600 Flying Tanks or 10 Flying Battleships (RAR!)

[Zor]

In this scenario you are to decide what course of action the US military is to take in utilizing a new exciting anti gravity technology. This allows easy and stable lifting for heavy objects with minimal energy cost.

The first choice is a fleet of 600 Flying Tanks, this is a vehicle which weighs 225 tonnes and has a crew of six individuals (Commander, Pilot, Two Gunners, engineer and a Communications Officer). The flying tank is wedge shaped and has two turrets, one on top and one on the bottom. The main turret is located on the bottom and carries a 120mm autoloading cannon as well as a coaxial M22 Machine Gun, the top turret is smaller and carries a 30mm autogun. It's underside is protected with heavy Chobham Armor 600mm thick with side armor, 400mm side armor and 100mm top. It has a top speed of 100km/h and can stay in the air for about three days before needing to land. It has a top altitude of 10km.

The second option are a fleet of 10 Flying Battleships. These are larger craft 225 meters long and weighing 50,000 tonnes a piece. It has an impressive armament, including six 400mm cannons (mounted on three turrets, one underside, two top, each with two guns), as well as eight 120mm cannons and twelve CIWS guns. It also carries 90 Mark 41 VLS cells and 400 sidewinders, as well as a flight deck for aircraft to land on. Each flying battleship has a crew of 360 personnel, as well as having 1000mm of armor on the turrets and bottom, 600mm armor side and 200mm top. These battleships have, oddly enough a top speed higher than that of the flying tanks of 120km/h and can stay in the air for up to 18 months at a time. They have a maximum altitude of 10km.

Both cost the same amount to operate and make. Of these two options, which one do you think is better?

Zor

[Jub]

I'd have to go with the tanks; they're basically tank armored helicopters with an insane flight ceiling. They could also run strike missions because they'd likely be nearly immune to antiaircraft weapons.

The flying battleships are just begging for somebody to bust the big guns on and while they would have a lot of uses I just think that the tanks are more useful as a whole.

[Grumman]

While the flying tanks could probably take the flying battleships in a fight, the latter seems like they would have greater utility. As Jub says, the flying tanks are basically helicopters with more armour, but the flying battleships are in a league of their own.

[TOSDOC]

While the Flying Tanks sound devestating, I can't get around agreeing on the utility of having a mobile platform such as the Flying Battleship for the extended speed and operating range.

So I'll take 5 battleships and 300 tanks.

[TronPaul]

I make 600 flying Type-59s. Nobody fucks with the Quality Log Sales Co.

[Simon_Jester]

Take the battleship, dismount the heavy guns, and use the magazine space to mount better radars, command and control facilities, missiles, and possibly bomb bays. Remove the flight deck or scale it down into a drone recovery platform, because manned landings on a flying runway sound incredibly difficult.

Essentially, turn the flying battleship into a protected and heavily armed control platform for air operations and 'cruise missile hauler' for launching waves of ALCMs at enemy territory. The heavy cannons are pointless, although keeping the 120mm weapons (or replacing them with 155mm howitzers) is probably wise as a way to upgrade the battleship to fill the role of an AC-130.

Also note that the battleship's stated weight, size, and armor levels are probably mutually inconsistent. As is its crew- the rest of the navy would probably be thrilled to get their hand on the automation that lets such a OMG HUGE ship function with a crew of 360.

[MrDakka]

Essentially, turn the flying battleship into a protected and heavily armed control platform for air operations and 'cruise missile hauler' for launching waves of ALCMs at enemy territory. The heavy cannons are pointless, although keeping the 120mm weapons (or replacing them with 155mm howitzers) is probably wise as a way to upgrade the battleship to fill the role of an AC-130.

he he heavily armored missile boat? Sweet.

To the OP does the flying battleship have storage for aircraft and if so how much?

[Eternal_Freedom]

According to the OP the flying battleship already has 90 missile launch cells, which means (IIRC) something like 90 Tomahawks or 360 odd SAMs. That's already a lot.

I woudl get rid of the flight deck to make room for more missiles but I would keep the big guns, if only because a cannon shell is cheaper than a missile.

Ultimately though, 300 flying tanks and 5 modded flying battleships sound like an optimum mix.

[Zor]

Essentially, turn the flying battleship into a protected and heavily armed control platform for air operations and 'cruise missile hauler' for launching waves of ALCMs at enemy territory. The heavy cannons are pointless, although keeping the 120mm weapons (or replacing them with 155mm howitzers) is probably wise as a way to upgrade the battleship to fill the role of an AC-130.

he he heavily armored missile boat? Sweet.

To the OP does the flying battleship have storage for aircraft and if so how much?

It has storage for one Helicopter sized vehicle on board.

Zor

[atg]

To the OP does the flying battleship have storage for aircraft and if so how much?

It has storage for one Helicopter sized vehicle on board.

Zor

What's the point of the flight deck then if there is no-where to store the aircraft that land?

[Connor MacLeod]

I'll pick a Gundam, because if I'm going to be flying I want to do a ninja kick and swing a lazor sword while I'm at it.

[MrDakka]

It has storage for one Helicopter sized vehicle on board.
Zor

I'm not sure why you would devote the room for just one helicopter sized aircraft when you use for other stuff (ammo storage, jamming/countermeasures gear, etc). Whats that one aircraft supposed to do? Recon? Utility?

[The Disintegrator]

Personally I'd go with the 600 flying tanks. I feel that while the flying battleships would have great utility they'd be pretty big targets, so I'd rather have the 600 smaller units.

Now interestingly enough, the idea of a flying cruise missile hauler isn't an entirely brand new idea, and I'm not talking B-52's. Supposedly at some point during the Cold War the USAF considered using 747's as cruise missile carriers. The idea was for them to carry somewhere from fifty to a hundred nuclear warhead tipped cruise missiles internally on rotary launchers. I'm sure you can all imagine what a single 747 could do to a country if there were to be a breach in anti-air defenses.

http://www.boeing-747.com/special_boein ... arrier.php



I've had a hard time finding any solid sources confirming this, but somehow I doubt the USAF didn't at least consider it, and it's an interesting idea all the same.

[MrDakka]

DAMN. Talk about missile spam

Wasn't the max number of AGM86's a B52 could carry something like 24 or so?

[Simon_Jester]

Essentially, turn the flying battleship into a protected and heavily armed control platform for air operations and 'cruise missile hauler' for launching waves of ALCMs at enemy territory. The heavy cannons are pointless, although keeping the 120mm weapons (or replacing them with 155mm howitzers) is probably wise as a way to upgrade the battleship to fill the role of an AC-130.

he he heavily armored missile boat? Sweet.

To the OP does the flying battleship have storage for aircraft and if so how much?

Honestly, the armor needs to be either reduced or rethought; it's too heavy to be useful against normal SAMs which aren't that powerful, but not heavy enough to protect against dedicated antitank weapons.

You might be better off using very volume-intensive spaced armor designs that weigh less.

Also, the aircraft thing... good luck landing a plane on a moving flying platform. Skimmer pointed this one out to me. Modify it to launch drone aircraft, that's arguably more useful and drones are tiny and easy to store.

[The Disintegrator]

I think that the whole landing a plane on another plane could be feasibly done. I figure it'd essentially be taking an aircraft carrier landing, and then applying in flight refueling techniques to pull it off. Another method that could be used would be to drop fighters like bombs and then have them hook back into their carrier like a parasite fighters such as the XF-85 Goblin. I can't say whether or not the concept would be worth it or necessarily a good idea, but I think it'd be feasible.

But I do have to agree that if we wanted to launch planes from another plane, drones would probably be the better way to go. As pointed out, their smaller size and ability to compact easier makes them more ideal for the task. Then there is the whole idea of using aircraft that launch and recover on to another aircraft being pretty risky, and it might be best not to risk a human pilot. And then there's the issue of limited space for crews. Seeing as these drones could be piloted from a land base in Nevada the ship wouldn't have to accommodate pilots, which at the very least would increase morale for maintenance personnel.

I'm still in favor of the six hundred flying tanks, but the ten flying battleships are admittedly a bit more fun to think about.

[MrDakka]

You might be better off using very volume-intensive spaced armor designs that weigh less.

IIRC most SAMs have blast/fragmentation or continuous rod warheads with proximity fuses, so 200+mm of Chobham armor (against those pesky top attack missiles) is probably overkill unless you start bringing out the heavier missiles with shaped charges. Large caliber anti-aircraft artillery with sabot rounds could also be effective.

The flying tanks are probably the more logical choice in terms of cost and effectiveness, but for me you can't beat that allure of a flying battleship.

Plus with all that firepower, dakka dakka dakka dakka, fwoosh, fwoosh, fwoosh, fwoosh

[Simon_Jester]

The appeal of the flying battleship is that if you repurpose and redesign it to use its tonnage efficiently, there are a huge number of things you can do with a flying platform of that 50000-ton size. By comparison, a Boeing 747 has a take-off weight of less than 500 tons.

The trick is not to waste that precious tonnage on things the aircraft/battleship will never use.

I think that the whole landing a plane on another plane could be feasibly done. I figure it'd essentially be taking an aircraft carrier landing, and then applying in flight refueling techniques to pull it off. Another method that could be used would be to drop fighters like bombs and then have them hook back into their carrier like a parasite fighters such as the XF-85 Goblin. I can't say whether or not the concept would be worth it or necessarily a good idea, but I think it'd be feasible.

One of the biggest reasons the Goblin stayed an X-plane and was never actually fielded is that recovering the parasite fighters is really hard. Dangerously so, enough to make training in them a very risky thing even during peacetime operations.

Actually, the problem with using drones in that context is that it's very hard to do trick piloting with an aircraft ten thousand miles away that you only interact with through a camera uplink... gah.

[Stark]

If only computers could interface with automatic systems? If the battleship has no/low minimum airspeed it's even less 'impossible'.

[LaCroix]

Actually, landing on that "flying carrier" would be easier than a normal carrier.

It won't roll in the ocean, and with a speed of 65 knots (which is pretty close to naval aircraft stall speeds), instead of the 35 a naval carrier does, you could do a pretty sleak almost-vertical landing , instead of intentionally crashing on the carrier's deck.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I'd have to go with the tanks on this one, there's a reason battleships have been replaced by carriers in today's navy, for one thing a flying carrier can deliver missiles faster than a battleship, at least the air-launched variety since the planes can carry them closer to their targets and can also perform close air patrols. The larger missiles like Tomahawks are a different matter since they'll have a longer range, greater speed and payload, and are far easier to launch from a large vessel as opposed to an aircraft (can you land a B-52 on a carrier for example?). The drones can simply be controlled from the carrier itself, there's no point in controlling them from the other side of the planet if they're simply not going to go far enough from the carrier in the first place (which is naturally going to reduce communication latency). Can UAVs carry out mid-air refuelling for example, thus extending their range? I cannot help but think of the Helicarrier from the Avengers as an obvious example

[Simon_Jester]

Drones already have pretty extreme endurance and range; that's one of the advantages of removing the human pilot.

If only computers could interface with automatic systems?

So why don't they land drones on runways automatically, which is easier?

If the battleship has no/low minimum airspeed it's even less 'impossible'.

Actually, landing on that "flying carrier" would be easier than a normal carrier.

It won't roll in the ocean, and with a speed of 65 knots (which is pretty close to naval aircraft stall speeds), instead of the 35 a naval carrier does, you could do a pretty sleak almost-vertical landing , instead of intentionally crashing on the carrier's deck.

Problem: turbulence is a bear. This is one of those hidden complications; it's also why real aircraft carriers have nearly flat decks with minimal protrusions. This thing may not be so structurally simple; I'm not sure.

[Stark]

You sounded pretty sure when you flat out told people it was impossible based on trials involving different vehicles and probably different speeds fifty fucking years ago when my shoe had more processing power than the entire world. Are you aware machines can be landed automatically in the non-flying battleship world?

Regardless, just trade a few battleships for 60 tanks apiece, air wing established, milnerd repetition of irrelevance rendered more irrelevant.

[Sea Skimmer]

The flying tanks are too slow to be all that great an advantage, they'd still be hit by conventional anti tank weapons, and if they fly high enough to avoid that they are plain helpless against SAMs and fighters and hell, helicopters under 10,000ft. I'd take the battleships, they are armed against all threats including area targets, fast enough that the enemy cannot physically chase after them by road and generally just have way more effective firepower.

Modding the tanks to have less armor, less range more speed from a jet engine and maybe one in four with an AMRAAM launcher or Panstir S-1 turret would be much more effective.

So why don't they land drones on runways automatically, which is easier?

They do, and the auto landing ones generally crash less often then manually landed ones too to the point the US congress ordered that all future Reaper drones have this feature even though the USAF didn't want it. F/A-18 can land on a carrier automatically as well, though I'm sure no pilot worth his ego has ever used that feature in service.

[Sea Skimmer]

I've had a hard time finding any solid sources confirming this, but somehow I doubt the USAF didn't at least consider it, and it's an interesting idea all the same.

It was a very real, and very long studied concept in the late 1970s and 1980s, much patented too. The picture you posted is the concept that held about 90 missiles. An alternative concept would have added two bomb bays, each of which held a giant rotary launcher holding four smaller rotary launchers and 48 total missiles. The advantage of the latter was it would launch much more quickly and allow for carriage of other sorts of weapons, but of course, it needed a much larger mod of the plane. That 90 missile concept had to cycle the launcher pods to two small rear doors on railroad track which was time consuming and created some level of jam risk. USAF bought the B-1B instead and the US accepted arms treaties that limited the number of missiles per plane.

The Soviets are reported to have studied a similar sort of aircraft, but no details have emerged. US concepts also existed for entirely new aircraft for the role, including a crazy span loader with twenty or so the railroad track pods inside the actual wing and something like 160 weapons.

Note that a Boeing concept also exists for a 2 million pound aircraft to transport crude oil in Alaska instead of building the Alaska pipeline, so connections to reality of aircraft concepts may vary.