>Submarine aircraft carrier discuss

for what purpose

Would have to have a huge hangar bay. All maintenance would have to be done there. Planes moving to flight deck would have huge complex hatches to get up there.

In my opinion this would only be physically possible with a pretty small air complement of aircraft

>>33177313
even just like, 3 aircraft would mean a huge tactical feature. take off 3 F-18s, strike target, land, "dive captain, dive!" no one could/would know.

How with the arresting gear and catapult systems do with being submerged all the time in salt water

>>33177354
It would be more effective if the submarine carrier had a complement of around four stealth aircraft. In my opinion that would be the only real useful application of a submarine aircraft carrier

>>33177358
make them replaceable? That or coat the fixtures in something corrosion resistant. Or keep those below deck too

File: p06_17942093.jpg (172KB, 990x582px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 990x582px

The underwater Sonar arrays and satellite magnetic field resonance technologies have rendered submarine stealth almost obsolete. The stealth is only useful for a first strike.

>>33177376

except if they had shit like radar and sonar

why have a sub that launches jets that launch missles when you can cut out the middleman and just have subs launch missiles?

>NG trolling /k for design advice

>>33177354
This can't be done with disposable drones? The last fighter pilot has already been born

>>33177354
Realistically, a submarine carrier would probably launch drones from vertical tubes while submerged like ballistic missiles.

File: 12510451_1664528853827154_7656236373487088849_n.jpg (29KB, 500x349px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x349px

>>33177397
fucking genius

>>33177354
Didn't the japs have something like that in WW2?

>>33177407
This is kind of usable.

>>33177415
it launched a kamikaze fighter

File: image.jpg (249KB, 1632x619px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1632x619px

>>33177278
It's been done before. It wasn't a bad idea for expanding the range of a scout mission a century ago, but there's really no need now that planes have "infinite range" with mid-air refueling.

Stop thinking in the past

Just have disposable drones that can be torpedoed out of the sub. No need to have a deck if they blow up on impact with their target. A sub would never have to surface to hit another vessel.

Just stockpile a shit ton of drones randomly at uav's launched from uwv's always moving.

>>33177278
For current manned aircraft? no happening, now a hive full of drones....that would be cool.

>>33177397
/thread

File: Scinfaxi.jpg (244KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1024x768px

>>33177278
Yuktobania stronk

>>33177415
Yeah, I-400 class if I remember correctly. Pretty ingeniously designed. A trained crew could (in theory) launch all 3 aircraft in less than a minute. It was a good idea but designed far too late for any real effect.

File: Scinfaxi.jpg (23KB, 375x282px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 375x282px

>>33177278
Been there, done that, blew it up (twice). It's video game fantasy BS and will remain so.

File: image.png (1MB, 1256x644px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1256x644px

>>33177278

What if you had a submarine that launched spider tanks?

>>33177278
The Japanese already tried it in WWII iirc

>>33177843
Can someone give me a quick rundown on these things?

>>33177406
>The last fighter pilot has already been born

Shut the fuck up nigger

>>33177773
>A trained crew could (in theory) launch all 3 aircraft in less than a minute.

Not a chance. The wings and control surfaces all had to be extended, and they had to bolt the floats on.

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

577KB, 1280x720px

>>33177278

File: Atlantis.jpg (1MB, 3344x1495px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3344x1495px

>>33177888

File: 111919.jpg (331KB, 1800x1278px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1800x1278px

>>33177923

>>33177888
<<Gentlemen, I do not believe a lady on earth would be able to resist us now.>>

>>33177278
Japs did an awesome job with this in WW2 hey attacked Panama and attacked west coast stuff from the east to simply confuse Americans but anything outside of that is plain retarded

>>33177278
Only good idea the Japanese have ever had.

File: image.png (2MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x1334px

>>33177278
How on earth would this even be effective ?

>>33177397
Thats not the point, the point is to establish/maintain Air Superiority or to extend the range of Helicopters.

File: boeing sub carrier.jpg (114KB, 750x469px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 750x469px

bravo boeing

never let anything stop you

>>33177856
>rothschilds bow to the Bogdanoffs
>in contact with aliens
>rumoured to possess psychic abilities
>control France with an iron fist
>own castles and banks all over the world
>direct descendants of the ancient royal blood line
>will bankroll the first cities on Mars (Bogdangrad will be be the first city)
>in the process of terraforming Pluto as their personal planet
>own basically every DNA editing research facility on Earth
>first designer babies will be Bogdanoff Babies
>both brothers said to have 400+ IQ
>ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon the Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them
>These are the Bogdanoff twins
>They own Nanobot R&D labs around the world
>You likely have Bogdabots inside you right now
>Every child has the mark of the Bogd implanted in them at birth
>The Bogdanoffs are in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to the Orthodox Church
>Discovered the ark of the covenant
>They learned fluent French in under a week
>Zahi Hawass allows them full access to the evidence of Atlantis within the pyramids
>Nation states entrust their gold reserves with the twins. There's no gold in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Bogdanoff
>The twins are 67 years old, from the space-time reference point of the base human
>In reality, they are timeless beings existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe
>They have been able to access the Akashic record since birth, and have spoken about what they saw while they were newborns
>The Bogdanoffs will guide humanity into a new age of wisdom, peace and love

>>33178375
>Slow is Smooth
>Smooth is Fast
>But like really Slow
>So its really Smooth
>tfw its really Fast

File: Kapisi.png (376KB, 800x449px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 800x449px

>Land-based aircraft carrier

discuss

>>33177278
Too exposed on launch and expensive. Now say you made submersible planes designed for underwater launch.....
The power of a submarine is non-detection. The power of aircraft is reach.
Having an undetected aircraft carrier near the coast is powerful.

But like I said, the planes would need to be launched underwater. Otherwise, you get detected and now you're dead.

File: 6b15f975cf93f692130f2e9b4791a127.jpg (314KB, 960x500px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 960x500px

>>33177888
God, Ace Combat had such interesting designs. But this would be the way to go. The power project capabilities this whale brings would have every nation on Earth shitting themselves

>>33178474
So...an air base and hangar?

>>33178481
>tfw there will never be a game that focuses on the Belkans winning

>>33178478
DO you even know how submarines work?

>>33178474
Isn't that just an airfield?

>>33178481
What if that thing comes down hard during landing? What if it blows and engine hitting a flock of birds? What if a country says fuck it and launches an ICBM to bring it down?

>>33177278
>It's the sci-fi year of 1999
>Cruising on the surface
>Detect Russian Bombers approaching
>Dive to avoid AShMs
>Success
>Ka-27 hovers overhead
>Drops a single depth charge
>All hands lost, along with a multi-billion dollar vessel and likely over ten billion dollars in aircraft and munitions, plus whatever it would cost to clean the sea floor of the debris from a destroyed nuclear-powered vessel of this size (assuming it can't just be lifted)

>makes so much noise enemies can tail it effortlessly
>gets torpedoed instantly war breaks out

File: carrier-v-22-001.jpg (58KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 400x600px

>>33177278

More feasible than most people give credit. Helicopters can fold up and all that is needed is a 70x20x20 foot space to store them, and a 20x70 door. For context, Ohio Class submarines are about 570 feet in length. Of course, doing jets is more or less impossible because they need an actual runway. Perhaps in 20-30 years it might become feasible as VTOL tech improves.

That said, the question is why. The ideal use for a submarine helicarrier would be for inland stealth raids that require a helicopter transport. There's not much of a demand for this, especially when it's clear that the air force can just build a longer range stealth helicopter, perhaps deployed from an unmarked cargo plane parked at a normal airport. As it stands, the USN already has an effective stealth fighting force that operates from submarines fine using other submarines and drones, carrying aircraft is not needed.

File: thediplomat_2016-05-17_16-35-04-386x349.jpg (31KB, 386x349px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 386x349px

>>33177397
>>33177480

pic related is already in active service

File: why not.jpg (48KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 620x413px

>>33177888

Also more feasible than people think. With the rise of drones, mass producing drone airships to act as deployment/recovery stations is feasible. They'd link up with regular command aircraft or have UAV operator crews onboard.

>>33178474

It could work, IF it could it on a normal 2-lane highway (max dimensions would be 20' wide by 14' high, perhaps 100-200 feet long). Problem is that aircraft tend to be about 15-20' tall, which means all aircraft deployed from this thing would have to be small (a blackhawk is about as big as it could go, at 12' tall). A railroad "aircraft carrier" is slightly more feasible since AAR standards allow for 20' tall payloads, and off-the-shelf train cars can easily carry most aircraft. Problem is that most railroad track isn't straight and you'd only get a 10' width. Also you're fucked if the railroad is electrified.

File: 1474013004887.gif (989KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

989KB, 500x282px

>>33178481
>>33177888
>>33177278
At this point why not just build a space elevator and orbital drone platform?
CARBON
NANO
TUBES

>>33178474

Sad that I still haven't played Sands of Kharak desufam.

>>33177773
>A trained crew could (in theory) launch all 3 aircraft in less than a minute

HAHAHAHAHA, No!

>>33177397
To be fair, drones will provide a lingering real time service and make it an actual viable concept

>>33178562
Dem birds would be extinct b4 this dawg goes down

File: SSN-763 with cruise missile tubes open.jpg (2MB, 2820x1880px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2820x1880px

>>33177354
>>33177406
>disposable drones
They're called missiles.

>>33178440
they can't even design a proper streetcar and you want them to design a sub that launches planes?

it'll be funny to watch, at least.

File: 1438962810749.gif (4MB, 630x354px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 630x354px

>>33178562
a small air wing downs it and it's entire 4 giant airship escort AND fighter escort with a frontal assault by waiting for it to re-fuel and approaching from directly in front of it because there are like 6 fucking KC-10's in front of it ruining it's forward radar accuraccy

>>33179774

As it turns out, aerospace companies are not very good at making things that are not airplanes.

>>33179844
well, a submarine isn't an airplane, last I checked.

>>33179803
>there are like 6 fucking KC-10's in front of it ruining it's forward radar accuraccy
What is a range-gate

>>33177278
The Hunter Sub that bagged one of these fat fuckers would have lost their ships with all hands as it instantly was completely filled port to bow with the jizz of every crew member on board simultaneously ejaculating beyond human capacity.

File: Gustav multi-track drifting.jpg (222KB, 700x512px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 700x512px

>>33178474
>TFW no railway airbases

File: Ace Combat Typhoon.jpg (51KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1024x576px

Ace Combat 7s huge super weapon plane is a massive drone carrier, that releases massive swarms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpgwu-xpG5w

Could potentially be a real life thing at some point to have countries just releasing swarms of drones at eachother. Whoever can produce more wins.

Seems that the story for the game will be pilots being phased out in favor of drones, but the last human pilots putting up a fight that even the drones cant match.

File: bnsf.jpg (106KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 900x600px

>>33180039

Problem is that carrier runways tend to be about 300', whileas the maximum railcar length is only 80'. Also the maxiumum internal dimensions for a railcar is only about 10' wide by 20' tall, which is only barely enough space to store an aircraft. This would mean that there would only be one way for aircraft to move through the hangar, and both ends would need elevators.

Engineering wise it's feasible, though. But again the question is why when so many airfields exist, and forcing everything onto a train limits the places it can/cannot go.

>>33178562
>What if that thing comes down hard during landing?
Pilot fuckups aren't really something you can design around. And it does water landings.
>What if it blows and engine hitting a flock of birds?
IIRC the thing's got 32 engines, and can probably fly with only half
>What if a country says fuck it and launches an ICBM to bring it down?
Belka's been crippled, anon. They won't be launching any ICBMs [spoiler]until AC7[/spoiler]

File: Transport3.jpg (15KB, 426x281px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 426x281px

>>33180109

Really it's just a problem of aircraft size. If there was a way to get combat aircraft back down to the size of automobiles, then railroad aircraft carriers would certainly exist because you could have four levels (top - flight deck, 3 - hangar, 2 - crew accommodations, 1 - utility/storage).

However, aircraft are not the size of automobiles anymore, they tend to be about 2-3 times the size so the physics doesn't work out. It's also for this reason why road carriers don't work, because highway overpasses are built at 16' clearances not 32' ones.

>>33177278
as Chinese anti-carrier zones expand, I could see something like this being done, but it wouldnt necessarily be raw offense (cuz missile subs exist). but wouldnt it be easier to just refuel an F-35 and let it do its thing rather than tow the F-35 in a sub and do it that way?

>>33180216
this is so unbelievably stupid and so unbelievably comfy at the same time

File: kottos.jpg (36KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x338px

>>33179947
even barring that bit of retardation the ship has a fighter escort that withdraws into the carrier for refueling and 4 ships of this class flying in formation with it, that fall in behind it during refueling for no reason, 2 of them are even dedicated AWACS/ECM units

>>33177407
>>33177465
We already have one

File: ISDIIESB.png (908KB, 1120x720px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 1120x720px

>>33177278
Fuck that. Put a battleship in space.

>>33180477
Star Destroyers aren't battleships though. They're multirole cruisers.

Water pressure on the flat deck would be immense

>>33180109
>>33180109
>Problem is that carrier runways tend to be about 300', whileas the maximum railcar length is only 80'.
I see no problem here... just stop on a flat section of track and join several cars into a single deck. The bigger issue is width, I think.

>>33177313
What if the hangar bay were ambient-pressure? Could the planes handle it? Obviously they couldn't keep personnel in there except when surfaced or at shallow pressure-depth, but it would eliminate a ton of the aforementioned complexity.

>>33177278
1st issue, Salt on deck.
Aircraft carriers have regular hosings of hundreds of gallons of fresh water to remove salt from the deck before flight ops

2nd issue, Underwater stability: Subs need to be within certain width to height ratio to avoid capsizing

>>33178395
But you can't establish air superiority or support helicopter operations if you are fucking underwater. And if you're surfaced while you're aircraft are out why not just have a regular carrier???????????

>>33180745
Funny, I just posted something related to aircraft carriers somewhere else

>>33178474
>>33178518
>>33178552
Think of it as 8 NASA launch crawlers welded together, in a 2x4 pattern.

Now install a nuclear reactor, a single cruise missile launch tube, engineering deck, crew deck, hanger deck with 5 elevators, a flight deck with 4 catapults (three small ones on the front that launch STOVL strike fighters, and a longer one on the main airstrip for larger aircraft), a motor pool in the back that carries a single three axle 6WD research vehicle and a couple other smaller "escorts", and is armed with CIWS mounts.

And then slap on Abrams tank front armor, on all four sides.


THAT, is a Land Base Carrier.

It's HUGE.

(the enemy has a bigger one, and they go faster because they have Mag-Repulsor drives that float the carrier a couple hundred feet off the ground)

File: ja2.jpg (119KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 800x533px

>>33181018

File: ja3.jpg (82KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x533px

>>33181026

>>33180077
>Ace Combat
>PC
my body is ready

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

125KB, 1024x658px

So Land battleships are next.
This thing shows up a mile outside your city

File: KV-VI.jpg (982KB, 1400x990px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 1400x990px

>>33181058

File: land battleship.jpg (125KB, 736x556px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 736x556px

>>33181068

>>33181058
Its either got a hell of time dealing with sandy, swampy soil, hills, or it's stuck in ten feet of water.

>>33177776
Actually the Scinfaxi and its sister werent really carriers, but they did shit out alot of drones

File: IMG_3690.jpg (365KB, 1020x1404px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1020x1404px

>>33177888
That's not the arkbird

>>33177278
Honestly the only utility I can see for something like this would be black ops shit, like you sneakily move in an aircraft carrier somewhere, emerge, and then you move the aircraft up to flight deck to prepare them for launch.

It would be VERY limited utility and probably almost never used. In fact, given all the time it takes to prep shit like fighter jets (like half a day), it would almost be easier to just move in when surfaced and send off your jets, then submerge to escape.

I mean, I think that it *could* be a useful thing, but only in very rare niche situations.

But as everyone else said, dem drones.

To wage more effective love and peace on the Blue Meanies.

Alternately, to finally get Nowhere Man off his ass and convince him the world is at his command.

What about a submersible helicopter carrier?

No need for runways or catapults, could set it up to carry ~4 stealthed helicopter gunships and a couple of stealth troop transports for inserting specops teams (to laser designate targets for aforementioned gunships). You could do all the pre-flight checks while still underwater and launch the helis right off of the elevators. Could probably get the entire launch cycle to < 10 minutes before resubmerging

>>33177278 (OP)
There has been a lot of speculation as to whether CIWS and other countermeasures have kept up with antiship missiles.

Honestly theres not a lot of hard data. Maybe if the US actually had a conflict with a near peer, it might be relevant. Fighting in sand pits against nothing nations it is not.

>>33181340
>given all the time it takes to prep shit like fighter jets (like half a day)

Why couldn't you do that inside and send them up by elevator? And then surface again for landing. That way you minimize the time spent surfaced.

>>33177888
box wing aircraft get me hard.

File: 1486284559477.png (28KB, 898x409px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 898x409px

>>33181454
Thats what I was thinking, a compliment of small tilt rotar drones, along with a compliment of rotary wing aircraft Venoms Cobras and bring some Kiowas/OH-6As. It still feels like the logistics of this platform would a little too much in comparison to the tactical advantage it would provide. Still who knows mybe it would be the perfect special ops platform.

>>33177406
>The last fighter pilot has already been born


Yeah right. The day humans trust robots to commit warfare/willingly omit themselves from warfare is the day hell freezes over

>>33177307
In theory less vulnerable to attack.
>come up
>raise aircraft to surface
>take-off
>go under
>com up again for aircraft landing
>stow aircraft under deck
>go under again

In practice this might not work well, because the time necessary to prepare an aircraft for launch, have all the personnel in place, launch the aircraft, have all the personnel return below deck and submerge again may take too long.

In addition, a vessel like this would still be vulnerable to enemy attack submarines.

>>33181522
I guess you could do a lot of the prep inside the sub, but for things like testing engines you'd need to be able to deal with

a) a lot of heat is generated (not such a problem since the whole ocean's your heat sink, but capturing and transferring the heat through the hull efficiently and fast enough to not roast the crew alive would be hard)

b) the fumes from the engine would have to be very carefully managed to avoid poisoning and/or asphyxiating everyone aboard

c) imagine if there was an engine malfunction and the internal hangar deck was filled with burning jet fuel. You could make the floor out of steel beams so they wouldn't melt, but fires in enclosed spaces are an absolute nightmare, especially since it would rapidly consume all the oxygen on the sub

d) jet engines are noisy as hell, ruining the subs stealth capability

e) submarines are cramped as hell, and room onboard is super valuable. The room spent on a testing chamber for the aircraft could be far better spent on other things such as life support, storage, berths, etc.

File: dank kek.png (479KB, 730x584px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 730x584px

>>33181614
>You could make the floor out of steel beams so they wouldn't melt

>>33181454
Or a STOVL one. Imagine what could do 4, 6, 8 F-35Bs , launched by quasi vertical catapults and landing vertically.

The ig problem is heat, now. Vertical landings make the surface scalding hot, and it's not necessarily something you want around your crew and nuclear reactor.

>>33181683
If only there was a large source of water nearby you could use to cool the landing surface...

On a more serious note, it would probably be pretty hard to integrate the catapult. The helicopter elevators / platforms could raise up through hatches in the pressure hull, but a catapult takes a lot of deck space - you'd either have to have a huge section of the pressure hull able to fold open (thus limiting it's safe dive depth) or have the catapult system (which IIRC uses pressurised steam) outside the pressure hull and I guess let seawater into it to equalise the pressure while underwater.

File: 1487197687278.jpg (26KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x375px

>>33177406
>The last fighter pilot has already been born

>>33177354
Being able to launch 3 planes from a submarine sure didnt help japan during WWII, so why would it be a good idea now?

Back in the days of WW II, japanese submarines used to have catapults and a dotation of one or 2 planes, so i see it perfectly viable, is a matter of engeneering

>>33181787
Are you seriously suggesting that just because a technology was considered not useful once, it should never be considered for viability ever again? Especially considering that technology has advanced somewhat since the 1940's?

>>33181791
With advances in miniaturisation technologies, we could probably fit like 6 planes in the same amount of hangar space.

The trick would be genetically engineering a race of small people to be pilots for the miniature planes.

>>33178324
>Things that never happened.

I believe in submarine launched air-superiority UAVs
The biggest problem would be how to recover them after they are done, because they'd probably be too expensive to be disposable
Only thing I can think of would be to have them land on the surface like a seaplane and have the sub grab it

>>33181851
I mean if it's a small drone it might be more cost-effective to have a small scuttling charge aboard and blow it up once its job is complete

for a big boy (e.g. a Reaper drone or something similarly sized) you'd have to go with the seaplane thing, or have blowout panels on the skin of the drone with compressed gas inflated baloons in them for bouyancy (and can deflate them to sink the drone if it might be recovered by the enemy)

>>33177397
I'll take What is a SSGN for 500

File: why.jpg (11KB, 180x312px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 180x312px

>>33181058
>Anchors
>Turrets instead Missle Hatches
>French Flag

>>33181068
>First prototype destroyed when the rear cannon accidentally shot the middle turret in the back
>Third prototype failed when it fired all of its guns in the same direction, and recoil caused the tank to roll over
>Smart Russian tells Stalin tank wouldn't be able to turn. Stalin replies, "Tank no need to turn, Ivan. It drive straight to Berlin"
My sides

>>33180223
>we added sharks so people wouldn't think we're completely nuts!

File: 1405193420656.webm (3MB, 620x412px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 620x412px

>>33181018
>>33181033
>dat fucking elevator/ramp

>>33177278

Submarines carrying stealth drones are already going to be a thing in the near future. There's no need for something the size of a submersible Nimitz to fill a niche role. Not to mention the absolute design nightmare something like that would be.

File: comanche-helicopter.jpg (28KB, 587x495px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 587x495px

>>33178774

File: 1481260876965.jpg (98KB, 644x932px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 644x932px

>>33177278

What about flying aircraft carriers?

What about building airfields instead of carriers?

What about developing super long range artillery instead of planes?

>>33177380

You can't sorry,is not only about salt doing salty things,it's more about galvanic corrosion fucking up everything and requiring materials and man hours for maintenance and inspections

>>33181238
What does this do

>>33177278
I-400 class, read book

>>33180968
Then have a opening on the front for salvage so it can make repairs and resupply on the go. Then chase after other land carriers.


We Municipal Darwinism now.

File: I-400 Diagram B.jpg (92KB, 971x476px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 971x476px

Yes the Nippon did try this. Yes they were active during the war.

They used sea plane zeros and never actually did anything worth noting

File: laughs_in_recycled_farts.jpg (26KB, 550x367px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 550x367px

>>33177384
>The underwater Sonar arrays and satellite magnetic field resonance technologies have rendered submarine stealth almost obsolete

Pretty good bait.

>>33184497
Give me an erection

>>33177278
>What is an SSGN
Helicopters, maybe, but the value doesn't justify the cost of a dedicated sub.

>>33177278
Very hard to pull off. You'd need to waterproof the elevator hatches, ventilate the inner hanger, balance out for both empty and full weights since you're buoyancy changes every time you launch a plane, salt water proof the catapults, and really there's like a thousand minor things to deal with but could plausibly destroy the ship if they go wrong.

>>33184497
It's used in low-orbit to clean up debris from a massive asteroid which collided against the alt-Earth from the Ace Combat universe.

File: 1475388413706.jpg (68KB, 1079x1020px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1079x1020px

>>33177278
>dive
>all aircraft fall off and sink
>resurface
>any aircraft left slide off and also sink
Great idea

>>33181808
Planes are bigger and more complex now, it'd take longer to surface and set them up on deck than a piston powered plane.

>>33178788
Dat acronym.

>>33180968
You are aware it's speed is measured in feet per hour?

File: 1486954658055m.jpg (72KB, 1024x655px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1024x655px

>>33177278

Hang 48 inches of depleted uranium armour on that bitch and we're in business. This is the best idea I've seen since RamRod. Stop masturbating. I'm assuming its nuclear powered and has 1000s of missle tubes and a weight room. I gotta lift.

>>33177888
>>33178481
I remember playing the demo for fires of liberation on the 360 years ago and enjoying it. Is there a proper way to get into the series or can I just jump in at any place and know what's going on?

>>33180477
SDs ain't battlewagons.

Super Star Destroyers are battlewagons.

>>33177278
I mean, it wouldn't have many problems with FOD I guess

>>33180216
God, this picture makes me cackle every time.

Only if we develop M9's to launch from it.

File: henry-hatsworth.jpg (11KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 256x256px

I thought of this idea in the early nineties but everyone laughed. now it's actually being considered by the US Navy.

File: 1916_turmw.jpg (1MB, 1462x924px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1462x924px

did someone say train aircraft carriers

>>33189836
Playing the PS2 trilogy (4, 5, zero) is generally the recommended way in to the series although these don't emulate all that well. As long as you don't jump in with assault horizon, advance, infinity, or the US/PAL version of 3 you're probably good.

File: vlcsna12[1].png (241KB, 640x352px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 640x352px

Guys...

Guys...

What about...

Hear me out now...

How about...

We make submarine aircraft carriers...

But...

Stay with me...

But we make them fly!

And they also carry transforming Su-27s!

>>33190374
Describe well. I'm set to deploy and I was looking at playing through a backlog of emulator games on my computer while deployed. Is it unplayable or what?

>>33177869
>>33181560
>>33181777
No guys clearly he meant that all fighter pilots will become immortal cyborgs and never need to retire.

>>33190481
Been a while since I tried but things like the ground not rendering or ground targets being unshootable.
The three PS1 games should be fine to emulate although Air Combat is a lot more primitive than later games. AC2 was later remade for the 3DS if you can better play on that. AC3 you should grab a JP copy and the translation patch for it. US/PAL versions butchered the game cutting a huge amount of content.

File: I400_2.jpg (107KB, 1006x465px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1006x465px

>>33190271
But the Japs did it.

File: 1465883221963.jpg (786KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 1024x768px

>>33190481
You can emulate AC5 and AC0 pretty well, there will be some bugs and graphical errors, but none that are game breaking. AC4 is somehow the most wonky for emulation.

As for world building, playing AC5 and then AC0 will give you a good idea about the current events in the Strangereal (Ace Combat Universe) or you can read the wikis, which describe the events in even more detail.

>>33177935
How would you defeat a mecha shark?

>>33190622
Mechaladon

File: Warlord_Titan_Calth2.jpg (187KB, 914x1229px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 914x1229px

Why haven't we just built titans yet?

>>33177354
If only submarines had cruise missiles.
If only submarines could launch cruise missiles underwater.

>>33179844
Ah, the Grumman Flxible Bus. What a dog.

>>33184627
They were interesting because of their size. They surrendered to the Americans, and the boats were to be studied and handed over to the Soviets to study, as per previous agreement, but were accidentally sunk before they could reach the USSR.

>>33190622
a bigger mecha shark

>>33190750
limp wristed pollies

>>33190750
THE GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND WILLS IT!

>>33179668
To be fair, you could also have drones launch from SSGNs pretty easily.

File: asdf.jpg (28KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x400px

>>33177278
how about a carrier

that carries small submarines

File: 1487361934586.jpg (45KB, 900x862px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 900x862px

>>33184497
Pew pews lasers from space

Launches X-47s in the atmosphere

Gets stolen by Belkans

And gets killed by the reincarnation of a medieval war valkyrie in the form of 4 jet-black F-14s.

File: Trumpnaught One.jpg (757KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 1920x1080px

Orbital strikes from Trumps new Dreadnaught class

File: trumpship one.jpg (49KB, 600x272px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x272px

>>33191822
Refueling/resupply points set up on the moon and mars

>>33190918
>but were accidentally sunk before
Yeah by the americans accidentally leaving C4 inside/shooting torpedoes at them

Primarly Drone docking Submarines already exist or are in development. That's the closest you'll get in the modern age

File: GEV.jpg (173KB, 1600x911px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1600x911px

hnnnnggg

>>33191835
slaviboo is buttmad he couldn't ripoff the nips as usual
let me taste your tears

>>33181073

We were so close to a steam punk future

>>33181560

When your opponent switches to drones and starts beating you, you're not going to stick with human pilots because >muh tradition.

The last horse cavalry officer was born a long time ago, too.

File: 26022260.gif (2MB, 295x291px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 295x291px

>>33190444
aaaah SOLD!

nice trips einstein

File: e081c922b10e74824a8efbfff050979e.png (690KB, 1400x1820px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 1400x1820px

I feel a bit ashamed that I know about the I-401 because of KanColle

>>33178481
It would be so easy to shoot that stupid thing down.

File: il2fb 2006-12-04 14-52-02-37.jpg (65KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x600px

>build submarine with hangar/vertical launch tube
>equip it with one of these babies
>point defense against aerial attackers and enemy ships

>>33190622
Mecha oxygen tank

>>33182438
>French navy retreats into land

File: 1480889323068.jpg (59KB, 618x619px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 618x619px

PLANES THAT LAUNCH SUBMARINES

>>33193265
Torpedo bombers launching manned torpedoes!
Does that count?

>>33193307
Only if the manned torpedoes can launch smaller torpedoes

>>33179721
kek

>>33177278
Scinfaxi anyone?

>>33177764
You mother fucker, I didn't think anyone would mention the Scinfaxi, bastard.

>>33177278
you don't need a giant flight deck like that to launch drones

>>33186318

http://homeworld.wikia.com/wiki/Carrier_(Coalition)
>60km/h


Yes, but the NASA crawler isn't nuclear powered and is designed to move a very expensive, very explosive, very fragile cargo to its launch pad very carefully..

Not be a mobile military base with a single squadron of strike aircraft/drones.

File: shooting a dick.jpg (57KB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x360px

>>33177397
>>33179668
>>33191775
>>33177408
>>33177278
>>33181599

Missing the point Entirely

It would make an excellent short range ballistic missile launcher - or at least long range MRLS rockets. It could be a new equivalent battleship.

It would need to be huge to hold such a big stockpile. It might need to surface to fire the rockets too.

But just imagine the possibilities.

>>33180109
Longest standard car length before you start getting into dimensional loads is 89'.

>>33177764
The scinfaxi is the answer to all this, it also launched a shit ton of drones at you.

>>33190592
>>33190481
Neither of you know what you are talking about, the Ace Combat games now emulate perfectly in PCSX2.

Provided your computer isn't a fucking potato.

>>33177354
>3 aircraft would mean a huge tactical feature.

Not compared to a load of cruise missiles. Aircraft are missile delivery systems, and carriers are insanely expensive but at least they can generate MANY sorties.

A subcarrier sortie generation rate would be abysmal, the whole thing would be a huge, wasteful maintenance nightmare.

Can't you military illiterates have a cartoon board where you can fap in a stew of your own ignorance? Oh, wait, we're there.

>>33178395
That takes sortie GENERATION to do. Sortie RATES are the reason for aircraft you mongoloid.
That's why they are briefed at every US squadron every day, as are Fully Mission Capable rates. Submarines would be an aircraft O&M disaster.

>>33179652
No shit. The closest most of this thread has been to aircraft launches and recoveries is fucking Jewtoob.

>>33192409
Point defense lasers. Because if we're making a flying carrier, lets just go hard and throw lasers on it.

>>33180147
>railroad aircraft carriers would certainly exist

Nope. Too narrow for aircraft maintenance, repair and inspections, which unlike you I've spend a career performing. You are fucking beyond clueless. Not even narrow WWII airframes are a remotely convenient OPERATIONAL fit in a railcar because railroads are too narrow. Fuck off and KYS instead of making up stupid shit.

Rail carriers offer zero advantage and many disadvantages like no dispersion, a fat juicy captive target (good luck rescuing airframes or equipment), terrible refuel access (which requires fuel trucks you idiot shitbag), and inability to launch in GROUPS which means the first bird of a three or six ship has to circle while the rest get airborne.

Fucking die or better yet, propose a shipping container aircraft carrier with an arresting barrier made of imitation crab meat.

>>33180209
Much but that's not autistic enough.

>>33180711
>Could the planes handle it?

No. Not even close. It would wreck fuel, hydraulic, pneumatic systems. It would trash waveguides and all the sealed electronic components. It would smash any structure with voids.

If you don't know anything about what you are discussing, stop forming new ideas at random. It does your thought process no favors.

>>33181058
>This thing shows up a mile outside your city

With those tracks and that ground clearance it wouldn't move from where it was built.

>>33177278
ok but instead of an aircraft carrier it's a submersible recommissioned iowa class battleship that launches gliders exclusively

>>33181068
With those track dimensions it could not turn without throwing track. Multiple short tracks with an appropriate drivetrain would be required and it would still turn extremely slowly to avoid throwing track.

File: typeiibuboat.jpg (135KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1024x768px

Bring back the type II

>>33181614
You couldn't move enough air inside a submarine maintenance bay to do an idle run, let alone other engine ops checks.

Extreme nope.

>>33181634
>>You could make the floor out of steel beams so they wouldn't melt

Jet engines melt superalloys if their internal blanket of cooling air protecting the hot section is sufficiently disrupted. They move many tons of air.

>>33181851
>Only thing I can think of would be to have them land on the surface like a seaplane and have the sub grab it

Salt bath maintenance nightmare plus dangerous surface exposure to fish the turd out of the ocean.

>>33190548
The Japs did it poorly and it wasn't worth the pathetic firepower of one aircraft. It still isn't. The Japs completely fucked up their submarine warfare strategy too.

US submariners OTOH tore the Nips a new asshole.

File: yo_dawg.jpg (42KB, 680x454px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 680x454px

>>33191784
Yo Dawg, I heard you liked carries so we put a carrier in your submarine that carries submarines that carry aircraft that carry missiles that carry submarines!

>>33191784
Is it a flying carrier?

>>33177278
Can I make my seagoing city out of this?? On second thought, I don't think it would be stable underwater. Neutral buoyancy is trickier than it looks. Hmm....thinking...thinking...

File: gal and peg.jpg (1MB, 1900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1900x1200px

>>33180477
You want a Battlestar anon, not a shitty SD.

>>33191784
There's a billionaire with a yacht that has a submarine hangar along the keel with some mini-subs in it.

File: British X1 Submarine 1.jpg (403KB, 2325x1618px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 2325x1618px

>>33177278
>submarine aircraft carrier
Submarine battleships are the true patrician choice.

>>33197125
what no the plane moves through the air you idiot

Japanese did have some success within the I 400 submarine

File: maxresdefault.jpg (129KB, 1378x919px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1378x919px

I400

File: Homeworld-Deserts-of-Kharak-Wallpaper-8-Fists-of-Heaven.jpg (1MB, 3200x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3200x1800px

>>33180216
Reminds me of this

>>33197087
>>33182471
>>33181068

it's an urban legend guys.

>>33191852

absolutely erect.jpg

Why even bother?
You're still going to have to protect the fucking thing from enemy subs.
At that point you could just use a carrier group, since its arguably safer, cheaper and easier to do.

>>33177278
I think MAYBE having some kind of hanger and a launcher for some kind of AWACS type of aircraft could potentially be useful in very specific situations but some shit like in the pic is retarded

>>33181560
>>33192095
drones are still operated by a human