Why haven’t carriers that can be seaborne and airborne been invented yet? Hear me out here, what if you had a physical obstacle that prevented your aircraft carrier from passing through like a land bridge, straight blockade, or simply wanted to get your carrier to an inland sea like the Caspian Sea? This would be useful in many situations, so why isn’t it a thing?
Because aircraft carriers weigh tens of thousands of tons, any aircraft built around one would be implausibly, impracticably large.
Don’t forget all the gas and electricity it would take to keep it flying, I hate marvel and yidsney so much
>Because aircraft carriers weigh tens of thousands of tons, any aircraft built around one would be implausibly, impracticably large.
Not if you get rid of the unn4ecessary sea hull and steel and replace that all with helium gas and a helium generator and make it 1Km long and wide
>unn4ecessary sea hull
OP specifically asked for an amphibious flying boat-carrier.
So now you have a square kilometre sized helium bladder, and no ability to armor or otherwise effectively protect it. What do you think is going to happen the moment that thing gets a missile thrown its way?
fill the bladder with small kevlar balloons full of helium, so fighters have to machine gun it all day to make any progress sinking it
Simple, don't get in range of a missile. Supercarriers also have armor but nothing has even come close to even scratching the paint of one yet.
Because you could launch the fricker directly into orbit of earth for about the same cost and research required.
And if it was on orbit it would not be so easy to shoot down with a manpad.
>Because you could launch the fricker directly into orbit of earth for about the same cost and research required.
let's do this right now
Back in the days of zeppelins flying carriers made sense as a concept, especially before radar they were the best method to cover hundreds of miles of sea for the fraction of a cost of a cruiser, the other preeminent scout of the time, at least before flying boats started coming out that could compete. Now we've got better methods to do that role, and I don't need to tell you why a flying steel carrier is fricking stupid.
Reminder that we almost got an aircraft carrier zeppelin.
We did get two. A substandard altimeter sunk one and sabotage sunk the other.
>almost
You know America had two aircraft carrying zepplins in service, right?
Sauce? And is it any good?
Kotobuku Flight something or other. It's interesting/alright. You're there for the plane porn.
The Magnificent Kotobuki. It's pretty awful, but when it comes to the niche of zeppelins you kinda take what you get.
ICBMs and long-range drones exist.
What if we put F-35s or Predator drones on top of an ICMB?
hoyl crap
Consider how much force whatever fans/engines/etc. would have to exert on the ground underneath them to keep the carrier in the air; it'd be a localized natural disaster wherever it went
Plus, it'd be logistically simpler/easier to just have longer-range aircraft from various global land bases
>localized natural disaster wherever it went
I like this idea more now, it's like a Project Pluto that can do force projection. Not only can you launch aircraft from it, but you just park the damn thing over another target and cause more havoc. What's the enemy gonna do, shoot it down and wreck the city over which it hovers? Can the thrusters be some sort of nuclear powered jet for even greater effect?
Self-evidently stupid frick off.
Don't need all that shit on that carrier. Just drones, Predators, TB2s and thousands of Octo and Quads plus AMMO. Lots and lots of AMMO.
It's literally a fricking
Size factor
Airborne drone carrier is more plausible.
Manned aircraft carrier require more space, sleeping cabin, food storage, hygiene related facility, etc, and the support staffs that maintain everything and the room to house those support staffs
They actually were! The USS Akron and USS Macron were zeppelin aircraft carriers.