We are closer to having a human step foot on Mars than we are to having a flying aircraft carrier.

@dianalindeman1644

Жыл бұрын

Jim Mulholland For the sake of the world, I pray so!

@Sciurus

Жыл бұрын

Yea unless the alledged Solar Warden / Radiant Guardian projects "discovered" by Gary McKinnon are just the deep black off chutes of Thomas Townsend Brown's Project Winterhaven / Project Montgolfier!

@ericmwenda6197

Жыл бұрын

Right on point. This would be the biggest white elephant project in the world.

@ryansinclair3462

Жыл бұрын

We have to land on the moon first before we can even think about Mars next 🤣

@ramiznorthland7179

Жыл бұрын

Love ❤️ USA 🇺🇸

The U.S.S. Gerald Ford weighs about 90,000 tons. That's over 180 million pounds. The amount of energy needed to lift that much weight would be mind boggling. Short of strapping a few Saturn 5 rockets to each side, it's a safe bet that the technology to pull this off won't exist for at least another century or two.

@Fuunyrob

Жыл бұрын

Nuclear power definitely can or nuclear fusion power definitely can so don’t say nothing can

@Fuunyrob

Жыл бұрын

You be surprised what the black opps government programs can do

@Research_theTruth

Жыл бұрын

Fusion its already there like ngad

@wytche3546

Жыл бұрын

@@Fuunyrob the weight of an aircraft carrier, the weight of the aircraft, fuel for the aircraft, the crew, food for the crew. The reactor, the water to cool the reactor. You're not looking at the weight of an aircraft carrier, you're looking at possibly the weight of two to three aircraft carriers right there. Impossible.

@KingstonTiger

Жыл бұрын

Also you need to make it so that it won't get shot down by a meager 10mil dollar missile from the sky. Would be a neck breaking story if a billion dollar airfleet gets shot down in the warfield

A totally original Idea thats 100% not stolen from marvel💯💯💯💯

Civilians: you guys are spending to much money on NASA The US Navy: oh really? The government:

@JacobGevedon

19 күн бұрын

If russians made flying aircraft carriors that held 4 fighters to 8 in world war 2 your telling me we cant do the same with more fighters? At least 12 f22s

Somebody is on an AVENGERS quest for flying carriers.

@wickwire9560

Жыл бұрын

"EXACTLY "!!!

@marthanaandrichardwardandm5973

Жыл бұрын

They've been working on them

@BBoxn

Жыл бұрын

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow are more like it.

@mitchelfeliciano7418

Жыл бұрын

@@wickwire9560 lyl

@theinformationcollector833

Жыл бұрын

That would be me and I figured it out. It will be featured in some of my future content. (And yes, I was inspired my Avengers Assemble.) I can prove it, too. Just drop me a line and I'll send you a free copy of CODE NAME: Monte Rico, where I invented five new weapons.

If they can add a sub surface platform for jets to take off towards the front of the carrier, while on the deck, the jets take off to the left. That should double the amount of planes that could take off, twice as fast.

@RobertJones-ux6nc

Жыл бұрын

The problem of the number of Aircraft on a Carrier is not how many , but of the storage of them and maintenance. That's the problem for most, the Ford Class can probably carry more but if the hanger is full can maybe carry more on deck like some did in WW2 like when USS Hornet attacked Japan on the Jimmy Doolittle B-25 raid but had USS Enterprise as escorting it then.

@HelminthCombos

Жыл бұрын

And remove all plane storage and repair stations. Also this is just clickbait not real at all.

This aircraft was introduced in the movie, "The Titans" that had bays for jets and the large winged static Osprey .

The landing for this aircraft on sea what a great place on Earth.

Well done, let them fly as many as possible

This FLYING Aircraft Carrier is transformable, and if transformed, it will become a giant robot, I'm sure.

@eliascommentonly4652

Жыл бұрын

🇪🇺🇬🇷👋 they could build a small carrier .1 big plane carrying 1 small fighter jet like space shuttle plane it's the only logical solution 1 big plane carrying a fighter jet close to battle and then leave it to fly to save fuel 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷👋🙏🙏🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿☮☮☮🇺🇦🇷🇺🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👑👋🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

@philholman8520

Жыл бұрын

Yeah! One huge "Mother goose."☺️👍✌️🇬🇧

@tonyi5001

Жыл бұрын

Here come Robojox

@floydjohnson7888

Жыл бұрын

I immediately thought "Super Dimensional Fortress Macross" when I read that comment

@bultenaverhuurbv3106

11 ай бұрын

Optimus Crime

I especially like _“this is possible, because technology.”_ Phew! I’m super glad you cleared that up for us!! *Me:* _“How does it work?”_ *You:* _“I just did a technology!”_

World most powerful in technologybig up USA.

It will be awhile awesome idea but would take massive lift to pull this off

@jimslocomb7098

Жыл бұрын

Not if they use the "technology" stored at Area 51.

The US had Zeppelin flying aircraft carriers, the Macon and Ackron, back in the 1930s - they even had vectored thrust,

@kevinkarbonik2928

Жыл бұрын

they were lighter that air dirigibles... don't confuse yourself.

@superpunkmuffin

Жыл бұрын

@@kevinkarbonik2928 They were lighter than air dirigibles that carried heavier-than-air aircraft and could launch an recapture them mid air - by any definition, aircraft carriers - and they also had vectored thrust capabilities - don't think there's anything confusing about it - Though on a technical point, all dirigibles fly a little heavier than air, and rely in part on dynamic lift, for the advisable expedient of a fail-safe return to land in the event of total engine and valving failure.

They keep making these videos like this stuff is real and ready for action.

Bruh , nice editing, combination of avenger movie scene and real time aircraft takeoff scene😅

Cyclocopter tech should be used. I wouldn't say flying but the ability to jump, lets say 100 miles, would be impressive and tactically useful. Same consept as the space/ sea craft from the movie battle ship. Jump in, deploy aircraft, jump out. Then jump back in recover and jump out again.

Just simply implausible... there's no way that could either exist let alone fly ... hover or move ...

@ShadowWolf-om4ub

Жыл бұрын

Don't say impossible. You've seen what human kind have done already

@Deran087

Жыл бұрын

@@ShadowWolf-om4ub It definetely isn't impossible, but It isn't happening any time closer than like 70 years.

@ShadowWolf-om4ub

Жыл бұрын

@@Deran087 its alright. I'll cryo myself until then

Wow the navy have been busy producing powerful and amazing aircraft and technology continuesly just like star trek is also navy and a wave of our future so to everyone "Live Long And Prosper"

I like the idea. I believe, it can be done. I suggest to build top cover with semi synthetic glass that is bullet proof and designed aerodynamically for speed.

The Lockheed version of a nuclear powered flying aircraft carrier is so freakn cool but would be soooo expensive. To see it fly would be awe inspiring. Tactically, it would be a HUGE target as well. Yes it can deploy fighters to protect it but ground/sea based anti-air would be disastrous for it I think.

@TheGecko213

Жыл бұрын

"""""Tactically, it would be a HUGE target as well.""" So is Moscow and Beijing 😂

@Pridefallen975

Жыл бұрын

Yup very awe-inspiring

@user-gi4wb3uc2s

Жыл бұрын

핵에너지가 있어면 날으는 전함을 만들수 없는건가?

@jackprescott9652

Жыл бұрын

How the Avengers managed to move his aircarrier throught air without being hit by his foes rockets?

@moniquevieara4634

Жыл бұрын

Not if it had radar similar to AWAC. Although it would not be maneuverable because of its size

Story that touches the heart...USA Aircraft carrier! Uuunn!

@TheGecko213

Жыл бұрын

Because that and missile submarines are the heart of the USA military might

Extreammmmmly Impressive! Go USA!

The reasons most countries don't invest in aircraft carriers is that they are a bigger target. There are cold launch hypersonic missiles that can blow any aircraft carrier out of the water before any radar can detect it in time. Unmanned drones that can be programmed to attack a ship in swarms overwhelming the ship's defensive capabilities. The bigger the object the bigger the target.

@egidiuspettersson8849

Жыл бұрын

agreed

@Peakfreud

Жыл бұрын

Most common sense comment on this thread.

@Peakfreud

Жыл бұрын

Nothing like a 50 Billion Dollar Pinata

@underconstruction778

Жыл бұрын

It's main purpose is exactly what it's name is. Aircraft carrier. The benefit to transport fighter jets to far off places while at the same time carry large missiles and nuclear warheads. Enable the US to be in direct strike distance to any country in the world

@majestedefrance6304

Жыл бұрын

@@underconstruction778 Great answer..Yet it's still a big target considering the new type of weapons available today by enemies.

Yeah... this isn't going to happen, unless there is some serious security and safety measures added to it. Perhaps a photon shield, energy shield, or some extremely prcise and fast anti missile technology. If one engine is taken out, or just some portion of power is reduced, the entire "flying aircraft carrier" would fall out of the sky and be completely destroyed. This is pie in the sky at best, and a horrible idea at worst.

@tonywilson4713

Жыл бұрын

Yeah - Its just staggering how many clowns peddling this sort of sci-fi bullshite there are on KZread. Worse is the fact there are literally millions of people who believe this crap is real. Millions claim the moon missions were faked and then millions turn around and believe this crap. Its enough to make you wonder if oxygen is actually a hallucinogenic.

@getssmith112

Жыл бұрын

Nope, it's easier to hide in the sky than land or water. Water is so dangerous, their is a lot of enemy to comprehend. With projectiles going down, enemy will just need little energy to attack. While in air with US perfect stealth there only few attacks to watch out, but even an enemy would detect them they will need more energy to launch an attack. Since projectiles going up consumes a lot of energy. Example weapons like cannons, high caliber bullets, small missiles, and torpedoes can't reach them only fighter jets and medium to bigger size missiles can reach them. Besides since ancient times there is always so called higher ground advantages. The higher you are the more invincible you will for any attacks. Same as goes to the sky.

@lharris428

Жыл бұрын

@@getssmith112 are you kidding me? I can't fly higher than 10k feet otherwise people on deck would need their own breathable oxygen while trying to maintain operations. As far as stealth, there's no way you can make it hard to be noticable or targeted with everything going on and around it.

@getssmith112

Жыл бұрын

@@lharris428 have you ever heard of low orbit? And how does astronauts live in space for months?

@bullheimer

Жыл бұрын

@@getssmith112 you do know China has hypersonic missiles, right?

Could you imagine the wind on that deck? Imagine a plane off vector getting sucked into one of those fan assemblies? Awesome carnage! Sailer would just be diced up and sprayed as fish food over the sea!

@ngriffo45

Жыл бұрын

You could drop a jet tho

@cletusspucklerstablejeaniu1059

Жыл бұрын

But at least they can spell 'sailor.'

Excellent thanks

wow these designs are great

Yes. How fast could this fly...the size of it. How agile would it be...How could it avoid enemy fire ? Once downed think of all the personnel and equipment lost.....

@twerkingtwinkies2335

Жыл бұрын

Not to mention operating cost. Better just permanently hook up a fuel line to the ground and have it be stationary lol

@kyrkwalters964

Жыл бұрын

For real 🤔

@jimslocomb7098

Жыл бұрын

It will just engage it's cloaking device yo!🤣

Yes we can lift one of the heaviest man made objects using a few turbofans. Very believable.

i love this idea. if they can figure out viable ways of doing this, it will be a fantastic springboard for future space born carriers.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for this one

Are their any plans to launch planes from the side of the aircraft carrier?

This is absolutely absurd. I am all for RD projects with long term goals but we can barley lift one person for longer than 30 minutes with this type of tech. I do get content is hard to create and I appreciate your plight.

@hieulengotran5093

Жыл бұрын

EURO. STUDIO. KHẮC. thêm 144 số không

Wow! Such technology.

Thanks for welcome to Washington DC

Would be cool to see but we’ll have to wait for perhaps a couple centuries to witness this

@chazayah5985

Жыл бұрын

Ww3 won’t let that happen sorry

@dhirvyas2031

Жыл бұрын

@@chazayah5985 sad

It only makes sense if you use anti gravity

@jasonrock5220

Жыл бұрын

Or use nuclear power

@jerrylunsford9990

Жыл бұрын

@@jasonrock5220 ⁰

@christbenitez8797

Жыл бұрын

@@jasonrock5220 half of the aircraft fleet of the U.S is nuclear power.

@delroyshay5870

Жыл бұрын

At that point it may as well be a space craft. You could not even walk on the platform without a oxygen mask. & You will need special clothing to stop you freezing at high altitude. Stupid video, concept that will never work.

@Cesarsald754

6 ай бұрын

Roswell shit...right there....😊

Make it usa i trust in you! Forza usa

Keep in mind that the Lockheed CL 1201 was conceptualized in the 1960's. Think about all the advancements in materials science, and computer modeling, that have occurred since that time. I speculate that it is very possible to build a viable, flying, aircraft carrier now.

The closest thing to a practical and useful flying aircraft carrier was a soviet concept design that used the ground effect to fly above water, this would allow the carrier to travel much faster than any conventional carrier and with minimal fuel cost, (+and it could fly over mines and torpedoes I think) while still being stable, safe and capable of carrying refueling and rearming state of the art full sized fighter jets + all the other crazy shit aircraft carriers do and more. & It could float the idea of an actually flying carrier is ridiculous for multiple reasons: Fuel use would be insane, A flying aircraft carrier could easily be shot down by a missile, and unlike a normal carrier the crew wouldn't have time to abandon ship or salvage planes since they would be falling to earth 3mud air refueling does the same job for a much lower cost and the fuel tanker are much harder to hit, (the only thing it can't do is rearm planes) 4, if you went the route of a large plane carrying parasite fighters, they would be hopelessly out competed by a larger more advanced and more equipped fighter jet taking of from a runway, 5 today is all about stealth, missiles can be fired from over the horizon and can be almost undetectable, the best way not to get seen and shot down is not to be detected, good luck building a stealthy flying aircraft carrier, And 5 an airship wouldn't be much faster than a ship

@jarrodcross1482

Жыл бұрын

Still those ground effect vehicles failed too, aka the Caspian sea monster, if they stop moving they are just a sitting floating/duck, plus they only worked well in calm flat/water conditions, had a very limited range ... combat hovercrafts n landing vehicles also were just a passing fad though offered lower speed but more consistent performance plus could leave the water to some degree.

@ngriffo45

Жыл бұрын

The Russians don't even have a working naval aircraft carrier

@AndroidAntill

Жыл бұрын

They could camouflage the carrier like they do in the avengers? Lol

@jarrodcross1482

Жыл бұрын

@@ngriffo45 exactly largely because the Russians for all their faults which are many don't seek or want to leverage large parts of the world for geopolitical power ... they do want some of the vauge resource rich enthno-russian territories lost in the breakup/fall of the USSR/CCCP ... still they sit on a crazy amount of intercontinental nuclear weapons etc so they are sitting pretty ... while the USA rubs up against China in the South Chinese sea ... that's a long way from Neu York let alone Washington

@jarrodcross1482

Жыл бұрын

Plus developing both a sea based carrier and the jets that can/could fly of it is expensive... very expensive ... especially in the age of the 6th generation combat fighters n bombers ... why bother when your own country spans 4 time zones ... fronts onto most other problem nations or allies ... aircraft carriers are expensive, air bases on your borders less so

An aircraft carrier that flies so incredible it must have been very clever and brilliantly engineered. It's a truly amazing sci-fi-like design. An amazing project But I think America has very good thinkers and designers.

@HelminthCombos

Жыл бұрын

This whole thing is bs dude

@SEPK09

Жыл бұрын

It's fictional rubbish. Dislike crap content like this.

@lethalchocobo1886

9 ай бұрын

LOL. Not the brightest bulb, are ya?

Very good video, credit 👍 goes to America .

Flying aircraft carriers gotta be hella durable

If we can activate antigravity, an air carrier might not even be a dream.

Capt. America would be happy, soon he will command a fleet.

@stardaggerrihannsu2363

Жыл бұрын

Captain Marvel is running the show now.

Advanced military weaponry minimizes risks for our troops during missions. Their precision and versatility empower our soldiers to succeed in various scenarios with reduced casualties.

Anything impossible , MADE IN USA ARE POSSIBLE N POWERFUL

I think it would only work if it was a drone carrier.

The Mothership 🚀

Superb, Happy Easter to all, Make America 🇺🇸 😀 great once again 👏 👍 😀 🙏🤝🤝😉

God bless America 🇺🇸

5:40 The CL-1201 could have been what flew over Phoenix, Arizona in "The Phoenix Lights" incident.

@wytche3546

Жыл бұрын

I used to live in Chandler heights Arizona, I had as close a look to it as anyone could have had. It flew right past me and it was very big, totally silent. But not shaped like an aircraft carrier. Shaped like the stealth bomber, but big enough at least, to park two bombers on each wing.

@hell2freelance533

Жыл бұрын

@@wytche3546 Wow. Have there been any other sightings that you know of? Or could you recommend any videos or sources? I find the incident fascinating and I really want to know more.

"The carrier has arrived." -Protoss Stargate

@hieulengotran5093

Жыл бұрын

mất CÂY. CAO SU. VN. SCIENCE. WORLD. NGƯỜI VẬN CHUYÊN. Ô TÔ. WIFI. NUÔI

@lordjarred

Жыл бұрын

Power overwhelming!!!

Yall remember when communicators on star trek were unheard of? This can be built. But tactical usefulness and as to what problem it solves is yet to be determined.

Damn these carriers are crazy

Break it down to 10 fighters per plane carrier. Have 5 slots on each end or wing for each aircraft that raises the fighters into the wings for maintenance and weapon loading.

@theinformationcollector833

Жыл бұрын

That's one of the key factors in my prototype --- it can't be The Avengers, but it can be. If you're interested in how feasible my idea is I'll be glad to send you a free copy of my thriller CODE NAME: Monte Rico, where I invented five new weapons. I actually did the calculations for how this would work --- tweak the parameters, not that hard.

@jessmason2112

Жыл бұрын

@@theinformationcollector833 Now imagine a sorty of 4 or 5 of these planes with 4 drones each plane. Any military skirmish could be over in hours. Like a symphony orchestra 🎻.

@theinformationcollector833

Жыл бұрын

@@jessmason2112 Very true --- and that tech is WWII level. Marilyn Monroe was discovered cause she worked in a drone plant the photographer went to shoot pictures at. They were basically RC models used for target practice, but still drones.

@jessmason2112

Жыл бұрын

@@theinformationcollector833 Regardless of when the idea came about. If that idea with today's technology would make that sorty untouchable. What a major deterrent that would be to take out a terrorist group or area in one shot with no boots on the ground.

THE MAIN CONCERN IS AVOIDING FLYING COWS!

@spongerobert

Жыл бұрын

And/or pigs

How amazing ❤️

Plus the amount of personnel that has to be on an aircraft carrier you're just asking for the entire crew to be slaughtered when a gust of wind causes this aircraft to lose control in the air.

@billymadison8574

Жыл бұрын

Nah. Pretty sure the USAF keeps Dr. Strange on retainer in case of strong gusts and/or melodramatic flying villains👌

The newest carriers NEVER need to be refuled.

I wish all countries would spend their defense budget to make this world beautiful and support people instead of fighting and killing each other. They should live peacefully and love each other. Helping each other'.

Title should have added ".. Ready for Action in 2122, with Anti Grav Technology.. maybe"

@mikebar42

Жыл бұрын

Lol

Thank God. I had extra money this year I was just dieing to spend on taxes for military toys.

@jayleeclough1199

Жыл бұрын

Stfu if Russia or china attacked you would be not worried about tax money because you would be stuck hiding from nuclear fall out .

The amount of fuel a flying aircraft carrier would need outweighs the weight of the whole thing itself. Leave this to Marvel comics.

I watch these vids so the thumbnails keep on coming lol

Those carriers are from the Winter Soldier movie.

With the F35 being the joint fighter program for many `allied countries the overspend was outrageous , what should of happened was a fixed cost with a time penalty clause this would of saved all the countries involved money. I/m from the UK and I’m a Professor of Economics that’s usual in Business and at the end of the day the F35 was invented to be sold a business opportunity.

Go, Navy🙏🏽♥️😊

I can't imagine how much energy to lift it up in the air; 10.000 gallons?.

Straight out of an episode of Dr Who .

Until they allow us to have gravity drives none of this will never exist.

Then how much Fuel going in it at a time are maybe it have Fuel constantly going in it.

DONT, MESS WITH THE US 🇺🇸

Just FYI to all watching, the idea of a flying 'aircraft carrier' doesn't mean a literal carrier strapped to engines. It's more along the lines of a super sized transport plane that can deploy fighter jets from its underside. Although a flying hover carrier would be cool, it would be incredibly difficult with today's tech and needless to mention would cost the gdp of a small country just to operate and maintain.

@jarrodcross1482

Жыл бұрын

We already have those ... aka fast attack jets that can in air refuel off a mother tanker or tankers to extend their range/standoff time but the concept of a flying air base is about as practical as a flying aircraft carrier ... As in what's the point? The crew can only be in air for so many hours ... the mechanical engines n gubbins need maintenance n downtime, both can easily be defeated with tracking n missiles ... I'll believe it when Elon Musk tells us its the future :p and he's not even that dumb!

@jarrodcross1482

Жыл бұрын

The biggest viable plane that could carry other planes is the Russian Antonov ... it could carry 2 m1a1 Abrams tanks, is slow, guzzles fuel, needs innordately long runways ... so could technically carry 2 mid sized fighters, if you could figure out how to launch them as it has a front lifting nosecone which that ain't happening! Or you just push em out the back ramp and hope the engines fire up ... oddly your pragmatic idea of a plane based plane system is even worse than a flying aircraft carrier! Which is sorta impressive! :)

And people are grinching about putting out a few bucks for college debt relief!!🤬

Top gun & avenger footage,....

USS Macon was a flying aircraft carrier in the 1930s.

Could understand a smaller version with armed drones, but I’m sure that it’s already underway.

@eliascommentonly4652

Жыл бұрын

🇪🇺🇬🇷👋 they could build a small carrier .1 big plane carrying 1 small fighter jet like space shuttle plane it's the only logical solution 1 big plane carrying a fighter jet close to battle and then leave it to fly to save fuel 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷👋🙏🙏🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿☮☮☮🇺🇦🇷🇺🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👑👋🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Seems like a bad idea; because it may not be able to stay airborne, if hit. True, an aircraft carrier may not be able to float, if hit, but the latter sounds better.

@jasoncampbell1464

Жыл бұрын

Better to sink than to take a 50k feet dive into the ocean

@jarrodcross1482

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, while the ocean holds you up ... the sky let's you fall ... It's simple really, take one countries advanced weapon system then develop a cheap counter measure ... aka 100 million dollar fighter vs 500k anti fighter rocket ... May not take it out but will stand it off/disrupt it's ability to be effective... think the NVA with Russian Sam's vs the USAF in Vietnam... they backed off the most advanced n militaria aggressive country on earth with basic fire n forget rockets ...

@gearshiftproductions353

Жыл бұрын

Like someone already said in the comments, it's easier to swim then to fly

the future is crazy!

the large triangle lights formations that people been seeing in the night skies over the years, I wonder just what they could they be? usually not far from a desert

The energy consumption for sustainable flight is untenable. Not to mention a giant stationary target. So it would need to have an anti gravity zero fuel propulsion system and complete stealth technology. Yep. Super realistic. I just spent 3 hours at the DMV cause the website is broken . Lol. GTFOH

imagine how heavy it is to fly😳😳

@ShadowWolf-om4ub

Жыл бұрын

Considering its running on 4 turbine propellers. Im sure it'll be fine

@dusk07

Жыл бұрын

Most likely nuclear reactors aswell

@ShadowWolf-om4ub

Жыл бұрын

@@dusk07 true

@keahi7646

Жыл бұрын

I can't even imagine. Just the turbine blades will be millions of pounds. I can't believe they will fly around with multiple air wings aboard, possibly try to have another carrier 100 miles away for stowing aircraft, and just be used to refuel or get really close to targets. I was in the gear, so I'm very interested to see.

Extreamly impressive! Go USA!!!

Thanks you ❣️❣️❣️❣️

😂😂😂 As long as the laws of physics apply, current tech is nowhere near making this a possibility.

@Gesso64

Жыл бұрын

Since when is anything from the the military current tech

@jarrodcross1482

Жыл бұрын

Exactly why bother when you can have f35s n etc based on land in friendly nations ... the aircraft carrier concept died with 2nd world war ... when long range missiles nuclear n biological let alone intercontinental made that concept/doctrine redundant.

@jarrodcross1482

Жыл бұрын

Haha the laws of physics always apply, just ask Elon Musk who pretends they don't ... but year in year out his products n promises either underperform, are years late and then garbage ... he can't even get his space trucks out, aka EV trucks n Utes with a ripped off design asthetic from Battlestar Galactica (OG) ... let alone his autonomous self driving software or the helper robot nobody wants in their house!

@williamabaker12

Жыл бұрын

@@Gesso64 US military tech is always ahead of the field, but not far enough ahead for anything like this. Unless they've perfected some sort of antigravity tech, this isn't happening. More to the point, if they've perfected antigravity tech, this wouldn't be necessary. Lol

@percybaldwin2237

Жыл бұрын

The true laws of physics are classified.

The lockheed CL-1201 was a waste because of the lost space due to wingspan. They say "size" does matter.

Flying tanks and submarines are the next objectives.

This is so cool. I bet they will use them to launch stealth fighter boats.

The only reason you want it to fly is to get somewhere faster over land otherwise while flying its a massive blip on the radar of any country it gets near let alone fly over. Zero point in a flying carrier. Sailing is stealthier.

We are a long way from a real Avengers type carrier.

AWESOME!!!

The F-35 is so lethal it kills the enemy and the pilot.

If they are just now announcing it It’s already happened years ago All one has to do is Look up the name Gary McKinnon

Lol, yea, right! 🤣🤣🤪🤣. We can't even fix our roads and highways! How are we supposed to make buildings fly!?

@Mr.Raider007

Жыл бұрын

Blame your local politicians on that one.

@garyreeve6793

7 ай бұрын

It's called The Military Industrial Complex

Insan project !

The first aircraft carriers were dirigibles and had a conveyor that could launch and recover them. This was long before there was a US Air force.

@That70sGuitarist

Жыл бұрын

The first aircraft carriers were *dirigibles?* No, I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Granted, the USAF was only created as a separate service in 1947, but the origins of its predecessor, the United States Army Air Corps, go all the way back to the First World War. However, the USAF has never operated any aircraft carriers of any kind, and probably never will, so I hardly think the date of its creation is even remotely relevant to your absurd claim to the effect that, "the first aircraft carriers were airships." In reality, both the Royal Navy and the US Navy started developing aircraft carriers years before the aircraft-carrying airships (of which there were only ever two) were ever built. The Royal Navy's earliest attempt at developing an aircraft carrier was during the First World War, and used modified Sopwith Pup fighters with an elongated skid attached to their undercarriage. The US Navy's first aircraft carrier, the USS Langley, was already in service years before the "airship aircraft carriers" ever flew. Furthermore, the only two airship carriers ever built could only carry a handful of fighters, and the "trapeze" style aircraft launch/ recovery system never really worked out. Meanwhile, naval carriers could carry dozens of fighters and attack planes. Additionally, there's also the fact that both of the US's "aircraft carrier airships" ended up as complete write-offs after encountering trecherous weather conditions. I believe one was called the "USS Akron," and the other the "USS Macon." If I recall correctly, one was lost off the east coast while the other was lost off the west coast, although I'm not entirely certain about that last detail. Neither the Germans, the British nor any other major military power ever even *tried* to develop "aircraft carrier airships," despite what you might have seen in "Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade."🤣 So no, airship aircraft carriers were *not* the first aircraft carriers, and the only two ever built proved to be a very short-lived and costly experiment that ended in *abject failure* both in terms of material costs and lives lost.

@jlawrencereilly1949

Жыл бұрын

@@That70sGuitarist First it's not true and then it is true. Try a proof read.

@That70sGuitarist

Жыл бұрын

@@jlawrencereilly1949 You need to work on your reading comprehension, because you obviously misunderstood what I wrote. Let's review, shall we? First, I disproved your erroneous claim that *the first aircraft carriers were dirigibles.* They weren't, as stated. Then I showed that the only two attempts at building aircraft carrier dirigibles, which happened years AFTER the first naval aircraft carriers were developed, proved to be complete and utter failures. So just to be crystal clear, let's go over it one last time; I never claimed that aircraft carrier dirigibles *never existed,* I simply refuted your false claim that they were *the first aircraft carriers.* They weren't, in fact; both the Royal Navy and US Navy began developing naval aircraft carriers years before the USS Macon and Akron were ever built, thus making the Macon/Akron definitively *not the first aircraft carriers.* That was the whole point, which you somehow managed to miss.🤣 So what have we learned from this? Well, we've learned that you were 100% *wrong* about dirigibles being *the first aircraft carriers* because they definitely weren't; we've also learned that dirigible aircraft carriers didn't work once they were tried, years *after* the first naval aircraft carriers were built; and we've learned that you have trouble understanding written English.🤣 You might want to work on that, chum.😉

@jlawrencereilly1949

Жыл бұрын

@@That70sGuitarist None or the hydrogen fill airships worked but the fact is England built flying airships that they did successfully launch and retrieve a sopwith camel aircraft and because of how difficult and the crashes they decommissioned them and the US Navy came along in 1924 with their first water based carrier. although the nave tried again in 1031. I think your the one with a comprehension issue. Actually no need to review.

@That70sGuitarist

Жыл бұрын

@@jlawrencereilly1949 "the navy tried again in 1031...?" And which navy was that, exactly? The Norman navy?🤣

So let's say Flying Carriers would become the next weapon if the future, this means that the US Aircraft naming system would have to change, because C stands for Cargo, so it would have to be something else

thank you . ( 2023 / Dec / 19 )