Why don't we have Treads on carriers

Real carriers use catapults

Attached: shawn-wagner-soban-carrier.jpg (1920x1080, 333K)

Our carriers use nuclear reactors, which need water for cooling the condensers in the steam cycle.

Also any elevation change, even if minor, will put unbelievable stress on the hull.

Why don't we have any sky carriers is the real question.

Attached: 1323535937363844132-743962.jpg (970x569, 183K)

>tfw no flying carriers

Hive mind

What is a joke?
(((You)))

not every post is bait

Basically propulsion and maintenance.

>a mobile landcreeper airfield/seaport is useless.

it would be slow but.

>no hovertech
blasphemy

Attached: Aigaion_Over_Fuscum_Sea.jpg (1280x720, 160K)

OP's a dumbass

Attached: 1548436653620.jpg (497x576, 75K)

nuclear zeppelins

>nuclear zeppelins
Is this Metal Slug now?

Attached: metal slug.jpg (1000x1333, 610K)

Consider the following: A sea (and air and space) carrier needs to have all of its facilities in one package so that the crew can access them without exiting the ship. A land carrier has no such restriction.

Therefore a land based carrier could consist of separate mobile airstrip, mobile hangar, mobile supply and ammo storage, mobile barracks, and of course separate defensive escorts tagging along in this massive convoy. The airstrip may not need to be mobile when in operation; it could deploy its airstrip and catapult akin a bridge layer and stays there until it is time to move. The mobile hangars may need to be able to dock with the airstrip component.

This is a weirdly sensible response to what was otherwise the latest in a weird string of tonight's episode of "Schizo Invasion: The Confusening"

the seaplanes
lol'd

>slips track
>is down for 10 days while people try to figure out how to put it back on

Attached: 1547737189514.gif (349x194, 1.03M)

So, bulldozers on flatbeds and some manufactured plating for a runway?

Attached: Arsenal Birb.webm (1280x720, 2.93M)

But we do

Attached: FE472457-2954-429D-9B9C-FBA215919AA4.jpg (799x531, 92K)

We basically already do this. Rapid Rumway has been a thing for a long time. Between that and LAMs we're able to transport to an austere location and be flying in a pretty shocking amount of time.

Attached: airmen-wearing-m-17-chemical-biological-field-masks-conduct-rapid-runway-repair-770ccc-1600.jpg (1067x1600, 1003K)

CARRIER HAS ARRIVED

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-03-12 at 4.57.25 AM.png (47x39, 11K)

We really should not. We could be tempted to go somewhere we're not supposed to be. We must not uncover the secrets buried under the sand. We must not question the holy scripture, or else Sajuuk will punish us for our transgressions.

That's still being laid down by hand. I'm imagining a foldable runway that sits on top a platform like the space shuttle crawler
that can both deploy and pack up in just a few minutes.

Maybe instead of a single crawler carrying the runway it would be multiple ones that link together to form the full airstrip once they find a good space to do so. Much of the weight would be hydraulics used to adjust their platforms so that they can line up while sitting on uneven ground, within reasonable limits.

Yummy

As much as I wish for this to be a reality, this will sadly never happen.
Like many here have said, there is not yet any practical application for a land based aircraft carrier. It's the same reason why we aren't getting metal gears or MJOLNIR power armor, or 40K lords of war. An entire military's investments have been drained into a niche field that yields devastating results but can be easily taken down by a horde of enemys because of how said technology needs to be reliant on others in order to function properly. "Without full land, sea and air support, arsenal is nothing more than a gigantic coffin." It doesn't mean it hasn't been tried though. Germany had experimented with superheavy tanks the likes of the Maus at the end of WW2, and most relevant being the landcruiser P-1000 ratte. These projects were obviously scrapped because of obvious reasons. The most notable being what Said.
It's a big slow target that can be easily incapacitated and destroyed and would need a shitload more maintanence than a panther. We want it badly, but it has no practical use outside of being experimental.
>tfw the UN sends a massive land carrier to the center of Antarctica and finds Khar-Toba only to be glassed from orbit for violating the galactic treaty of vercitiles.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=-7sAYbCTmPo

Attached: tumblr_nu9n4dQFhH1usme17o5_400.gif (400x224, 1.94M)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_aircraft_carrier

At least sky carriers are sort of a thing, even if they were mostly experimental. However OP's idea is just retarded

I would punch you if I can you daft cunt

Well beyond the poor practicality and obvious violations of the laws of physics, don't forget that Earth is mostly water.
If you need to get planes closer to another country, the only way to get there is through water most of the time.
If it's inside the same landmass and close enough to your borders, you just fucking fly here from your own airbases. But if it's further you have to fly through one or more other countries, which may or may not be ok with it. I they are allied countries, you can use their airbases. If not you might as well go around through international waters with a carrier and save yourself the trouble.

Space carriers is where the real potential is.

Imagine gigantic vacuum tanks on wheels with antigravity and spaceships inside them.
When you open the valve, air vents out and the spaceships get launched out.

Attached: 1535120649401.png (1000x800, 285K)

You heard of the USS Akron?

Little off topic here, but how practical would a mobile FOB be? Like a big command vehicle that has computers and other tactical shit in it. Think elephants from halo.

Patrician taste

So like command trailers that already exist? Just a bunch of computers and shit in a tractor trailer. Hell there's smaller versions crammed into vans like in the action movies.

10/10 would serve on

Attached: er6lr75gvkj01.jpg (2762x1598, 394K)

Why don´t we have modern submarine carrier?

Attached: DSCF8178.jpg (1600x824, 162K)

I was thinking they could be self propelled and function somewhat as a mobile garrison, kind of. I don't exactly know what I want here, but really like the idea of a mobile FOB that can easily deploy in an area after it has been secured.

It is cheaper to build a VTOL aircraft.

kek

Because it's a retarded idea. Pretty much the answer to every single military-related "why don't we have _____" question is because it's retarded.

I can actually see something like this becoming practical in the near future (50-100 years) only instead of some big fuck-off piece of SAM/interceptor bait it'll be a C-130 or larger-sized "cargo" style airframe that services small attack drones.

why doesn't the US have a real road-mobile high-altitude SAM system?

the answer is always "money". it is cheaper to do something else that gives you the same outcome for less money.

Highways

because ship-girls, of course. and strikes witches too probably

Honestly, look at what ISIS did with drones. They put mortar rounds on them and had them drop them on top of vehicles. It was very effective.
Think of what the US military could do, even a drone capable of carrying 10 or 15 pounds could have multiple bombs on board. You could have hundreds of them in an aircraft that "dropped" the drones, had them fly near targets, while a hundred soldiers from control stations elsewhere coordinated the attacks. You could even have some with those little Raytheon missiles on them fucking shit up.

You don't really need a lot of computing power to handle in-field military work. The rest would be communication equipment; again it doesn't take a very large vehicle to carry it and its only going to link up to existing infrastructure (eg satellites). And then what else is there to add to single vehicle? For living space it's better to pack tents and set up camp the old fashioned way if you really want to make a base out in the middle of nowhere.

The only reason you'd want to have all of those facilities unpacked and functional in a single vehicle is if you need them to be used on the go and if they cannot plant themselves down on a spot for whatever reason. That's why naval ships and aircraft carriers are what they are, but its not a problem for things on land. Hence why any science fiction setting with land carriers or mobile self-contained FOBs has to have contrived hostile environment conditions for it to make practical sense.

This. It probably could be done, but it would be utterly useless. And unbelievably expensive to make, for no reason.

The West spent billions developing VTOLs, the East developed planes that can land literally in muddy fields...

Attached: 1337385538027.jpg (640x480, 48K)

Just discovered there’s official nod that Mihay was Yellow 13’s mentor.

because in the ocean the water floats. you don't need land carriers because land carries itself, duh.

Attached: 1536545144830.jpg (324x310, 102K)

>the girls are aircraft carriers
>the girls are also the planes
How the fuck is this going to work? Are the planegirls all lolis who ride around on the onii san carriers shoulders?