

>>32194378

>putting water on a big ol land vehicle
>putting planes in the water on the land vehicle
>not putting a whole shitload of guns and cannon on it

>>32195682

thx

>>32186118

>>32195717

>>32182710
not energy efficient
the slightest breeze would tip it over
not 300 % better than current tech
>>32182739
one of the runways lines up with the front left ducted fan
>oh yes

>>32195717
anon just shut up and enjoy it

>>32195717
What the hell makes you think there was any attempt or desire to make this practical or realistic?

>>32182710
>ridiculous lift/weight ratio
>I doubt those fans are big enough
>fans would need to spin at a ridiculous rpm and generate a massive amount of suction
>Too expensive to be practical
>Imagine an engine malfunction over a major population center

>>32182710
Because everyone would laugh at the Russians for putting a ramp on theirs.

>>32184328

Not a sailor huh? All boats leak. ALL BOATS leak. Sump pumps on a CVN in all likelhood burn enough juice to light a house for a week per day.

>>32195877
He may be autistic, anon.

Anyway, it was impossible to find a better resolution for this pic, and I couldn't find the artist either.
>feels bad man.

File: news-082113b-lg[1].jpg (219KB, 1280x848px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1280x848px

>>32186118
Let's repurpose the space shuttle crawler-transporters into land battleships, NASA doesn't need them anymore anyway.

>>32198326

>257 gallons per mile

nah mate.

>>32183666
Goddamn you for making me laugh satan

File: latest[1].jpg (79KB, 895x617px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 895x617px

So why don't they exist yet /k/?

>>32198346
Top speed of 2MPH!

>>32198903
and can only go on that one road specifically built for it

>>32184667
Why does the engine inlet glow

>>32195905
What about Stark's magical repulsor tech?

>>32187123
>Because those rotors would have to spin at ludicrous speed to keep that thing flying, on top of that anything trying to take off would be sucked in.

No.

>>32182710
Money. Nobody that can afford it wants to buy it. Nobody who could make it thinks they can sell it at profit.

>>32182710
Real talk. I think it's stupid they even have a runway.
I mean they're so high up they could just drop the damn planes and let them fly thay way.

File: retarded shit.jpg (47KB, 600x415px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x415px

I Think one day it'll exist. Assuming that we become advanced enough to invade other planets. although the amount of resources that thing would need. yikes

>>32199831
If we can invade other planets, why have it fly rather than using a space carrier or landed FOB/Airbases?

File: Jinx Blimp.jpg (595KB, 1650x1275px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 1650x1275px

>>32190609
And we'll do it again after the biotech revolution, just to colonize Uranus and every brown giant in the galaxy.

File: Alisha Casual.png (2MB, 814x1310px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 814x1310px

>>32195717
Play in the water.
It's a lot more fun than fucking with some heavy-ass cannon covered in grease and your parents' autism sauces.

File: British_Submarine_HMS_M2,_2.jpg (263KB, 1750x986px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1750x986px

I'm surrounded by casuals.

File: Banshee.jpg (162KB, 1000x673px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1000x673px

Check on danger, Lt.

>>32184753
It's the little lines that make this photo

>>32199938
>DO NOT REPOST

Delet dis

>>32192308
He means someone makes a mistake and the entire thing falls.

File: Christmas Inc.jpg (285KB, 1280x753px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1280x753px

>>32200304
I'm fighting the system 'cause I'm a /k/ontrarian.

>>32182710
>nobody talks about the noise those fans would make