If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bmore Art)   MSNBC tech writer: Navy, y u no flying carrier?   (futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 182
    More: Stupid, U.S. Navy, MSNBC, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter  
•       •       •

20387 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2012 at 11:25 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



182 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-06 02:25:14 AM  
www.mojoimage.com
 
2012-05-06 07:45:17 AM  
They'd be unstoppable because there is no such thing as an air torpedo.
 
2012-05-06 07:47:06 AM  
GIS "Flying Aircraft Carrier" There's some wow to be seen there but I think those craft will be limited to paperback book covers.
 
2012-05-06 08:41:46 AM  

gopher321: [www.mojoimage.com image 460x362]


Yes, but this question is so Dumb it actually transcends stupidity and goes straight into WTF? Without even passing through the intervening phases of Pot Head and Republican.
 
2012-05-06 09:27:55 AM  

Ed Finnerty: They'd be unstoppable because there is no such thing as an air torpedo.


Yeah, but a single motorcycle can take it out.
 
2012-05-06 10:05:00 AM  
I think we saw in Avengers why it's a good idea NOT to have a flying helicarrier...
I mean, it looked awesome but if something happens to it, you'd better have a flying superhero around.
 
2012-05-06 10:09:24 AM  
Seems to me the dumb part is thinking it'd be good to strap some thrusters on a Nimitz class carrier and off we go. An airborne aircraft carrier would need to be completely redesigned and even its role would be changed, it'd be completely distinct from what sails on the seas, perhaps just a suspended runway platform with refuelling capabilities, it could take the weight of a few planes and crew but not thousands of crew and hundreds of planes. I'm sure if there was a pressing need for such a thing it could be achieved.
 
2012-05-06 10:17:42 AM  
Like in the movie? No.

But if you had the desire for something like it, we could build one like a zeppelin. A little vulnerable, but with modern weapons systems it would be defensible enough.
 
2012-05-06 10:52:25 AM  
www.history.navy.mil

See the little plane at the bottom?
 
2012-05-06 10:55:39 AM  
Can we get one that's commanded by Angelina Jolie?

/because that would be even cooler
 
2012-05-06 11:10:16 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [www.history.navy.mil image 640x514]

See the little plane at the bottom?


A Hindenburg sized dirigible can lift something like 250 tons.

That's more than enough lift for some of the good shiat. Why use planes? A predator drone only weighs about one ton. even if the crew, equipment and everything weighed 150 tons, you can have almost 100 drones.
 
2012-05-06 11:29:22 AM  
You went with the USS Los Angeles? Pfft.

www.history.navy.mil

The USS Macon thinks you can go bigger.

And before anybody screams Hindenburg, these mofos used helium, not hydrogen.
 
2012-05-06 11:29:56 AM  
And this is how you know someone had a deadline to meet, and went and saw Avengers instead.
 
2012-05-06 11:30:09 AM  
Because when a 110,000 ton nuclear aircraft carrier crashes from 35,000 ft it will be awesome.
 
2012-05-06 11:31:37 AM  
They're called space stations.
 
2012-05-06 11:32:11 AM  

Lux Lambert: You went with the USS Los Angeles? Pfft.

[www.history.navy.mil image 640x531]

The USS Macon thinks you can go bigger.

And before anybody screams Hindenburg, these mofos used helium, not hydrogen.


And what about that are we still not getting?

/Obviously the core concept.
 
2012-05-06 11:32:32 AM  
This provides a similar capability that's actually feasible:

www.fas.org

Considering that we can launch bombers from Louisiana to bomb Iraq and then return, why do we need a flying aircraft carrier?
 
2012-05-06 11:32:34 AM  
what is this, I don't even
 
2012-05-06 11:33:27 AM  
For now, the U.S. Navy seems happy with the cost-efficiency and flexibility of its floating aircraft carriers

You don't say.
 
2012-05-06 11:35:27 AM  

dukeblue219: Considering that we can launch bombers from Louisiana to bomb Iraq and then return, why do we need a flying aircraft carrier?


And...the B-52 can launch cruise missiles, which are little kamikaze aircraft anyway, so one could make an argument that a B-52 is an aircraft carrier.
 
2012-05-06 11:35:56 AM  

Lux Lambert: You went with the USS Los Angeles? Pfft.

[www.history.navy.mil image 640x531]

The USS Macon thinks you can go bigger.

And before anybody screams Hindenburg, these mofos used helium, not hydrogen.



Yea. Because the Macon was such a good idea.

upload.wikimedia.org
Macon 2006
 
2012-05-06 11:36:07 AM  
I wouldn't mind seeing a flying runway that could provide enough room to launch and receive vertical take-off drones. But, a standard looking Nimitz that could fly?

Why not just throw 4000 Navy personnel off a bridge, crush several hundred civilians, destroy a trillion dollars of navy equipment, and set off a nuclear bomb in San Diego and call it a day?
 
2012-05-06 11:36:22 AM  

Lux Lambert: You went with the USS Los Angeles? Pfft.

[www.history.navy.mil image 640x531]

The USS Macon thinks you can go bigger.

And before anybody screams Hindenburg, these mofos used helium, not hydrogen.


But they all still crashed in storms. LTA are generally not feasible except for limited situations, like selling beer advertising over sporting events.

As cool as they can be, they are niche aircraft at best.

/Failed my GED in aeronautical engineering, so I may be wrong
 
2012-05-06 11:37:25 AM  
"The number and size of the thrusters required to lift the carrier, the number and size of the engines to drive them, the fuel to keep the engines running, etc., all sum to make the system unrealistic."

Well I bet that doesn't stop the Navy from spending millions on a feasibility study anyway.
 
2012-05-06 11:37:59 AM  

Julie Cochrane: They're called space stations.


My first thought as well.

/..er..this!
 
2012-05-06 11:41:49 AM  
I don't submit stories to Fark, as I'm not one for banging my head against a wall, but I hope someone gets this through - there's some serious damage in Japan from a tornado. Luckily (or should I say "Ruckiry," since this is Fark?), just one dead, but 30 injured (the link is to video of the extensive damage):

Link
 
2012-05-06 11:42:03 AM  
Don't give congress any ideas. Next thing you know they'll be trying to build such a monstrosity until figure out it isn't technologically feasible (we did this before with SDI) .

/Actually, someone needs to convince congress to build a space defense platform so we can continue to improve space-faring technology
 
2012-05-06 11:42:08 AM  
Seriously. Fuel-wise, in terms of projecting power across a volume of territory like an aircraft carrier does, you're best to stick a craft in a low orbit that it doesn't take all that much fuel to maintain, then launch carried craft and perhaps descend somewhat into a lower orbit to pick them up.

Possibly the way to handle the thrust to move the carrier around would be for the carrier to be nuclear powered (fusion, maybe?) and heat matter to plasma level temps and eject it out the engines.

The carried craft could be scramjets/ramjets. That's gotta be one motherfark of a tailhook.
 
2012-05-06 11:42:39 AM  
tomWright:

But they all still crashed in storms. LTA are generally not feasible except for limited situations, like selling beer advertising over sporting events.

I guess the point I think I was trying to make, yes, I know every Navy zeppelin not named the Los Angeles went down in storms, but that's also with 1930s aviation technology. I don't see why the concept of a large-scale LTA craft like that has been so thoroughly abandoned when I can't imagine it being that hard to fix many of the issues with it via modern technology.

Granted, it'll still be niche, but as long as you aren't even remotely trying to make it stealth I don't see why you couldn't get a very long-cycling aircraft that could be in the air as long as a carrier's at sea without too much trouble.
 
2012-05-06 11:42:44 AM  

doglover: That's more than enough lift for some of the good shiat. Why use planes? A predator drone only weighs about one ton. even if the crew, equipment and everything weighed 150 tons, you can have almost 100 drones.


Now that actually sounds feasible. Remember, the Macon was also able to retrieve the biplanes as well. Predator recovery would be practical, while jet recovery would not.
 
2012-05-06 11:44:07 AM  
Dibs on Rhapsody Angel.
 
2012-05-06 11:45:54 AM  

Lux Lambert: You went with the USS Los Angeles? Pfft.

[www.history.navy.mil image 640x531]

The USS Macon thinks you can go bigger.

And before anybody screams Hindenburg, these mofos used helium, not hydrogen.


A high altitude one of those with drones would be pretty badass. If you could figure out a way to land/refuel them on the thing...... but I'm sure it could be done.
 
2012-05-06 11:46:10 AM  
Right, because right now our military has such a great record for building flying contraptions that are even incremental steps forward in technology.
.
Build a flying carrier and you'd have to threaten me with court martial for desertion during time of war to get me to set foot on one - I figure the outcome for me would be about the same either way.
 
2012-05-06 11:46:21 AM  

actualhuman: And before anybody screams Hindenburg, these mofos used helium, not hydrogen.

And what about that are we still not getting?

/Obviously the core concept.


The whole explody burney thing.
 
2012-05-06 11:46:50 AM  

dukeblue219: This provides a similar capability that's actually feasible:

[www.fas.org image 640x389]

Considering that we can launch bombers from Louisiana to bomb Iraq and then return, why do we need a flying aircraft carrier?


The same logistical reasons why we need naval aircraft carriers.

I admit, the flying idea is kinda lame to me - but the reasons are the same.
 
2012-05-06 11:47:03 AM  
Because it's stupid, that's why.
 
2012-05-06 11:47:30 AM  
media.giantbomb.com
 
2012-05-06 11:47:59 AM  

Dalek Caan's doomed mistress: And this is how you know someone had a deadline to meet, and went and saw Avengers instead.


(Golf clap)
 
2012-05-06 11:48:07 AM  

pjbreeze: "The number and size of the thrusters required to lift the carrier, the number and size of the engines to drive them, the fuel to keep the engines running, etc., all sum to make the system unrealistic."

Well I bet that doesn't stop the Navy from spending millions on a feasibility study anyway.


As someone paid by the Navy to do feasibility studies, I approve!
 
2012-05-06 11:50:22 AM  

My first thought when I saw that flying carrier is, "If one of those thrusters is taken out they are farked."


And now that I think about it, why in the hell was SHEILD not able to put on a massive propulsion system like Iron Man has on his suit? I really doubt that SHIELD is really capable of protecting the Earth.

 
2012-05-06 11:51:47 AM  
"That reality rests upon the simple fact that it's much cheaper to float, rather than fly, the weight of a huge aircraft carrier"

This is pretty much the same reason a 'flying car' is impractical. Cheaper/easier/safer to let the planet provide the support, and the engine(s) provide the forward momentum.
 
2012-05-06 11:52:31 AM  
The big technical issues with an aircraft carrier space station are:

Cost per kg of getting mass into orbit, in constant dollars, is unchanged since the 1960's---it's still farking hyoooge.

Any orbit low enough to be useful is going to require constant "boost" thrusts to keep it from decaying.

The math to match velocities for scramjet pickup is complex--not to mention all the existing engineering issues with scramjets.

We do not have an existing fusion plasma engine, the engineering does not exist, it is...challenging.

Any such carrier would almost certainly have to be built in space, with all that implies, and we've never done anything remotely approaching that challenge level.

It would all have to be airtight, and would have to hold up, flying re-entered in Earth's atmo, at supersonic speeds, after having been assembled in space, by astronauts, in space suits.

Conceptually, it's beautiful. In engineering terms, we are a long, long, long way away from getting anywhere near it.
 
2012-05-06 11:53:04 AM  
I also love how the answer notes that the US is taking the cost effective approach over the posed question.
 
2012-05-06 11:53:12 AM  

Lux Lambert: I don't see why the concept of a large-scale LTA craft like that has been so thoroughly abandoned when I can't imagine it being that hard to fix many of the issues with it via modern technology.


The F-22, F-35, and X-33 all appear to be counter-examples.

I love tech as much as the next person, but a lot of times "modern technology" is overblown. While the new fighters struggle with basic shiat like functional life-support systems, our KISS fighters from the '70s are doing all the heavy lifting.
 
2012-05-06 11:53:23 AM  

bulldg4life: I wouldn't mind seeing a flying runway that could provide enough room to launch and receive vertical take-off drones. But, a standard looking Nimitz that could fly?


Why do you need the runway? Just provide attachment points and drop them like cruise missiles. There's no need for a runway to accelerate to flight speed if you can just drop them off into the air anyway. If you need to recover them, have them land on a real runway somewhere, or even return and dock with the mothership or drop into a net or whatever.
 
2012-05-06 11:54:26 AM  

Ennuipoet: gopher321: [www.mojoimage.com image 460x362]

Yes, but this question is so Dumb it actually transcends stupidity and goes straight into WTF? Without even passing through the intervening phases of Pot Head and Republican.


I dunno. I still recall the time in 1989 when Larry King Live devoted an entire episode with "experts" on the subject "Does Batman suffer from PTSD?".

And later he had a prime time show where he interviewed Bart Simpson and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Funny, I don't recall dropping acid in the 80's.
 
2012-05-06 11:54:46 AM  
They still wouldn't be able to out run the storm that sends them back to Dec 6, 1941.

/so not obscure
 
2012-05-06 11:55:18 AM  
A flying aircraft carrier?

images.wikia.com
 
2012-05-06 11:56:22 AM  

Julie Cochrane: Seriously. Fuel-wise, in terms of projecting power across a volume of territory like an aircraft carrier does, you're best to stick a craft in a low orbit that it doesn't take all that much fuel to maintain, then launch carried craft and perhaps descend somewhat into a lower orbit to pick them up.

Possibly the way to handle the thrust to move the carrier around would be for the carrier to be nuclear powered (fusion, maybe?) and heat matter to plasma level temps and eject it out the engines.

The carried craft could be scramjets/ramjets. That's gotta be one motherfark of a tailhook.


Fusion would be the only way this would even think about being possible. Fission makes too many long term problems if you have a small oopsie, while fusion half lifes are in the seconds to minutes, usually...

But there's one problem with making this thing work in the atmosphere... Take the shuttle during its launch: People and such have to be miles away to not be deafened, millions of gallons of water are also used for this and to ensure the platform is reusable, and then the exhaust goes out quite away also... And this thing is somewhat aerodynamic...

The "flying carrier", on the other hand, isn't in any way aerodynamic, so imagine the thrust, even spread out over 4 "jets" and how fraking much you would have to have, just to get it off the ground, much less maintaining a stable height... Insane, and would only be able to be done over an ocean... Fuggidabodit even coming over a populated area, much less a city...

And FYI, that tailhook idea, I imagine they would have to re-design the cockpit entirely, as well as the suit, to avoid killing the pilot with those negative G's...
 
2012-05-06 11:57:14 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: www.history.navy.mil

See the little plane at the bottom?



www.mbari.org
Now see the little plane REALLY at the bottom?
 
Displayed 50 of 182 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report