Helicarriers fucking WHEN?

>>35097323
Never.

File: Helicarrier.jpg (144KB, 768x960px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 768x960px

The future is now

>>35097323
Never
Going
To
Happen

More vulnerable than a sea carrier.
Costs a fuckload more to work.
If anything ever happened your crew and the shit below it are probably dead.

>>35097323
Well, at least you know they would never do a man overboard drill in the middle of the night because some dickhead threw a glowstick off the side.

>>35097323
Not soon. Fuel costs are through the roof and if you can keep it flying constantly then you can also keep the planes flying constantly.

>>35097323
>carrier is now immune to submarine attack
>submarines now carry fuckhueg SAMs
>CIWS can't shoot straight down

>>35097575
tyfys

>>35097323
What would be the point of carrying fighters when the carrier already flies? Wouldn't it make more sense to put guns on the airship?

>>35097323
Not until we have some intensely powerful and advanced propulsion, and not too expensive either. We'd also need to lighten up armor significantly. Even then, probably never.
It'd be an very expensive and fragile platform no matter how you cut it.

>>35097323
How are the planes not falling off?

>>35097341
FpBp

File: Carrier vs Carrier.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

Never ever.

>>35098968
Centrifugal force you retard

>>35097323

I remember when the movie out some nerdy fuckers came to the understanding the power plant alone would bankrupt the worlds collective economies trying to make it.

>>35099766
that's unlikely. a helicarrier would only need about 4-6 times the power a modern day nuclear carrier can produce. it's not the hard part really.

If you're already flying it's better to carry cruise missiles than aircraft.

And you *could* make a flying missile frigate with nuclear-thermal jet engines.

File: HTRE-3 (1).jpg (164KB, 772x954px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 772x954px

>>35098151

>>35100207
i have a hardon for guided missile spacecraft with nuclear torch engines. but even i don't want that crap flying around in our atmo.

So all you gotta do is take out at least one of the engines to fuck it up and lawn dart it into something.

>>35100232
An indirect cycle nuclear jet wouldn't be *that* bad. And it might be possible to construct one that can run on both air and internal reaction mass as a possibly cheaper way to reach orbit for non-military craft.

>>35100193
It would need to have produce enough thrust to directly counter it's own weight, afaik that's impossible to do with nuclear reactors because the reactors and the shielding is prohibitively heavy, relative to the work produced, compared to a gas turbine, for example.

If building a nuclear reactor more efficient than the world has ever seen is 'not the hard part' then i think it's safe to say that Flying carriers in the avengers fashion are not going to happen.

>>35097323
Never. It wpuld be slow and easy to take down. Its a stupid fucking idea only meant for movies.

>>35100305
>It wpuld be slow and easy to take down.
so like any warship ever built right?

>>35100327
No. Not really.

>>35100290
the size of a marine nuclear reactor is about a shipping containers... you do know that right?

>>35100290
>relative to the work produced, compared to a gas turbine, for example
what the fuck are you smoking? maybe take fuel mass and efficiency into your calculation and see what it would take to fly 2-3 months straight on a gas turbine you nigerian professor!

File: I hope my eyes deceive me.jpg (44KB, 540x300px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x300px

>>35100380
The USS Virginia class has an S9G reactor, it powers steam turbines that produce 40,000 shp.
The reactor, it's cooling and and the turbines literally take up the entire rear half of the 8000 ton submarine.

In STOVL mode, the The F-35B's F-135-PW-600 engine sends 30,000 shp through a shaft to the lift fan, that lift fan provides 46% of the required thrust to keep the F-35B floating in the air.
The F-35B has a maximum takeoff weight of less than 30 tons.

I'm assuming that comment was just a joke, yes?

File: Sodor.png (234KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 500x400px

>>35100506
If you can't even get within an order of magnitude of the energy density of a helicopter turbo-shaft engine, it doesn't matter that you're propulsion system can run without propellant for months; it isn't going to fly.

>>35100750
*Technically fuel not propellant.
I forgot that i am talking about SHP here.

>>35100656
>f-35b
>efficient vtol
a helicopter can do the same lift with less than a 1000 shp why are you willfully retarded? also you would still need cooling and turbines even if you went with alternative propulsion. but the nimitzes 550 megawatt comes up to about roughly 500 tonnes (based on theoretical values it it's a give and take i couldn't find actual data) in weight out of the 78280 tonnes displacement... that's like what 0.63%? okay you can sit down now.

>>35100750
but you can that's what i'm telling you here. the problem is the size and construction of the rotors and more importantly the radial velocity of the ends.

>>35098144
get out your making too much sense for /k/

File: You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place.jpg (5KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 300x168px

>>35100809
>a helicopter can do the same lift with less than a 1000 shp why are you willfully retarded

The CH-53K lifts ~40 tons with 22500 shp, so you are off by about a factor of 20 there.

>but the nimitzes 550 megawatt comes up to about roughly 500 tonnes

The Nimitz's reactors make 550 megawatts of heat each (that gets turned into ~100 megawatts of power by the steam turbines), if we somehow weightlessly turn that heat with 100% efficiency into usable energy( compared to say the 20% efficiency the USN apparently gets), that ends up as 1 kilowatt per kilogram with your weight figures. For comparison, the turboshafts on the CH-53K stallion i was talking about earlier, produce 11.2 kW per killogram.

File: A bad idea all round.jpg (90KB, 700x317px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 700x317px

>>35100936
Ok i concede, the impossible nuclear reactor is only the second most stupid thing about a flying aircraft carrier.
.
>proceeds to imagine picrelated x1000

>>35101418
Worked for the Brotherhood of Steel

>>35097970
>Some jackass with a bow and arrow disables the fucking thing.

>>35101126
but, but I haven't even told you about my vibranium submarine yet!

>>35098144
You sound eerily similar to something Caboose says in RvB

>>35099172
what I just watched here infuriates me.

File: v1n3_101_2_model_by_scott_lowther-d8iheel.png (78KB, 700x446px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 700x446px

Boeing 747 AAC

Lockheed CL-1201

Far better airborne aircraft carrier designs.

It would be kind of funny if we crossed the CL-1201 with a giant stealth bomber, but it's highly unlikely. Unless we use UAVs, maybe.

File: Kapisi.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>35097323
Land carriers fucking WHEN?

>>35097323
Never

File: armd-lineart.gif (283KB, 1600x741px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1600x741px

>>35097323
Space carriers fucking WHEN

>>35103021
>Space ship to carry smaller spaceships
Just like how there are ships that carry round smaller ships.

File: 1468814416377.jpg (38KB, 160x212px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 160x212px

>>35103076

>>35097935
>More vulnerable than a sea carrier

But torpedoes can't hit now

File: 5C96F9FC-332B-44E5-89D5-3F75F4209465-783-00000092B93F5476.jpg (741KB, 2560x1701px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 2560x1701px

>>35102941
When someone loots Cape Canaveral during the hurricane and hijacks one of these bad boys

>>35103076
>Just like how there are ships that carry round smaller ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Artisan_(ABSD-1)

>>35097323
When we have unmanned aircraft that can land themselves on one.

Coincidentally this is also a requirement for submarine carriers.

See, a certain degree of disposability is required, a degree unattainable by a ship that requires amenities for a large crew. Ideally the crew would in fact be nonexistent. It would just be a big balloon with a ring of fighters around it that plop off to engage incoming threats, piloted by a secure satellite connection and then are programmed to engage internal rockets to hook themselves back on the ring to refuel and rearm.

File: 1494994231794.jpg (321KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1920x1080px

>>35103133
What are we gonna put on it?

>>35103096
Space fighters are a dumb idea perpetuated by dumb sci-fi.

File: IMG_0110.jpg (559KB, 3840x1854px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 3840x1854px

>>35103232

>>35103317
go jerk off to projectrho some more you sperg

>>35099172
I saw more gay right there... than in any cartoon in the last 2 decades... in just those 2 minutes.

>>35103333
yeah ok that looks good...

>>35103114
Air torpedoes exist

>>35097323

That shit is fucking dumb.

File: IMG_20170902_135036168_TOP.jpg (3MB, 3006x5344px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3006x5344px

>>35103133

File: gfs_37016_2_22.jpg (74KB, 1000x583px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1000x583px

>>35102941
Never, since they can be taken out by 1 or 2 single fighters.

>>35103790

It was only 1 minute, but I totally understand how watching that would feel like 2 minutes.

File: 1504658014080.gif (719KB, 500x384px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 500x384px

>>35103133
doesnt that thing move at 1 mph

How much energy is required to suspend a few 90,000-100,000 ton ship into the air? How many onboard nuclear reactors would you need? 40?

>>35101564
>>35103790
>being upset GI Joe isn't realistic
Jesus christ.

>>35104022
2 to be exact

>>35097323
As discussed in the past threads we have had on this, the downdraft would be fucking apocalyptic. It wouldn't need aircraft or guns, just fly it over a country and laugh.

>>35101531
Do you see any turbofans on it?

File: STAG_Daedalus.jpg (273KB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 2000x1125px

>>35098144
And this is why the Daedalus trumps all Capeshit carriers.
>why not both?

>>35101289
According to that other dude >>35100809 the Nimitz is 73000 tonnes, the CH-53K lifts 40 tonnes with 23000 shp, so the "flying carrier" would need the equivalent of 42 million shp or 31000 megawatts?

In other words, it would need 310 Nimitz reactors (not counting for the added mass of these reactors)?

Good luck with that, flying carrier proponents.

File: don-d-laugh-drink.jpg (61KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 413x395px

>>35103333
>those rollers in front
Fucking dead.

Quads command us, /k/illers. We know what we must do.

>>35102941
>outperformed by a few tradies with construction equipment

>>35097323
Unless we discover infinite energy, it ain't happening. And if we discover that, conventional arms will probably be obsolete anyway.

>>35103828
>a cigar-shaped self-propelled underwater missile designed to be fired from a ship or submarine or dropped into the water from an aircraft and to explode on reaching a target.
the definition of a torpedo disagrees.

File: oh.png (129KB, 1327x705px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1327x705px

>>35103333

>>35097323

When a single engine on a 100 trillian dollar ship can't fail and send it into the ground.

So never, it's stupid, not a single person who knows anything mechanically speaking would even humour the idea

File: 1443397026682.jpg (100KB, 740x585px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 740x585px

>>35106528

>>35097951
If sea carriers are nuclear-powered, I dont see why airships wouldn't be too

>>35097323
When scientists invent an affordable material capable of supporting the behemoth's own wight. Then we'll also need poor tactical, strategic and simple technical judgment on part of the entire decision making chain- and the project is a go.

>>35106604
See >>35105284

>>35105284
>it would need 310 Nimitz reactors
no it would need 8 reactors it already has 2.

>>35108143
yeah never-mind i just realized the fuck-nugets messed up their calculation by an order of magnitude or two upon which i based my argument. i don't know how they managed to but probably a faulty conversion of tonnes to newtons and not accounting to g in their calculation for the power requirements. some say molten salt reactors in theory can be used to achieve lift but it's not exactly existing technology on that level of w/kg so there is that.