Nixeu
Lord of Madness, Harbinger of Llamas
- Location
- Your nightmares.
Not sure where you got the stats for the Nimitz. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that I can't seem to find solid numbers myself, so I'm curious where you found them. I was under the impression that the Navy likes to keep the details of its carriers secret, even when it comes to older ships, hence why efforts by naval enthusiasts to secure a decommissioned supercarrier as a museum ship have generally failed. So I'm really surprised you managed to get solid numbers on a class that's still in use.So, just so people have an idea of what will fit, the Nimitz's hanger deck is 209 meters long, 34 meters wide, and 8 meters tall. Going by the schematic picture of Gipsy Danger, Jaegers are roughly 80 meters tall, probably about 25 meters wide, and perhaps 12 meters front to back on their torso. I believe that the most practical way to refit the carrier will be to add height to the hanger deck, install giant doors in the flight deck, and redesign at least half of the hangar deck into a cradle Jaegers lay down on, like on the Skadi, except with additional repair and fabrication equipment. We can either take a Jaeger and perhaps 6 squadrons of aircraft, or maybe fit in two jaegers. If we are willing to leave aircraft exposed on the flight deck, we could fit more aircraft squadrons, but that would likely impede the deployment of carried Jaegers (Since the aircraft would have to launch so the Jaegers can get out of the hanger deck).
Regardless, we're probably going to be making a lot of changes, including potentially downsizing the area needed for the reactors, so I've been working off the assumption that we most just have the exterior dimensions of the hull as our main limitation when it comes to space. We're probably going to need to effectively gut the insides anyway just to replace the nuclear reactors, since those are likely deep within the hull. We can probably use drone tech to seriously cut down on the amount of crew needed as well. So I figure it's effectively just the outer shell's dimensions that limit our cramming things into the hull, and even that's at least somewhat negotiable.
...Ya do remember that part of the repair process is to produce new schematics for our altered version of the craft, right? That's why we could build a Frigate this turn with our Dockworks.The carrier is fine but I'd rather have the chance to build them instead of depending on a one off. Also, we might be able to build non-supercarriers carriers along the way, would be great for a cheap water deployment ability for autogyros.
Russian military engineering does tend towards the robust side as I understand it. Probably because their army isn't a volunteer service, and the amount of drinking the soldiers do as a result makes durability a priority. Russian soldiers have such a drinking problem that the alcohol the Russian army uses for engine coolant and fuel isn't denatured alcohol, which is alcohol with unpleasant or even toxic additives. This is because the higher-ups know the soldiers would drink it anyway. That being the case, combined with Russia's wide range of environments, it really would not surprise me if their engine designs are incredibly robust.So, having done some research in my capacity as Air Force General, I have learned:
- Ramjets are bad for our uses because they really don't operate well below Mach 2, or at all below like Mach 0.5.
- Pulsejets are bad because they don't actually beat out rockets on efficiency very well, if at all.
- both of the above have major fuel economy issues.
- Anything air breathing is going to have issues with the particulate atmosphere, moving parts or no, because of erosion. Flying things don't like particulates, full stop. The faster it is, the more of an issue.
- The US military actually does have turbine engines designed to function in heavy particulate environs, because they're designed to be able to operate in the likes of Iraq, where the star wars sand memes are a truism.
- whether our superbugs have those is a toss-up, because we got them from a pacific naval base, but they do exist.
- I was linked a document about helicopter turboshaft engines regarding this. it's a chonky read and the URL is pure cancer, but:
- It was suggested we look into trying to find some Russian engines, because those are built with heavy particulate ingestion in mind. (The exact words were "Russian engines have a reputation for being able to potentially suck in literal riverbeds and not really care", but I don't know how inflated the reputation actually is, beyond reasonable certainty that it is.)