Can We Build a S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier With Our Current Technology?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- Could we actually build an airborne aircraft carrier like the one we see in the Marvel movies?
FACEBOOK: / generationfilms
INSTAGRAM: / thegenerationfilms
What we're reading and watching: www.amazon.com/shop/generatio...
FOLLOW OUR HOSTS
American Ben: / @americanbenjamin
Allen Xie: / thebeardedasianman
Ben Hedges: / benhedgesntd - Розваги
My head canon is that the helicarrier's rotor blades aren't there to generate lift but are actually giant cooling fans for whatever Stark tech *is* generating the lift.
Yes
Look at winter solider how did that float?
then why did stark not instantly know how to fix it when he had to scan it
@@plummet3860 alcohol is a helluva drug.
The rotors are later replaced with stark repulsor engines (the same things in iron man’s suit that lets him fly. Just a LOT bigger)
> Short answer: “No.”
> Long answer: “No and it would be really stupid.”
you just savied a whole lot my time... thanks man
Thanks
Short answer yes:) but not today or tommorow but in future
Short answer no
Long answer no
Verry long answer yes. .. it's possible aftr 2040
U mean like waging war with ur own species like that maybe
We could totally make one...
Getting it to actually fly is a different story.
Just change the propulsion to Anti-Gravity, and it's all good. :)
RFC-1925?
Anything can fly; if given sufficient thrust, pigs will fly.
But it's a bad idea to stand underneath as they go overhead.
@@halcionkoenig243 Exactly my thought I know we got that technology! (:
“ Helicarrier exists “
Missiles : interesting
Would we have anti missile tech if such a helicarrier was possible? AI guided lasers to shoot missiles out of the sky?
@@MrTaylork1 im pretty sure the ciws is made for that
@@zathary564 that’s for close range
@@zathary564 Yeah CIWS and interceptor missiles aren't 100% effective, and uh a single hit would knock the helicarrier down.
@@dprov1877 10 billion worth of middle or that 15 and higher helicarrier
Ballistic missiles: “It’s like I was made for this!”
Rail gun say hello
Long range radar are like “wtf ? , yo ICBM check this out u might like it “
Not ballistic missles. Cruise missles maybe. Ballistic missles are against static targets.
@@sanirday A craft that massive hanging in the air might as well be a static target for such munitions.
@@Krahazik Which is what makes it a dumb idea.
At the beginning of avenger, Cap asked if it was a "submarine". That however, is actually a way more tactically sounds idea, which the Japanese experimented with in WW2.
Ace Combat also experimented with this, and both of them found the idea "too expensive, and useless."
Actually, flying aircraft carriers were also experimented with, especially in the form of airships - but not in the form of rotor-lifted copies of aircraft carrier ships.
"Flying Drone Carrier"
All Aircraft, commence attack on the Arsenal Bird!
All aircraft, belay that, commence attack on THE SAME ROTOR of the Arsenal Bird!
Railgun go boom
See , just like what i say..
Three Strike!!!
Ahhhhhh memories
Omg what would happen to the Heli carrier had a bird strike
"A flying drone carrier is a much better option."
Ace Combat 7 players: No. Not really.
Yeah... this way it would look more like a game instead. And not really feel like you’re actually killing and blowing up innocent women and children.
@@javierbaron1856 I'll put my opion on that reply as a combat veteran. Drones have a place in modern combat. They do not, how ever, or should they ever replace a human. Casualties happen in war. Between combatants and civilians. It's an unfortunate aspect of it.
Robert E Lee once said "It is well war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."
Using drones turns war into a game and would lead to more of them.
*More space for drone yeyessssssss*
the f35 program is already slated to be assigned multiple drone fighters that are commanded by either the master f35 pilot or ground command. no word on a flying dock for the drones though. it would be feasable but probably not practical/economical/useful in the slightest.
@@joshbrock2663 well in Ace Combat Infinity there is "Buterfly Master" a pilot assisted by many flying drones alongside with her.
And don't forget how vulnerable it'll be. Take out one of the engines and you take out the entire carrier. Closing in on an actual carrier isn't easy. You have multiple ships always scanning the area around it. Above and below water. And if if you get close enough to attack it, a single torpedo won't be enough to take it out. The Helicarrier not only operates alone, it can also be destroyed by a single missile to the engine....
Which is why you have redundancies in place and the capability to maintain altitude/make controlled descent if half the engines are disabled.
Haha Swedish submarine go brrrr
@Gaius Wyrden Yeah, that could work XD
@@Zorro9129 Considering the size of the rotors needed... where do you put your "back-up" or redundant rotors? There's also the question of balance. It's an absolutely impractical design. The Germans once designed radiators in the wings of their best piston fighter model and that improved its performance greatly. But on the practical side, the radiator wing design meant a few rounds to the wings and the fighter would quickly overheat and engine would seize. Your design has to work under combat conditions. The Germans scrapped the radiator wing concept.
@@fakshen1973 the he100, was one of the fastest piston planes of the time period too, it would work great for a passenger plane
The helicarrier isn't only an airborne carrier though, it also functions as a conventional aircraft carrier so it absolutely does need a flight deck.
i was about to mention this too
He also assumes that the helicarrier flies at the speed of a plane!
I'd be surprised if this thing could go more than 130kph. Which is too slow to launch any aircraft that doesn't have some means of vertical prepulshion. Like the f35 or the harrier
@@its2point072 huh? real carriers go 40 knots max and use catapults. Helicarriers are infeasible but not being fast enough is like problem 99 on the list.
It works as a stealth plane, submarine and normal carrier
Wtf...not enough speed? They can just fall of the edge.
Surprised to see noone talking about the russian Zveno project.
Those were big planes that carried, launched and retrieved fighters while in flight and actually flew succesfull combat missions during ww2
Or America's CL-1201 which I will admit was only on paper. Respect to the Zveno for actually being successful.
"We heard you like planes so we put more plane in your plane"
Its soviet success so obviously would act it never happened.
This is a western channel you know.
Literally a guy in a flying mech suit, Aliens, Robots, Sentient AI, Infinity Stones, and he asks can we build an aircraft carrier but high.
I mean i would if I was him
@@joewaten1243 I would've asked for catgirls
What so we’re building an aircraft carrier that codes drugs now?
@@commanderhopeful so you can finally get some tail?
And actually this is why the helicarrier is better sci-fi than the MCU's more recent stuff. It makes sense to question the possibility of it.
The helicarrier was introduced in the movies when the franchise was actually slightly more advanced, but still felt like normal world.
Now its full of abstract, unimaginably random things that either way too powerful or completely lacks of creativity. They either put quantum, or nanotech in it, and boom, another nonsense sold as a sci-fi thing.
All active and former air defence personnel:
"That's cute!"
Can we do this?
Short answer: I am by law required to say no
Long answer: *MEMETIC KILL AGENT ACTIVATED......LIFE SIGNS DETECTED DISENGAGING SAFETY LOCKS*
Fly outside the range of air defenses...
@@wwclay86 Except air to air. Carriers are useful where there are no installed air bases with superior fighter aircraft to what the carrier can support. Though technically it could be a mobile drone factory instead.
I laughed so hard when you pointed out the upper flight deck leads right into the rotor wash. good Video. :D
Easily fixed with having the upper flight deck be parallel with the lower one and the same length, just time the takeoffs so two planes aren’t launch at the same time. Or you could use the upper deck for VTOLs only.
@@matthew8153 I don't think the flight deck leading toward the rotor is supposed to be used during flight. Remember, it also operates as a naval carrier where both flight decks would be used.
@@matthew8153 THe upper deck could be recovery and VTOL and the lower could be launching.
You can launch the plane in reverse direction . There is no rotor at the back
@@spiritofthewolf15x Still a bad idea as if a craft misses the arrester wires then they need to be able to take off again.
The rotors are augmented with Stark's repulsor lift tech. Everything else spot on.
The newer mk2 heli carriers are augmented with Stark repulsor lift engines as seen in Age of Ultron. The mk 1's just used rotors and jet propulsion thrusters.
@@Stormkryptonian
You're both wrong. The ORIGINAL helicarrier (as in the S.H.I.E.L.D. comic book) had multiple, vertically mounted, large bore, jet turbine engines, mounted along both sides of the vessel.
The first helicarrier, in the MCU movie "The Avengers", had multi-blade rotors which supplied verticle thrust ONLY, and (ostensibly) large jet turbine engines aft to propel it forward. This is the SAME VEHICLE that was used in "Age of Ultron". It had simply been "mothballed" during the incidents leading to the construction and deployment of the "Project Incite" helicarriers, which utilized purely upscaled repulsar jets for verticle thrust. NONE of the helicarriers used hybrid rotor/repulsar engines.
Good information @Rotorhead - and more than likely, spot on.
However, the MCU is awash with something called “Plot Armour” - ergo it is entirely possible that Stark Industries “Hybrid Rotor / Repulsor” technology was in use all along, but this information was CLASSIFIED.
Nevertheless, kudos for your doubtlessly cannon information 😎
“A flying drone carrier would be easier”
Ace Combat 7 war flashbacks.
So the short answer is "No"... and the long answer is "NOOOOOOOO" :P
Yeah, pretty much, though it'd still be pretty cool, lol
@@QuantumAscension1 I agree the arguments and vid was still an awesome vid.. even tho I suspected from the start it was just going to be a nope.. ;)
Vidar Hiim I agree. While it looks cool it has one major and I mean MAJOR weaknesses; THE ENGINES, THE FRICKIN ENGINES. I mean all you really have to do is take out one, JUST ONE of the engines and GOODBYE HELICARRIER.
Very Long answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Super Long answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
@@nobpyxl5389 that's what the pilots scream right after takeing off from the seconds runway.
Short answer: no. Long answer: Yes, but it'll be a blimp.
OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!!
Ad victoriam brother
Longer answer : Yes it will be a blimp but it will be Steampunk and obsolete before it takes off
Oh darn !!! I was hoping to see whole countries OBLITERATED !!!
It would make Lucifer proud of us.
this some bioshock shiz
So basically instead of a flying aircraft carrier you're predicting we'll see something more on the concept of the Arsenal Bird in Ace Combat 7
In the show the Great Kotobuki, a flying carrier is a giant Zeppelin with an open flight deck under the command structure. Its open on the front for wind speed and the back for landing.
Suddenly Daredevil music started playing...
Its official. You're my "guy to watch while stoned" guy. You speak well.
Thank god I’m not the only one
For humanity to be able to recreate something like the Helicarrier, we'd need to advance a tier into the Kardashev Scale first
How many people do you subscribe to I’ve seen you in almost every comment section to Alt History Star Wars Marvel etc how much time do u have
@@ClayandPapyrus it is possiple that this is all he does
There is no need to advance a tier into Kardashev Scale in order to build such a ship. These are completely unrelated.
@@zbyszanna if we became that advanced we could build hundreds of helicarriers
I feel we could build one even now but it's be an impractical waste of money and resources that would function like a "GREAT VALUE" version of the actual helicarrier seen in the comic/movie.
After all in the end it's just a giant helicopter... and we could do that.
But it couldn't function as neither a helicopter nor a carrier. Just a large unstable slab of metal and fuel tanks we decided to lift up in the air using a lot lot rotors.
Maybe you could even land a plane on it!
But it'd burn enough fuel while hovering a couple meters off the ground for a day to supply the entire US airforce for a year.
And It would be completely useless as well.
When he mentioned the flying drone carrier, my brain went straight to the Arsenal Birds from Ace Combat 7: Skies Unknown, anyone else or am I just a super nerd?
nope you not the only one
I thought of both the Arsenal Bird from 7 and that one manned air carrier from another ace combat game awhile back can't remember what it was called though.
Ace combat 6 forget the name
Ace combat 6 was fires of liberation
Mobius 1, Fox 2!
Luke Skywalker: seeing the Helicarrier take off: I ... DON'T BELIEVE IT!
Yoda: Warned the engineers I did, space magic I said they would need! It flies using Jedi Crew.
Us: Why can't we have nice things?
Physics, Politics, and History: Allow us to introduce ourselves.
Physicists said we’d never have nukes, Bill Gates said 640K memory is all anyone would ever need, politicians said the USSR will last forever, history proved amphibious assaults to be failures.
Never say America can’t do something.
weight problems of aircraft? This comes down to an issue of thrust more than anything else. With enough thrust you could make basically anything you want fly.
The wings on jets aren’t actually that big considering their size and weight. They are actually “small”. The wings are just big enough to create enough lift to push up. The rest is done by thrust capability.
For example the F-16 has a weight of 19,700 pounds without any fuel. An a maximum take off weight of 37,500 pounds.
An it only has a wing span of about 32 feet.
Matthew *humans
@@danielevans5286 *ethics
@Tim Burm1 Japan you can't take our islands they shall hold out for hundreds of years. History has proven us right
USMC give me three days
History fuck why do the Marines keep breaking the truth
The real question is "Why would you Want to?"
Because it's awesome
Project insight... I mean, because it's awesome
Uh, yes, I believe its "awesome factor" is taken seriously into account when determining the costs, efficiencies, and combat effectiveness of such designs, lol
Why would you want a war fighting vehicle that can carry a fleet of fighter jets, plus over 1,000 personnel, and can operate both as a waterborne surface vehicle and an aerial vehicle, and has stealth capabilities?
Hmmmm... sounds like a mystery.
kehvan well to be fair, a single Missile could easily take it out.........
Just reminds me of cloud/sky base from captain scarlet or the similar ones from sky captain and the world of tomorrow
Oh good someone else has watched Sky Captain
@@adamofblastworks1517 it's so cool. Too cool for this Worlds 😔
Yes a fellow Jerry Anderson fan
Good movie
@@adamofblastworks1517 I too have seen Sky Captain. Loved the British planes in that.
When you mentioned the oxygen masks. When we first see the helicarrier take off in Avengers. The flight crew takes on masks and all ship on deck is secured. A few scenes later, same altitude, people are running around without mask on, in the outside. Fighting, jumping, all kind of things in thin air. Ah movie magic with a dash of comic. Love it.
Great video 👍
The main problem with micro-fighters was that they sacrificed their usefulness for storability, which meant that they wouldn’t stand a chance against normal fighters
In other words: Yes we can, but unless using drones we generaly shouldnt.
I still think Star Trek should of used drones, its dumb to send s single ship in space by itself! Imagine 200 to 300 drones always circulating a Space ship, even during combat. And they act as a Cap, Sensors system and a massive weapons system. Remember the species that kicked the Borg azz, they had a multi ship weapon system that torn thru Borg ships with ease!
They have that now the air force micro drones about 1,000 Incase in a bomb and that was a few years ago I’m sure it’s better now they will act like planes ✈️ you will invade there air space using massive drone waves
Don’t care I want one
@@rubenscott3972 English definetly aint your first language (neither is mine but whatever). I barely understood what you meant ... and yeah welcome to the future i suppose.
yes we can cause it's literally just an oversized helicopter
it's just unreasonable to have such a thing
I'd like to see the 747 microfighter carrier revisited, but with drones, maybe even expendable ones, such that once it's weapons are expended the drone itself becomes the final weapon, so maybe they would be a hybrind drone/cruise missile. It could use cruise missile guidance to get close to the target area and either autonomously select targets, or have them selected by an operator on the carrier aircraft, or nearby unit.
Author Dale Brown, who wrote Flight of the Old Dog, among countless other novels, has used a similar idea, but with bomber aircraft which had semi autonomous cruise missles which could carry a few payloads to hit multiple targets, but of course this was before drones advanced as far as they have in recent times.
As an IT professional, I think your tv is going out.
In physics & science anything is possible but we need to do more research on this kind of project 🙏🏼
You could call It the HMS Deathtrap - would be fitting.
Literally the entire thing would be a giant StarTrek redshirt but alive
@Charles Sun what about the HMS queen Elizabeth
It would be the USS deathtrap, since the helicarrier is american.
No.. the required energy to keep it floating would be immense, the noise generated would remove any benefit of hiding in the clouds, and the intake current would wreck nearby aircraft. There's no point to it.
Hmm you might be able to get away with a few hundred engines. Or even more engines all lined up on the sides. An two more sticking out on both ends of each side.
@@draconisthewyvern3664 Maybe.. but probably not 😉
You gotta keep in mind that they have alien Technologie and tech from a world were fricking God's are real so we can't really compare that to our own tech available to us rn
@@draconisthewyvern3664 we could manage the noise and intake current to some extent, but energy requirements would be humongous. It would drain the nuclear fuel in Nimitz class which lasts 20 years in just 10 minutes.
The carrier moves into the wind and keeps it's speed up, so the aircraft landing can have a lower ground speed while keeping it's airspeed up, so it doesn't stall. Also autorotations aren't that scary after doing them a couple of times. They're actually really fun to do.
The most important problem with this. It requires large amounts of fuel just to stay still unlike a blimp which doesn't need any fuel to stay still.
Solar power?
All the hellicarries in the mcu are electricity powered
I'm no engineer and my knowledge of this subject is limited. The only way you could get it to work is a micro nuclear reactor. To my knowledge we don't really have that technology yet. Our smallest reactors are still pretty massive.
C I A that’s a dumb response solar wouldn’t be able to produce enough energy to get that thing floating
@@gornfoo I am an engineer and I did the math,
Assuming the weight of the carrier to be 50,000 tonnes, and the speed of gasses for thrust to be 1200kmph, it requires 125 GW power just to stay afloat. That is assuming 100% efficiency. The efficiency of helicopter propellers is 25-30%. So, it needs 390-500 GW of power to stay afloat.
The total electricity production of US is about 450 GW.
The largest nuclear power plant in the world has a capacity of 8.2 GW. That means you need 50 such power plants just to keep it floating.
In short, even all the electricity in US is not enough to keep it floating.
You don't need roters with a repulser's, go ask stark he can take a look and upgrade them for you. Hail hydra.
Hail hydra
Hail Hydra!
Hail Hydra
Hail Hydra!
Hail Hydra!
Ok. The planes fly, the ship stays in the water. Simple.
What about space carriers?
What if, hypothetically, land-based mobile aircraft carrier? Still stupid but is the mobility and the accessibility that it may offer worth it?
Dude we are never be a space traveling species if attitudes like that! Also this mudball we are currently on is going to to become way too small for us.
"I've never seen a helicopter bigger than its rotor blades"
Quadcopters: Am I a joke to you?
you can either have 1 big turbine or more smaller ones but at the end of the day the the total length of the blades is still higher than the helicopter
@@viermidebutura Oh I perfectly know that now, bur remember this last comment is 5 months ago
@@kombatace7971 :)
@@viermidebutura Helicopter is smaller than blades just because it should not block air streams. It is not about size but about static thrust of propellers and weight of the vehicle. And it is more complicated as helicarrier's rotors aren't just propellers but ducted fans which aren't really effective in term of static thrust but you can actually create very big thrust with them still if you have an unlimited power source..
also they canonically use quad jets, which are effectively a jet plane combined with a VTOL
For weight savings, internal structures might need to be made from something like Titanium. The cost on that build though...ouch.
SHort answer: Probably not
Bit longer : Heck no, not a chance;
It would weigh of a hundred million tons(Based on some estimates super nersds have done) you are absolutely not generating that much vertical thrust. Because to get it to fly you would need to generate 10 hundred millon tons of lift pressure, meaning the engines themselves are WMD's absolutely crushing anything it flies over. Now if one of its engines went off it would likely begin to fall while at the same time spiraling out of control. Not to mention that they could never produce the energy required to get it running, not even mentioning the cost would probably be enough to pay all the villains in the marvel universe to just... "Be Nice"
The sound from the engines alone would make windows break and cause injury several kilometers away.
@@MrAntice exactly, or the radiation from whatever powered those engines cooking everything to a crisp... the only time i could see this thing be a thing is if a K2 or K3 civilization was bored, and a couple of ppl living in it thought it would be neat to play around with this on some un inhabited moon etc..
Can you reference this? Current supercarriers weigh about 100k tonnes so you're saying the flying version would weigh 1,000X as much.
There probably be no sound becuase we already have the tech for stealth helos for silent rotors. But imagine the maintaince cost for the huge silent rotors. 4 each.
That is why anti gravity trch is the future. Less moving parts the better the tech.
@@BewareTheCarpenter But still, the thrust would be so immense it just isn't feasible.
Then there is the SDF-1 from The Macross Saga, and the one in Doctor Who, I can't remember the name.
It would be nice, but dangerous if it had a serious malfunction, and crashed in a highly populated area.
the carrier from dr who was called the valiant, but i think that one can get a pass since it was designed by an extremely smart alien.
and the flying carriers in Sky Captain
@Fenrir W. That one had already been mentioned, so I didn't need to mention that one. However, thanks for including that anyways, all the best.
And than you have P-1112 Aigaion from Ace Combat 6.
Daniel Chew
Ah a fellow ace I assume 👍
Cobra had awesome flying carrier designs, From internal landing decks, to rotor driven ships.
I have a suggestion for reclaiming/landing airplanes on an aircraft carrier that can fly.
Use magnets.
When I saw this for the first time I wished it was real
So say we all
The 747 plan would have actually had a trapeze system to pick up the micro fighters. It also would have had a conveyor type system to store and deploy the fighters. Kinda like an overgrown dry cleaner system. The fighters would be picked up by the trapeze, while still suspended they would be maintained, rearmed, refueled, and out again. They weren't meant to have the full capabilities as a real carrier with sustained air operations. They were meant as a quick strike or defense option while the carriers made their way over if necessary.
The other problem was the parasite fighters are crap. A fully built fighters with proper radar, guns and missile would be more effective.
Or just assign tankers to fighter wings, oh wait that’s what is actually done.
I used to live in the middle of a military drone training area. It was a sparsely populated area and ideal for training new pilots. I’ve watched drones fly in one side of a cloud and never come out the other side. I’ve seen this a few times.
Finally a video about this jewel
I remember in Ace Combat 6 Fires of Liberation there was a massive aircraft that actually worked as a aircraft carrier in the air. It wasn't a VTOL so forget hovering, but it's design seemed almost plausible as it had a biplane wing configuration with a runway through section and the engines were situated far enough to limit any form of wash. Fighters could land and come to a relatively smooth stop without the need for large wire capture systems as the speed of this behemoth would be travelling would allow for jets to set down and let air drag do the rest. If anything it would need another form a arrest and lockdown. If you don't know what I'm talking about look up P-1112 Aigaion on google and look at the images, it'll be hard to miss.
Imagine standing on the flight deck with 4 rotors the size of radio telescopes all breaking the sound barrier with multiple blades
The noise from that would be... impressive to say the least. Good grief! you'd probably hear this thing from what? 100 miles away or more?
@@smallmoe Unless you have a stealth capability like the shield did
@@ronanchristiana.belleza9270 I think the stealth on the helicarriers only hide them visually.
When the blades start turning faster than sound, you start loosing effectiveness at the tips where it travels the fastest. At that point, you'd need compressor sets instead of a single rotor.
BlackEpyon
I think that’s why there were shells around the tips of those blades.
imagine ppl in 50 years wathcing the films while having helicarriers and be thinking like : bro what the hell did they really think this is reallistic
A drone carrier, kinda like. Protoss Carrier?
“Carrier has arrived.”
"Battlecruiser operational."
-screeches in Zerg-
Personally I hate zerg but you two too the other lines
Its also very impractical radars would pick this thing up for really far away. The missle threat to it would be even greater than that of a actual warship.
You also need a escort fleet for an actual carrier.
The best way to make an airborne carrier is possible, you have to take the human element out of it though.
A stealth bomber that drops drones is very possible.
Both the US navy, and the russian navy and russian airforce are designing and test stealth drones. The us airforce im not sure about.
our stealth drone crashed in iran in like 2015 remember? they gave it to china who shares with russia
Search up Arsenal bird
They are no more vulnerable than a AWACS screaming its position. Jets have vastly more range than missile.
I haven’t seen avengers in a while but I swear it could cloak itself too
@@EstellammaSS not really, depends on the missle.
Ram jet missles such as cruise missles have longer ranges than jets.
we'll need a heli-carrier when the Cylon wars start
hrm, rather have a Battlestar in that case. Can't leave home without a couple thousand tons of flak shells in the trunk eh?
I'd rather have a fleet of arsenal bird from ace combat 7.
@@monkeymonk666 SO SAY WE ALL
@@monkeymonk666 shrew a battlestar. Ill take a 2010 BSG basestar. Cool design and less austere. Even better - TNG enterprise D. They have carpet, holodecks, and replicators. And I can have my own room.
Donald Trump is a Cylon.
I cracked up when he pointed out that the runway pointed directly over the propeller. Just because it never occurred to me and it's just so ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I love the helicarriers, they're so awesome!
In the comics, they discovered a "material" with ant-gravity properties that when applied to the helicarrier neutralized a very large percentage of its weight which allowed the rotors to provide enough lift for it to fly.
Wind the clock forward 5 years and we'll all be getting our online deliveries dispatched to our neighbourhoods from an Amazon Helicarrier!!
I'm waiting for amazons fleet of rigid airships sending out thousands of drones.
...Which brings us one step closer to using mass drone missile weapons like the ancients from Stargate did. Which reminds me, gosh dang that sci-fi was good.
will Wonder Woman be leading the charge?
honestly
Blimps and zeppelins (which btw are technically the same) would be the best bet for flying aircraft carriers, since zeppelins can carry alot. and zeppelins also have a larger effectiv range since they dont rely on propulsion for lift. only issue is the fact that they are not very fast compared to the other options
and stationing VTOL aircraft on it would get rid of the need for a landing and starting strip, you only need platforms for them to land on.
Wasn't there a zeppelin carrier in "sky captain and the world of tomorrow"
Yes and a fleet of hydroplanes
I would like to hear the pros and cons of having an airborne carrier. Risks of having one vs the benefits. Still that would require a bunch of information on a theatrical aircraft we just don't have.
It seems like a hybrid between the old airships and the 747 with fighters stored internally would be the most practical starting point. Perhaps a three hull design, where the fighters are stored in a central hull that is held by two other hulls filled with a lighter than air gas.
When a V-stol jet takes off vertically it burns a lot of fuel, that is why the British carriers have a ski jump on their bow.
You would have to use nuclear power since the energy conversion is higher than hydrocarbons.
remember, S.H.I.E.L.D has alien tech that gives them the ability to make a helicarrier.
But until second captain America movie they was using spinning blades witch really wasn't big enough to be realistically work
in the animated series where helicarrier is used and in the second captain America movie they used repulsor tech for the actual engines witch as we have seen just one of them alone is powerful
But really for most stuff to work you need antigrav systems spread along the ship to make it work feasibly so even if a lot of the ship is damaged it most likely still stay airborne (like what's unexplained but used in halo ships be it human or Covent)
@@leexgx In the first Avengers film there are at least a few lines that suggest the first Helicarier uses a mixture of traditional thrust and anti grav in the same engine system.
There is gravitronium in AoS but I don't think it was mentioned being used by the helicarriers in the movies.
Then how did they do it in avengers 1?
@@neoblox6753 Alien tech. They had it for years. Remember the modified jet from Capt. Marvel? or Also they had all the tech from the space ship they found in orbit. Fury used it when he became Director and built/converted the helicarrier.
Well thought out, interesting,and well presented. Thanks
This is a really cool video 📹! I am a machinist and I actually use to machine and fabricated alot of parts for the take off systems! For Aircraft carriers
1:38
Wife: “Honey come home.”
F/A18 pilot: “To busy bombing Iraq.”
Wife: “I’m alone
F/A18 pilot.
:
"Baby, it's *cold* outside" parody? (If not, it should be.)
Someone no one
It does the hornet takes off.
I also have never seen a drone smaller than it's four rotors.
Ducted fan types would do that
The multirotors rotor disk area is added together. Example, the disk area of four 4" rotors is approximately the same as one 8" rotor. The frame of a multirotor has to extend out to the motors. It may be larger in surface area, but it's not larger in mass. Physics still apply.
Also, ducted rotors do not improve lift generation. They add weight and increase drag. If there was a benefit, they would be used in commercial and military applications and helicopters.
Ducted fans have much higher lift generation than typical propellers by sacrificing efficiency, thus we dont see much application for commercial. But ducted fans do have plenty applications in military
@@briand8090 physicis still apply, thats why its so powerful. Most multi bladed small ducted fans run at above 10k rpm. Normal drone bi props typically at 2kprm. What thrust it takes a 16" prop to produce, a 2" ducted fan can easily achieve, in single layer, at poor efficiency that is
I think you nailed it again, but, next, let's look at starship versions of the same idea ...as I am sure you can slice through that idea just as easily, pointing out the good and bad sides of that, too.
Flying aircraft carriers are one of those things that sounds like an amazing idea but in reality is a horrible idea. Like putting chocolate into the microwave.
Imagine building the Helecarier inside the UNSC Spirit Of Fire for their new teraforming x moving base camp
My favourite part of the directors cut of Avengers Assemble was the constant flow of refueling tankers landing on the helicarrier, with them just dumping their loads and then freefalling off to make way for the next one.
Not sure if joke or real? Link please
TR3B'S as in the Phoenix lights 97 have anti gravity tech which picks up 87 percent of their weight. That was inline with Marval's lifting 13 percent with rotors. Could this be why we pay so much to make Mercury disappear?
Didn't they say, that the Carrier would still be able to fly even with 3 rotors? It even happened in the first Avengers movie :D One rotos stopped working and they were still flying. So they could slow down the rotor on the take off part dramatically or even stop it, when a plane takes off....danger of death averted^^
In fairness, if the rear runway on the helicarrier was used for landings only, it could be somewhat feasible. However, it still runs into two problems:
1) One feature of the angled flight deck is that it allows pilots to make multiple landing attempts. Back when flight decks were all just one straight line, it made holding launches and landings far too dangerous to do together. By angling the flight deck, not only did it increase the landing space and protect the planes trying to launch, it also reduced the turning time for the landing plane to come back around for another attempt. However, because of the suction of the turbine in front of the runway, it completely removes that feature. If you are landing on an airborne helicarrier, you'd better get it right because your only other option...is to die...and quite possibly take down the helicarrier with you. Yes, there's always ejecting but not method of it really guarantees a safe (and not expensive) return for you and whoever picks you up. And sure, a VTOL does stand a better chance of landing than a traditional aircraft, but the turbines will still limit their landing zones and approach vectors, so it remains fairly impractical.
2) In the first Avengers movie, the first F-35 is being launched from the rear runway. Now, it can be granted that there would still be a catapult launch system for the rear runway, and it would be okay if the carrier was floating in water, but once the turbines start up (it doesn't even need to be airborne yet), that goes out the window. The central runway that the second F-35 took off from is perfectly fine for launching planes, but that's all that can really be said about it.
If you wanted to keep the design while adding actual practicality to it, you would have to redesign the intakes for the turbines. Even though I'm not an engineer myself, I would try to lower the turbines even further than they were (extending them out is actually NOT a good idea). While doing so might not be necessary, it would allow more space for what should be done: adding angled intakes to the tops of the turbines. There is precedence for this in the F-22 and the F-35. First, the F-22 has bent intakes for its engines; this is meant to shield the engines from radar detection. The F-35B (that's the VTOL variant) pivots the rear nozzle of its engine down for the vertical thrust - and that's merely an evolution form the Harrier, which simply redirected its engine's exhaust through the four rotating nozzles on its side (I am abusing "simply" in this case, but the point still stands).
In fact, that might be the simplest redesign for the helicarrier: just turn its turbines horizontal (you could then make them more flush with the hull, thus reducing the profile and the materials needed) and just put a massive thrust vectoring system on the turbines, giving you vertical lift and horizontal thrust. How you'd design and route the intakes for the turbines is debatable, but this would solve a major problem with the design. Plus, such a design could allow for backups to installed across the hull, and should emergency inflight repairs be needed, by closing the intake and output, you've effectively eliminated the risk of falling to your death during repairs (that is, of course, if the turbine housing isn't breached).
Of course, the materials and costs would still be a massive obstacle to overcome, but for this thought experiment, one thing at a time.
To levitate a ship of this size would require something like the "Magnetic Field Disrupter" anti gravity device described in the Rense article from 2002. But the shape of the Carrier would be radically different from the design we see on screen.
Graphic designers are not engineers
The flying carrier doesn't need a top flying deck. The aircraft can simply be drop from a ramp and it'll fly. So you can store the aircraft inside rather than outside. Also, a VTOL carrier is not a practical design. I think a flying wing design is more suitable for flying carrier. Make it floatable and it'll be able to take off and land on the sea. No need for a huge runway.
6:23 I hate being nitpicky, but the top deck isn’t also for takeoff. It appears so, but we never see it used in such a way. Whenever a craft leaves a carrier, it goes down the front runway (or straight up because it’s a Quinjet.)
So let me get this straight. Question the legitimacy of making an aircraft carrier fly, but we're okay with Tony Starke with his ironman suit? Want it to work, then get some polish builders in. They built my garage under budget and before the dead line. Got them to sort out the garden as well. The garage is still standing after ten years. Could have a fight deck with a rockery, decking and a water feature. Always go polish when you want craftsmanship.
The Iron Man suit is flight wise realistic, there was a person who designed a rocket system that uses the hands for stability and a main thrust system it only runs for a few minutes because of technological limitations. The jets were even used on a titanium replica of the Iron Man suit on the first episode of Savage Builds (starring Adam Savage) the suit was made by 3d printing of titanium dust into using data from the first prototype in the Iron Man movie after Stark's escape.
Nofthing like eastern european skill and craftsmanship. Still in order to make one of thous carriers to fly it needs massive fusion engines witch mankind doesnt have second thous are flying targets plus a giant death trap aka flying steel coffin, thirt operating cost will be through the roof. . But still great way to project power and might of a nation.
@@darkonwolf1974 the suit flight might be somewhat realistic if it was a drone but no human pilot would survive the g-forces of the flight maneuvers shown in the movies.
@@AverageEstonian Why fusion? Those are turbines, not thrust vectored from a fusion reactor.
Short, medium, long answer: NO. Currently the gossip is that carriers (flying or otherwise) will be obsolete when all the big player nation-states develop , mature, and deploy hypersonic weapons tech.
The U.S. perfected laser weapon tech and have it deployed on at least one ship right now. Those systems are designed to take on hypersonic weapons platforms. For every new weapons there will be some smartass building a defense and a better weapon. Fortunately for me, my nation is way ahead of the curve.
@@sid2112 Perfected?
@@adamofblastworks1517 Yes, as of Jan 2020, 36 US Destroyers have been equipped with Laser batteries that are able to disable ships and planes within sight. So...yeah...perfected.
@@darthrange1 you should have an asterisk behind "Disabled"
@@rwbimbie5854 People who are that interested can use google...
Thanks for the history lesson
I honestly think the Tigers claw from the wing commander series , is the perfect flying carrier design. Take away the space part of it Edit essentially just a long tube with a flight deck Down the middle And all of the Essential parts of the ship wrapped around that with the bridge on top. All you would have to do is figure out either anti gravity or a lyft system that would work
I love generation tech:)
Scout: _you see those propellers?_
Bomber: _I've got you covered_
9:22 „You are the Protagonist.“
Cool. Always wanted to have Plot Armor.
On the simplistic side, from the first moment you can notice the rotors being massively undersized even if the carrier would be made out of a very light material.
Surprised no one made a “hella-carrier” pun
Get out, Californian.
Zorro9129 yeh see I don’t get it😐
@@F-18Super Because non-Californians don't appreciate the "highest form of humor to an intelligence species."
Halcion Koenig apparently so
The landing deck on that thing is a deathtrap...
The thing with that second runway is that you could put it reversed to have the Aircraft land with the turbine behind them, the pull could actually help slow them down on approach theoretically.
Just re-watched this since Avengers was just on TV and it got me thinking... would it be possible to construct the Flying aircraft carrier from Ace Combat 6 Fires of Liberation.
It definitely is not a Nimitz carrier and is built more like an airplane inside of a helicopter.
If you guys could do a breakdown that and see if its possible that would be interesting
But with Modern Tech just how light can a Jet Fighter Plane be made if Cost was not a problem? as for the Helicarrier at maximum one Runway only. but with Vtol craft apart from a number landing pads, why would a Runway be needed.
I'm pretty sure fuel will always add a lot to the weight, unless you have a nuclear-powered plane or something like that.
Vertical take off uses a lot of fuel.
Harriers while capable of doing vertical takeoffs rarely did so because it would use up most of the fuel to get off the ground and require refueling very soon.
Sure, you could make it pretty light. Just don’t expect it to carry anything like a pilot, weapons etc.
Can't park on a cloud when it breaks.
Man here asking the real questions.
I would love to see some Warhammer 40k content too.
Well, it's from Marvel and it takes place in the same universe as the Iron Man-Suit, so it does not have to be realistic, it just has to be awesome.
(Even though it was interesting to hear if it would be possible. Thanks for that great video.)
What I really want to know: Is there any computergame, where I can actually fly that thing? That would be awesome!
A flattop rigid airship is the closest we could get.
You mean like how nothing would ever become greater than the Ship-of-the-Line, or Vacuum Tube Computer?
Halcion Koenig I mean that the only feasible way to build a flying aircraft carrier is to have it full of helium.
At least with current tech.
Even with advances, like anti gravity tech, it would still use too much energy to fly.
The flight deck is also needed to recover / land the previously launched planes . So it is necessary as carriers often operate in remote locations
Well, it could be smaller if it was for VL planes.
@@Paltse it could be depending how much aircraft your accommodating
I always assumed that they used tech they managed to get to help it hover. The rotors would be for maneuvering the craft and maintaining high altitude.
There is also the question of what can power it? There was a study that Liquid Thorium Molten Salt Reactors actually had the power to mass ratio to allow the Shield Flying Carrier to lift. 90% of the weight of the carrier would be the nuclear reactors. But we DO have a technology that could do it.
Cool!
Warm regards, Rick.
How about the helicarrier in Doctor Who? It had many turbines in order to keep it afloat instead of propellers.
Still a stupid idea.
@@halcionkoenig243 well you know what isnt a stupid idea? Just making a really big plane that drops little planes out of the bottom.
The rotors in the turbine do not operate like an aircraft wing (for the most part).
A traditional aircraft wing (acrobatic aircraft being the exception) operates by having a different length between the surfaces.
A turbine (primarily) operates by having the blade at an angle. It physically pushes the air out of the way. If you look at a turbine the blades are at an angle closer to '/' than '-'
Additionally with the rotors (of a helicopter) The design is to try and ensure that the tips are not travelling at supersonic speeds. Breaking the sound barrier causes shock waves that interrupt airflow.
The naval principals are similar to aircraft in that the they are designing something to "fly" just in a MUCH denser medium. Fluid dynamics and Aerodynamics aren't that dissimilar
The fact that the rotors are angled like "/" instead of "--" shows that no functional engineering design went into the modeling. If you look at a top-efficiency Boeing 787, or Airbus A350, the engine blades are more like "|", just bigger and twisted. If you oriented them like a helicarrier rotor, the blades would be close to "--." Rotors have to be shaped like wings, because they move air like wings do, and stall if they try to scoop too much air at once like wings do. Most wings stall at roughly 16 degrees angle to their "relative wind." That's only 1/6 of a full right-angle, so anything remotely close to 45 degrees would be 3x the stalling angle and would never function.
@@games1004 Because the one thing we've learned in the last 70 years, is that our understanding of physics is perfect, which is why we've been colonizing space.
@Halcion Koenig I don't understand where you draw the conclusion that I implied any physics understanding is perfect? I was correcting something said incorrectly in op's post. Turbines don't just shove air back, they fly through it in a circular motion at high speeds (upwards of 10,000 rpm), and their shape "lifts" it forwards through the air. They absolutely do operate in every way like an airplane wing, just oriented mostly perpendicular to the engine's direction of travel (within 16 degrees), so they can take tiny bites of the air each revolution.
That is the basic "lift diagram" from Aerodynamics 101. It's just that the specific shape, curviness, and other factors make modern jet engines more complicated.
@@games1004 Can you link to any physics info / papers / sites please.
I wasn't paying enough attention during my first year of AeroENG, then switched my major to a different field when I took a good look at the job market.
My understanding was that a turbine pushes the air in a way that would make most people think of a pump rather than flying through the airflow. I believed that this was due to the relatively high angle of attack (even a few degrees is a high AOA at that speed).
It maybe just me finding it difficult to equate how a wing in straight and level flight generates lift by having different length surfaces with the airflow flowing from front to back, while a turbine blade has the airflow going from top to bottom.
The next video you should have after this is: "Can We Build The P-1112 Aigaion From Ace Combat 6 With Our Current Technology?". Is it a practical design? No, not really. Is it possible? Yes, probably. :)
While Europe spent decades planning a Space Elevator while chowing down on Soy, a South African Stoner used American excess to build Starfleet. Was any of this practical? No. Was it possible? Yes. Did that stoner laugh at easily offended Europeans, and Canadians, while hurling his extremely expensive car into space? Were the Europeans, and Canadians offended by this display of manliness, and complete disregard for Socialism? Yes. Does he care? He lit a joint, and laughed on live tv, then said, "I needed cargo to deploy, so why not?"
Nice idea 👍