Realistic Flying Warships?

[Balrog]

Is there any realistic way for a modern or near-future Earth to construct a warship, say about the size and mass of a modern USN destroyer, able to propel itself into the air to an altitude of at least several thousand feet and an airspeed of at least 100 mph? And have said ship be able to mount sufficiant weaponry and defenses to survive battle with other aircraft?

[CJvR]

No. The closest to a flying warship would probably be laser armed airships anything bigger would go into orbit.

[drachefly]

Short of using the Orion propulsion system, no.

[Balrog]

Short of using the Orion propulsion system, no.

What's that?

[NecronLord]

Short of using the Orion propulsion system, no.

What's that?

Toss a nuke out of the bottom of the ship, and get propelled up by the blast.

[DocHorror]

Using staggered nuclear explosions to propel an object through space.

[kheegster]

Is there any realistic way for a modern or near-future Earth to construct a warship, say about the size and mass of a modern USN destroyer, able to propel itself into the air to an altitude of at least several thousand feet and an airspeed of at least 100 mph? And have said ship be able to mount sufficiant weaponry and defenses to survive battle with other aircraft?

If you define a craft's weapon's carrying ability to be roughly proportional to its surface area, then a number of small aircraft can carry far more superior weaponry than a large airship.

Unless there is some weapon system which is so large that it cannot be mounted on an aircraft, there is no need for airships. Unless of course the weapon is so short-ranged that it cannot be land- or sea-based, and very few effective weaponry in the modern age fits that description.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

As others have said, the only way you'd loft something that massive and large that high into the air at any appreciable velocity would be to pile a great fuckton of explosives under it and set it off. This is obviously neither viable, or really all that survivable. On the plus side, just moving your air battleship from place to place will guarantee near-total devastation to anything in and under its path.

[Patrick Degan]

Is there any realistic way for a modern or near-future Earth to construct a warship, say about the size and mass of a modern USN destroyer, able to propel itself into the air to an altitude of at least several thousand feet and an airspeed of at least 100 mph? And have said ship be able to mount sufficiant weaponry and defenses to survive battle with other aircraft?

Outside of an H.G. Wells novel, not really.

[Dark Hellion]

Only on the way down.

[Simplicius]

I've given some thought to this, because a flying battleship is a badass thing, but I realized that even with some kind of crazy future-tech, it's a terrible idea.

A flying warship suddenly has a whole new direction from which it can be swarmed by aircraft and missiles, making it more difficult to defend than a conventional ship.

Unless you decree magical invulnerability to the mechanism which keeps it aloft, the flying warship is much weaker than the floating one. Hull integrity is a simpy matter of armor, compartmentalization, and letting buoyancy do the rest, and that suffices for a floating vessel. On the other hand, you reach into ridiculous levels of wanktech when you have some kind of antigrav system that can sustain damage while keeping the airship aloft, as well as a direct-lift system which can can carry a hefty number of weapons without being a gigantic target.

Cost-weight spiral. If you carry enough armor to protect the antigrav mechanism, you either sacrifice weapons and other systems, or you need a bigger antigrav system, which requires more armor, etc....

Aerial battles would be ridiculously casualty-prohibitive. If the antigrav mechanism is disrupted beyond its minimum effective ability, that airship is an instant loss, and with it much of its crew. No slipping gracefully below the waves, no time to abandon ship or effect repairs, no beaching - just 9.8 m/s^2 down, down, down.

If you need to move ordnance inland, use an air force. If it has to be huge, use an orbital platform. Both are more plausible than a flying warship.

[Molyneux]

If you need to move ordnance inland, use an air force. If it has to be huge, use an orbital platform. Both are more plausible than a flying warship.

Why don't we have one of those yet, again?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

If you need to move ordnance inland, use an air force. If it has to be huge, use an orbital platform. Both are more plausible than a flying warship.

Why don't we have one of those yet, again?

Because an orbital platform is currently beyond our ability to easily afford to launch or assemble. I mean, look at the headaches we're having just building a fucking research station, much less a purpose-built military weapons platform. Not to mention there's this international prohibition regarding the weaponization of space. On top of that, the nation controlling the one orbital platform is essentially inviting the sort of retaliation that'd make Shep spring a stiffy.

[Molyneux]

If you need to move ordnance inland, use an air force. If it has to be huge, use an orbital platform. Both are more plausible than a flying warship.

Why don't we have one of those yet, again?

Because an orbital platform is currently beyond our ability to easily afford to launch or assemble. I mean, look at the headaches we're having just building a fucking research station, much less a purpose-built military weapons platform. Not to mention there's this international prohibition regarding the weaponization of space. On top of that, the nation controlling the one orbital platform is essentially inviting the sort of retaliation that'd make Shep spring a stiffy.

We're having trouble building a research station because we've been effectively starving our space program (referring to the US) for far too damn long.

What exactly is the prohibition, by the way? I've heard it referred to, but I don't know the name of the treaty exactly...

[Broomstick]

Is there any realistic way for a modern or near-future Earth to construct a warship, say about the size and mass of a modern USN destroyer, able to propel itself into the air to an altitude of at least several thousand feet and an airspeed of at least 100 mph? And have said ship be able to mount sufficiant weaponry and defenses to survive battle with other aircraft?

No.

The bolded requirements are where the idea falls down.

Size is no problem - they had huge zepps as early as WWI. They even used them in attacks. The attained altitudes of around 20,000, and probably could have gone higher but the damn crews kept getting funny in the head and/or passing out. Speeds of at least 80 mph were achieved, and with modern tech could no doubt be exceeded.

They were rendered obsolete as soon as airplanes could reach the same altitudes.

[Cao Cao]

Note that many stories that incorporate giant air-battleships invent circumstances in which they'd actually be viable, Gundam for example where all long range missile weaponry is rendered useless.

Realistically you'd be in a big airborne box that might as well have painted "SHOOT ME" in bright yellow letters on the hull.

[Ariphaos]

Is there any realistic way for a modern or near-future Earth to construct a warship, say about the size and mass of a modern USN destroyer, able to propel itself into the air to an altitude of at least several thousand feet and an airspeed of at least 100 mph? And have said ship be able to mount sufficiant weaponry and defenses to survive battle with other aircraft?

There's an old rumor that the US had an 800-foot flying wing that moved at 20-30 knots.

As a plane, it could, perhaps, be useful, as it no doubt could carry a lot of fuel, supplies, etc. If you're certain it's not going to get shot down.

If the USAF does possess such a thing I highly doubt its mission profile involves getting anywhere close to combat.

[Winston Blake]

What exactly is the prohibition, by the way? I've heard it referred to, but I don't know the name of the treaty exactly...

The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law and, among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military manoeuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV).

[Molyneux]

What exactly is the prohibition, by the way? I've heard it referred to, but I don't know the name of the treaty exactly...

The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law and, among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military manoeuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV).

That'd all go out the window in case of an extra-Terran aggressor, I assume.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

What exactly is the prohibition, by the way? I've heard it referred to, but I don't know the name of the treaty exactly...

The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law and, among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military manoeuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV).

That'd all go out the window in case of an extra-Terran aggressor, I assume.

Not really. Any species who would find it feasible to carry military aggression to foreign starsystems would be so advanced that any armed response on our part would only prolong the agony and do nothing to delay, or change, the inevitable outcome.

[White Haven]

Speaking as the product of a very, very long line of beings that survived long enough to breed, I'd be damned before I'd go out without putting up whatever fight I could...'prolonging the end' or no.

[Ford Prefect]

And i wanted to have such things in the future of my own universe. Might have to keep it to the Olympics then. I mean, it seems obvious now, but you'd really have to produce some pretty damn good reasons.

[Cao Cao]

That'd all go out the window in case of an extra-Terran aggressor, I assume.

It'll all go out the window the moment frequent travel to space becomes economically viable..

[Balrog]

Ok, so realistic is out. Is there anything that would make such flying ships, I don't know, seem somewhat realistic? It's for a story I was going to start I would rather not resort to "a wizard did it" excuses.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Ok, so realistic is out. Is there anything that would make such flying ships, I don't know, seem somewhat realistic? It's for a story I was going to start I would rather not resort to "a wizard did it" excuses.

Hell, if realistic is out, all you can say is "a wizard did it." Sure, you might change the wizard's name to "countergrav" or "repulsor-lifts" or "antigrav/artificial gravity fields" or "a reverse-polarity graviton deflector field" but the end result is pretty much the same.