Why haven't we made submarine aircraft carriers yet?

Sprungli · September 01, 2014, 05:40:21 PM

It's unneeded, warfare is fought in code and at a nano scale, the days of large tanks and ships are well behind us

Sprungli · September 01, 2014, 05:43:23 PM

And they were used extensively in the pacific during WW2, technically

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier

Juuzou · September 01, 2014, 05:44:57 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Sprungli · September 01, 2014, 05:55:00 PM

Quote from: Lady Noelle on September 01, 2014, 05:44:57 PM

This is a discussion about merging a modern submarine and modern aircraft carrier though.

True, but we just don't need them, the reason I cited WW2 was to show they DID have a use, but tech has moved on

Juuzou · September 01, 2014, 05:56:24 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Statefarm · September 01, 2014, 05:57:53 PM

It would look badass. Giant ass ship coming up from the depths, opening up and an airfield slowly rises with lots of aircraft sitting on it.

MyNameIsCharlie · September 01, 2014, 06:21:26 PM

Why would we build that? We haven't had even a stray bullet hit a carrier since 1945.

I_IRONMAN_I · September 01, 2014, 06:42:34 PM

Quote from: Kinder_ on September 01, 2014, 05:29:08 PM

Except the Japanese >.>

damn ballsy mofos

And then their Geiger Counters went haywire.

big sponge · September 01, 2014, 08:12:04 PM

Because the rule of cool doesn't work in real life.