It's like some engineer never imagined using the BUFF on a carrier.
Which is just crazy, on the face of it. I mean if there was ever a plane that was a perfect fit for naval aviation, it's the B-52.
It's like some engineer never imagined using the BUFF on a carrier.
The necessary size, including striking down a B52, is well within existing Pycrete plans. Just as there are material limits on the size of wooden vessels there are limits on mild steel, even of good quality.
Pycrete is pretty well immune to such limits. Rather the problems are greater with the smaller the Pycrete vessel.
So it has to be a Pycrete hull.
I recall a very old forum where a Pycrete battleship was laid out that was all but invulnerable to any conventional weapon including large mines causing back breaking expanses of gas under the hull centre. The biggest problem was weaponry. All launched weapons (guns, missiles, torpedoes etc.) need a hole reaching the surface and were thus weak points. I liked the suggestions of a ram with the Pycrete battleship sinking opposing naval and merchant vessels by ramming.
In the case of a Pycrete carrier the lifts would be the key weak point.
Because we have a very big source of heat nearby (the sun). In direct sunlight, the pykrete would sublimate away into vapour.Wandering off topic, it makes me wonder if pykrete would be any good as a material for building spaceships in orbit. I mean it's cold in space. All (ha, ha) you need is a source of water and sawdust or a sawdust substitute.
Because we have a very big source of heat nearby (the sun). In direct sunlight, the pykrete would sublimate away into vapour.
But why? With refueling, B-52s are intercontinental strategic bombers. They don't need to be based on carriers near combat zones. They can fly from wherever.
Asked twice already... The only answer, it seems, is that they are way beyond COOL.
Asked twice already... The only answer, it seems, is that they are way beyond COOL.
It certainly wouldn't be worth the cost of developing and building the massive carrier neccessary, but a carrier-based B-52 could have a smaller fuel tank, and use that weight to increase its payload.
Already massive enough?!?![]()
We're discussing building a 6-kilometre long aircraft carrier, and now giving the B-52 more bombs is excessive?
True. But I said in the start, there are no practical reasons for this. It's just cool to have the BUFF fly off the carrier.
QUOTE]
Which probably is not why the USAF never used the ice islands. USSR and maybe even the PRC would surely copy and follow, once they knew how to do, especially if manuevable to dock at specified resupply areas. Unlike the US bombers, AFAIK the Russian and Chinese were much more challenged. (Actually, the Chinese would be easy to manipulate with such an extended supply line through the Bering Straits.) Half the distance would make quite a leap in latent strike force.
Asked twice already... The only answer, it seems, is that they are way beyond COOL.
A ship capable of taking a B-52 will be so slow it probably will have to worry about ballisitic missiles. I will also have to worry about submarines with nuclear torpedoes (which the Russians had, the Type 65-73, which was unguided, but had a 20 KT warhead and a top speed of 50 kts), which will be even harder to detect than incoming missiles, and will be instantly fatal.If we really needed a reason, I can think of one. The B-52s' primary mission for most of its existence has been strategic nuclear strike. In a nuclear war, there's a good bet their bases will no longer exist by the time they finish their mission. A carrier - assuming you could make this thing move enough to not be targetable with ballistic missiles - has a better chance of surviving, allowing you to recover, refuel, and rearm the BUFFs for a second mission.