Do you have adblock enabled?
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 20
    More: Stupid, U.S. Navy, MSNBC, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter  
•       •       •

20398 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2012 at 11:25 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-05-06 11:29:56 AM  
12 votes:
And this is how you know someone had a deadline to meet, and went and saw Avengers instead.
2012-05-06 07:45:17 AM  
6 votes:
They'd be unstoppable because there is no such thing as an air torpedo.
2012-05-06 11:30:09 AM  
3 votes:
Because when a 110,000 ton nuclear aircraft carrier crashes from 35,000 ft it will be awesome.
2012-05-06 02:49:30 PM  
2 votes:
Who needs a carrier when you have a farking chronosphere?

iam837.org
BAM! Instant farking F/A-18s
2012-05-06 11:59:58 AM  
2 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
2012-05-06 10:55:39 AM  
2 votes:
Can we get one that's commanded by Angelina Jolie?

/because that would be even cooler
2012-05-06 01:31:16 PM  
1 votes:

Arcturus72:
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...


So to recap: A flying aircraft carrier would be limited to the same areas as a floating one, but with much higher energy consumption and liability.

Well, jeez, why don't we have five of them yet?
2012-05-06 12:40:42 PM  
1 votes:
I'm sure FlyNavy is busy working on this top secret project.
2012-05-06 12:40:41 PM  
1 votes:
What we really need is something more like an inter-dimensional city ship from which we can launch invasions. I want to have the sun blotted out as a rip in reality is created and the might and majesty of the US military pours through like demons out of hell. I also want a T-rex that shoots flame from its mouth.
2012-05-06 12:34:56 PM  
1 votes:

LoneWolf343: Look, I LOVED that movie, but the sky carrier was one of the dumber parts (how the President seems to have no say in the launching of a nuclear weapon was the dumbest.) The only advantage I can think of is that the carrier would no longer need to go around continents anymore, and the sheer cost, effort, and fuel consumption required to design, build and deploy such a ship would simply not be worth it.


Course, if Arc reactors were a possibility....


Hell, use thorium reactors. They're legit, and doesn't have that pesky nuclear explosion issue that uranium reactors have.
2012-05-06 11:57:17 AM  
1 votes:
The OSI has one. If course it is a secret and used to fight the Guild of Calamitous Intent
2012-05-06 11:53:04 AM  
1 votes:
I also love how the answer notes that the US is taking the cost effective approach over the posed question.
2012-05-06 11:47:30 AM  
1 votes:
media.giantbomb.com
2012-05-06 11:35:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:33:27 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:32:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:09:24 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:05:00 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:27:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:25:14 AM  
1 votes:
www.mojoimage.com
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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