Could this realistically work?
>supercavitating torpedos are a thing>Rocket planes are thing. Sort of.Sure, but how will the planes come back?
No
>>64754231>wings fall apart the moment it accelerates
Clearly it worked, there's a video of it
>>64754276/thread
>>64754231Yes but not like that. Salt water would fuck up the engine so you really want to shoot them out of a vertical silo right into open air. Preferably in shallow water so the engines don't flood. This also doesn't work for landing. >>64754276I want to believe this is sarcasm but I've heard "Trust me bro, it worked in <Insert movie here>" quickly followed by ambulances far too often.
>>64754231>Could this realistically work?No. Aircraft are designed for 0-1 atmospheres of pressure. An F/A-18 is ~15.4 ft tall and 56 ft long and it flies way up there so that has to be under 100-150+ ft of water in that movie. At that depth it'll 4-5.5 atm of pressure (~58-80psi), plane is fucked.The only way to theoretically sorta make it work is like >>64754438 says and launch it in a disposable pressure vessel with solid fuel rockets or something to get it enough initial velocity and vertical to take over with its engines. For recovery the sub would have to surface and have a Soviet style typhoon sorta thing with a separate pressure hull vs outer hull, outer hull having a runway and elevators to bring it inside, all of which is a complex nightmare.
Fucking Luftrausers, showing up out of nowhere, getting a 300:1 K/D
>>64754231That's not how jet engines work. You'll need to have a separate propulsion system that'll work underwater until the plane breaches (with enough inertia) and the jet can take over.You'd probably be better off with a "carrier sub" approach by modeling a (huge) sub with a specialized flight deck that keeps the plane dry until it's go time.
>>64754231Of course, Mr Anderson.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2PoXfZdYVU
>>64754231Some fucking idiot is gonna see this and unironically think its real and it angers me for some reason.
>>64754231The Japanese tried submarine aircraft carriers at the end of WWII and no one has tried them since. The two aren't really compatible, not enough room for enough aircraft to matter and good luck recovering them.
>>64754571Yep. On a technical level, if you look at stuff like the Typhoon you could definitely make it work, subs like ships can scale pretty well with nuclear reactors. But it's not really helpful vs a normal carrier. If anything having them underwater is flat out counter productive because part of the value of a carrier battle group is being a big fucking stick that stands out and exerts pressure just by sitting off the coast of some country we're unhappy with. Having it be secret spoils all that. Also really hard to do active defense underwater, the best protection for a carrier is its own aircraft, its escorts, and as a final line ship defenses (CIWS/RAM, probably DEWs before much longer). If somebody flies over a sub-carrier and drops a bunch of depth charges now what. Surfacing and submerging also aren't super quick operations like in games.So yeah lot of tl;dr to agree that the concepts aren't really compatible. Nuclear skycarrier you can actually sorta make napkin arguments for since it buys you entirely new capabilities for the downsides, and active defense can be even better, but subcarrier is a normal surface carrier but worse.
>>64754231I hate AI so much
