We should make three smaller carriers that can combine into a larger one. Not because there's any practical purpose, but to make other countries waste money to do the same.
>Billions wasted on boondoggle >Global South seethe anyway, wastes even more money on their own version >Naval recruitment up (frick yeah, giant combining aircraft carrier!) >Linking technology used to enable refilling VLS at sea
Honestly, it could still work out.
More than 100,000 ships are at sea and sinking or taking major damage due to broken welds is exceedingly rare.
I can only think of two cases off the top of my head and they were those really long ore carriers in heavy seas.
Pretty much. Capacity for 60-90 aircraft is the sweet spot. Less than that, and it’s an inefficient allocation of resources . Any more than that, and you start running into issues with command and control.
Good point, we should make it fly as well. And give it a frickhuge cannon, like Schwerer Gustav sized
I just scheduled an hour in the boardroom for you two. When you come out I expect you to deodorize the room and have a proposal I can give to my uncle who works at Namco.
that is very much a sonar, not a bulbous bow you munt.
the most efficient bulbous bow is very dong shaped. what you're looking at is the compromise shape that is primarily sonar but attempts to gain some small benefit from wake cancellation too.
on top of that bulbous bows are not nearly as efficient on tumblehome hulls, which OP's picture has for some moronic reason.
What if we made a submersible aircraft carrier, and instead of using pilots we used unmanned vehicles capable of reaching orbit, and what if we loaded those unmanned vehicles with a bunch of nukes!
I mean, sure. It would work, but there's no real use case for it.
Aircraft carriers exist to bully shit hole countries with impervious air superiority. However, it's much better of an idea to just use capture an existing airfield in the country you're invading.
Which is basically the purpose of a carrier. It's an aircraft staging point until a conventional airfield can be captured.
What does a single ship the size of 3 aircraft carriers accomplish that 3 aircraft carriers in a formation together can't do? The only use of a "super-carrier" I can think of isn't even as a "true" aircraft carrier but rather as a floating full-size runway to land big ass supply planes on and distribute stuff to the rest of the fleet, and even then you can land some surprisingly big planes on modern carriers anyways.
I get the feeling it would break apart in high seas when you have the hulls rising and falling in the waves at slightly different times, causing the connecting deck parts to flex and eventually snap. I believe they are already having this problem at a smaller scale in the LCS.
Several problems.
1. Enormous cost
2. Putting all your eggs in one basket.
3. Horrible maneuverability.
4. No dock in the World would be able to support it
I want to go beyond full moron, how about a carrier on five circular platforms with the propellers on tracks so they can rotate around and allow it to drive in any direction so it can drift?
diminishing returns. 2 carriers that can independently command and navigate are better than 1 superdupercarrier. Conventional carriers can maneuver in formation better and allow more versatility. These would absolutely be the best and allow highly efficient operation, but at the cost of larger crews with soft issues like maintenance regularity and general order, too many cooks sorta deal that large ships already deal with. And 1 of these would cost about as much as 3 or 4 regular carriers, so why put all eggs in one basket?
Problem with death star concepts is that it's a lot of resources centralised in one location. A lot of eggs in one basket, a lot to lose.
Plus it can only be in one place at one time
just build another one
We should make three smaller carriers that can combine into a larger one. Not because there's any practical purpose, but to make other countries waste money to do the same.
no then we would run the risk of pne of our idiot generals thinking it's a good idea and blowing billions on
>Billions wasted on boondoggle
>Global South seethe anyway, wastes even more money on their own version
>Naval recruitment up (frick yeah, giant combining aircraft carrier!)
>Linking technology used to enable refilling VLS at sea
Honestly, it could still work out.
>An Aircraft Carrier Megazord
Pic related
yeah
I'm not a boat orthopedist but I feel like you're putting a lot of trust in the joins between those hulls
More than 100,000 ships are at sea and sinking or taking major damage due to broken welds is exceedingly rare.
I can only think of two cases off the top of my head and they were those really long ore carriers in heavy seas.
there were studies done on Ultracarriers, they were deemed very not worth it. Supercarriers are the sweetspot.
Pretty much. Capacity for 60-90 aircraft is the sweet spot. Less than that, and it’s an inefficient allocation of resources . Any more than that, and you start running into issues with command and control.
Your better off making a huge one out of Pykrete…
thaaaaaaank you.
have fun trying to sink this one.
This should unironically be the final enemy in a WW2 themed AC style game.
I just scheduled an hour in the boardroom for you two. When you come out I expect you to deodorize the room and have a proposal I can give to my uncle who works at Namco.
No. The Midway class carriers proved there was a limit to how practical it was to have as many warplanes as possible stuffed into one hull.
It needs to be in at least one arcade-ish game of some manner.
In Battletech, tanks and aircraft OWN YOU, mechwarrior.
Why the frick does it have sonar domes? And why the frick does each hull have one?
>he doesn't know what a bolbous bow is
that is very much a sonar, not a bulbous bow you munt.
the most efficient bulbous bow is very dong shaped. what you're looking at is the compromise shape that is primarily sonar but attempts to gain some small benefit from wake cancellation too.
on top of that bulbous bows are not nearly as efficient on tumblehome hulls, which OP's picture has for some moronic reason.
Bulbous bows protrude forward of the bow. Those go down, which is bad for hydrodynamics, but good for sonar.
Probably costs 20 times more and no harbour or dock can handle it.
and a trimaran does not turn worth a frick (because it can't heel) so it's going to be vastly easier to hit
It's so big that it won't sink by other than a direct nukular hit.
What if we made a submersible aircraft carrier, and instead of using pilots we used unmanned vehicles capable of reaching orbit, and what if we loaded those unmanned vehicles with a bunch of nukes!
I mean, sure. It would work, but there's no real use case for it.
Aircraft carriers exist to bully shit hole countries with impervious air superiority. However, it's much better of an idea to just use capture an existing airfield in the country you're invading.
Which is basically the purpose of a carrier. It's an aircraft staging point until a conventional airfield can be captured.
What does a single ship the size of 3 aircraft carriers accomplish that 3 aircraft carriers in a formation together can't do? The only use of a "super-carrier" I can think of isn't even as a "true" aircraft carrier but rather as a floating full-size runway to land big ass supply planes on and distribute stuff to the rest of the fleet, and even then you can land some surprisingly big planes on modern carriers anyways.
And if that is your design goal, it’d probably be much easier to design a big floating barge type thing than a regular aircraft carrier but bigger
Naturally, someone already thought of that. I think they basically linked oil rigs together though.
They really did consider a dual landing deck design
You might as well make it fly, would be more practical
Good point, we should make it fly as well. And give it a frickhuge cannon, like Schwerer Gustav sized
Makes it a beam cannon, to save weight on ammo.
And instead of jet planes make it carry giant robots that can fly.
Gentlemen, I propose a new axiom.
>Mecha's Law
Mecha is just short for "mechanical" you absolute moron.
…yes, and it refers to a specific genre in Japan. Is this the first time you are finding this out??
why the planes side-by-side on the runway though
I get the feeling it would break apart in high seas when you have the hulls rising and falling in the waves at slightly different times, causing the connecting deck parts to flex and eventually snap. I believe they are already having this problem at a smaller scale in the LCS.
Looks like GI Joe as frick
fund it
Several problems.
1. Enormous cost
2. Putting all your eggs in one basket.
3. Horrible maneuverability.
4. No dock in the World would be able to support it
yeah
Submarine supercarrier when bros?
(although tbh even in the game it wasn't thaaaat useful)
yall don't have them already?
I want to go beyond full moron, how about a carrier on five circular platforms with the propellers on tracks so they can rotate around and allow it to drive in any direction so it can drift?
diminishing returns. 2 carriers that can independently command and navigate are better than 1 superdupercarrier. Conventional carriers can maneuver in formation better and allow more versatility. These would absolutely be the best and allow highly efficient operation, but at the cost of larger crews with soft issues like maintenance regularity and general order, too many cooks sorta deal that large ships already deal with. And 1 of these would cost about as much as 3 or 4 regular carriers, so why put all eggs in one basket?
Instead we must go backwards to go fowards.