https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/07/a-real-flying-aircraft-carrier-the-u-s-militarys-plan-to-dominate-the-future/
MARVEL PREDICTED THE FUTURE
REMINDER CHINA DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A CVN
AMERICA FUCK YEAH
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/07/a-real-flying-aircraft-carrier-the-u-s-militarys-plan-to-dominate-the-future/
MARVEL PREDICTED THE FUTURE
REMINDER CHINA DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A CVN
>China doesn't have jump belt equipped infantry
>China doesn't have air droppable recce bots and weather stations
>China doesn't have flying artillery vehicles
It's over
All of those things require EMP-proof hardware.
China can make EMPs.
EMP is a meme
>detonate a nuke over a country with significantly more nuclear firepower than you.
Great plan.
Cope for low techies. 3-D armies are the future.
you're playing too much Modern Warfare 2 bud
"EMPs" are nukes and there are aircraft that are EMP proof.
And if you detonate a nuclear device, you are dead.
We had those in the 30's, wtf is the big deal?
We're going to have actual helicarriers now. Probably something like this if my calculations are correct.
Dumb question, but why would it need a huge runway? I'm pretty sure any modern aircraft could just drop from it with minimal acceleration and easily take flight. The only exception I think would be a fully loaded bomber, but why would you put a bomber, which usually has massive range, in a carrier?
gotta land somewhere
But the point would be to deaccelerate the aircraft , but in the pic that thing is clearly has jet propulsion and wouldn't be standing still relative to the ground. This means that, at the right angle, the landing aircraft only has to match it's speed, which is clearly fast enough to maintain lift.
it's getting its lift from its copter rotors, not from wings. it's basically an updated version of the old dirigible carrier, with the giant hydrogen bag replaced by some nuclear reactors and a shitton of copter rotors.
>it's getting its lift from its copter rotors
Which rotors? There are no rotors in the pic.
every single aircraft in that mockup has vertical lift rotors built into the wings
Ok, I will explain it as dumbly as possible:
>Big airship has big jet
>Means it is moving fast relative to ground
>Small aircraft moves fast relative to ground
>But small aircraft isn't moving relative to big aircraft
>Small aircraft can vertical land by simply matching big aircraft speed
>The reverse applies when taking off, small aircraft can drop off and doesn't need much time to go fast
So why does big aircraft need big runaway when the point of big runaway is for aircraft to accelerate/deaccelerate and not crash?
it doesn't
that fricking painting is just an artists representation of what he thinks looks cool
it should be noted that a large deck is helpful to quickly stage, fuel and arm a large number of VTOL aircraft to launch at one time
also, a short runway would allow for SVTOL takeoff with full fuel/armament when most any VTOL has a severe weight restriction when actually vertically taking off
there are some things that are seriously overlooked with this render though, like are you really going to have people walking around on an unprotected 'deck' at the cruising speed of a jet? How about having people casually walking around when it looks like they are flying miles above the fricking clouds? surely having a large proctected 'hangar' with a small takeoff/landing area would be a better use of space
How would you power this shit and keep it in the air?
Where would you land it?
You dont land it, it will probably be assembled in the air and and the nuclear power keeps it in the air for a very long time
why aren't the aircraft on these things ever powered by whatever makes the carrier viable
Am I alone thinking the reliance on above water carriers in case of WW3 is dub as shit? All these will be probably shot by a satellite guided hypersonic missile in the first 2 weeks.
Wouldn’t it be better to try to create some mega submarine carriers which could remain hidden under water until it’s time to strike.
The point of aircraft carriers (at least US ones) isn't to carry aircrafts, it's just a function it has. They are more of mobile operation/command centers from which you gather, process and pass information, while also being able to deploy troops, ships and aircraft for combat and self-defense.
Submarines can communicate underwater, but not as effectively as you'd need for an aircraft carrier. And if they poke an antenna out, then by all means they'd be just as vulnerable to hypersonic missiles from space.
>poking an antenna above the waves
>when ULF can penetrate meters of seawater
>and spread out a towed array or buoy instead
>as if the satellites won't notice your shadow from being near periscope depth anyway
No, because satellite guidance isn't great.
GLOSNASS and BeiDou suck and the US has full control over GPS.
And during actual WW3, don't expect any of those Satellites to remain in orbit for long.
> my calculations
You can’t count past 10 you dumb Black person.
It would be so easy to shoot down
This is just as fricking stupid as the nuclear powered flying hotel.
This is just economically unfeasible.
>ACK
1 issue sends trillions down the drain.
Brb taking a shit that's relatable to the opinions in this thread.
>1 issue sends trillions down the drain.
And?
Thundercuck fan I see
>Baww my cognitive bias and hard to accept realities
And that's why our country is filled with morons.
so battlefield 2049 was the future?
a big flying target saying shoot me, unless we get laser point defense systems actually working it's going to crash and burn, literally
You can say this about literally any aircraft carrier at sea. The air doesn't make it more vulnerable, if anything it makes it harder to hit because of cloud coverage and fighter escorts that can cover literally any direction.
Finally, it's time for flying battleships
SARABA CHIKYUU YO
You're a fricking moron and so is anyone that thinks that this is anywhere near feasible.
t. morons who don't understand future war
air refueling tankers exist so this is dumb and you are dumb for falling for this clickbait.
can't you take a B52 or something and strap two aircraft under its wings?
that's basically a flying carrier
aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin
Now build an F35 variant that can do that.
Or idk, drones.
Hopefully the Chinese don't start conscripting mutes
>Nuclear power turboprop
>Carries drones
Yep, its an arsenal bird
How would you power such a thing?
It seems like the only viable option would be nuclear but it would restrict them to using propellers
To get past the clickbait, the actual "carrier" is a C-130 that can deploy, recover and refuel X-61 Gremlin drones.
That being said, the Gremlin ain't that impressive.
>65kg payload
What could you even fit on there other than just a warhead?
Somewhere, Dale Brown just nutted without knowing why
Was getting recovered part of your plan?
If I took away your parasite drones, would it be painful?
I think it's cool. Drones using drones is the coolest shit.
Cool. I'll believe it when I see it because physics will always be an issue.
a normal aircraft carrier is like 99,000 metric tons, propellers cannot handle that kind of weight... Even half or a third of that weight would be impossible to airlift by propellers. How do they plan to make the whole thing fly and keep it flying in the air ? not to mention the cost in fuel... unless they china'd alien technology and have some anti-grav going on...
Heaviest plane was 800 tons
Lightest aircraft carrier was 8,000 tons
We can stretch
h
>19fortyfive.com
>By Sandboxx News
>Alex Hollings
>He holds a master’s degree in Communication, as well as a bachelor’s degree in Corporate and Organizational Communications
>soiboy.jpg related
?
At last the time has come.
This is the worst fricking idea. Modern EWS and Radar is constantly becoming more advanced and would ping that shit so fricking fast. You can't hide something as large as that. Any capability that it offers is offset by something else that does it better. If it's really there for drone pickup/dispersal, why not redevelop the drones for further maximum range.
>If it's really there for drone pickup/dispersal, why not redevelop the drones for further maximum range.
Range of a C-130: 2,300 miles
Range of the onboard drone: 350 miles
Range of the cute lil' tankbusting missiles on the drone: 10 miles
So the whole system allows you to give one particular butthole a really bad fricking day from 2,660 miles away
Yeah man, I know. That's why I'm saying just redevelop the drones for further range. If the worry is that it makes it a bigger target, then what is the c130 going to do in your example when it is having to fly close enough to launch this drone.
The whole premise is that in a mission where your aircraft needs to go from point A to point B, engage a target, and return, there are multiple challenges it has to go through, and an aircraft made to specialize in one of these won't be as efficient in the other requirements of the mission.
Thus, if it needs to do only one thing, you can make the best possible aircraft at that task.
To make an example:
Let's say you have 3 targets 50 miles apart 2.4k miles away, albeit their exact locations aren't known or you need to visually confirm targets. You have air superiority in the first 2.1k miles and are unlikely to engage against hostiles. The next 300 miles are in range of enemy aircraft and AA defense systems.
So, here are your options:
1. Fly some highly expensive drones that have bomber-range capabilities that will also need some stealth fucntionality and be able to reach, locate and destroy the targets before hopefully returning (given their high cost per unit).
2. Fly a cheaper long-range aircraft for the first 2.1k miles, perhaps escorted, deploy cheap short range drones that only need to stealthy and locate and bomb targets before returning to the carrier.
3. Fly a squadron of highly expensive long-range aircraft into enemy territory.
It's a temporary moving long range base that can deploy cheap and expendable short range units. In theory, it works better than having to build everything in your arsenal for long range engagement, in practice, the energy requirements and practicality of deploying and recovering aircraft in a larger moving aircraft makes the idea not feasible.
Soon
Is this like the XM-8, where some military guy saw Starship Troopers and said he wanted one of those guns? Except with the Avengers flying carrier
>t: physicslet
US already produces less energy than China. To win, it needs more energy-efficient weapons, not less.
why does the US keep copying Ace Combat?
>implying Russia isn't turning into Belka
Reality is copying Ace Combat
Anon, Ace Combat was a documentary.
Picture it.
>tfw i will live to build my own fighter jet using parts taken from an aircraft graveyard
>US finally defeats the Russian and Chinese threats by lining the West coast with Stonehenge cannons and rendering nukes obsolete
They suck they all failed. Littleraly money laundering