Got shot down a lot, in major confilcts against foes with air power.
snoopcester Send a noteboard - 12/05/2012 08:38:00 PM
Not sure which way you are going on that really.
Sorry but you aren't putting up a sensible argument here -
1) the Helicarrier isn't supposed to be an air attack weapon, as I have already pointed out.
2) Your argument about the fighter screen being on board rather than acting as a flying screen is the exact same for an aircraft carrier and a fixed air base - do you think both of them are also equally pointless? Where exactly would you launch aircraft from, if you are ruling all the conventional methods as useless?
3) the last point is a complete red herring, obviously. In fact you have already made the exact point as to why elsewhere.
You mean like the one they engaged?
and you are again missing the point here - it isn't just an attack craft, no matter how much you wish it to be. It was carrying various labs, prison cells and extensive store rooms of top secret, experimental equipment in the film. Reckon you can fit all than in "30 or so of those VTOL craft"? I doubt they could...
Other air attack weapons had fighter escorts in the past without having the capacity to carry them. All the helicarrier does to that end is increase the chance that your "fighter screen" might be uselessly parked on board when bad guys come calling, instead of alertly flying escort duty. BTW, how much good DID that fighter screen do when Hawkeye came calling? IIRC, a single plane got with the helicarrier, which would never happen against a real life aircraft carrier.
Sorry but you aren't putting up a sensible argument here -
1) the Helicarrier isn't supposed to be an air attack weapon, as I have already pointed out.
2) Your argument about the fighter screen being on board rather than acting as a flying screen is the exact same for an aircraft carrier and a fixed air base - do you think both of them are also equally pointless? Where exactly would you launch aircraft from, if you are ruling all the conventional methods as useless?
3) the last point is a complete red herring, obviously. In fact you have already made the exact point as to why elsewhere.
And regarding stealth and covert ops, the ONLY FLYING SHIP in the world is not remotely conducive to that sort of thing. At all. Only if they have magic invisibility technology and magic radar diversion technology, in which case why not put those on something more reasonably and practically sized? "Come on boy, turn this baby around! We have to go to Beijing to exfiltrate a covert operative, then on to Syria to insert a commando unit, then to South America to interdict some narco-terrorists. You could probably afford, for the price of a helicarrier, 30 or so of those VTOL craft they use to board the carrier in the first place, which would be far more useful, operating from a HQ that stays at sea level, and which would appear to have a superior stealth profile.
You mean like the one they engaged?
and you are again missing the point here - it isn't just an attack craft, no matter how much you wish it to be. It was carrying various labs, prison cells and extensive store rooms of top secret, experimental equipment in the film. Reckon you can fit all than in "30 or so of those VTOL craft"? I doubt they could...
*MySmiley*
Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."
Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."
Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
I'm pleased to report The Avengers offered both entertainment AND justification (spoilers seperated)
- 05/05/2012 04:33:39 AM
1576 Views
Spoilers about archery, aircraft carriers etc
- 05/05/2012 04:34:45 AM
1055 Views
Re: Spoilers about archery, aircraft carriers etc
- 05/05/2012 08:29:33 AM
1217 Views
The Heli-Carrier is well established in the Marvel Universe as S.H.I.E.L.D.'s base of operations.
- 05/05/2012 12:12:57 PM
827 Views
Yup, they couldn't get away with not having the Heli-Carrier.
- 05/05/2012 01:17:58 PM
806 Views
Re: Yup, they couldn't get away with not having the Heli-Carrier.
- 07/05/2012 08:35:53 AM
845 Views
Re: Spoilers about archery, aircraft carriers etc
- 06/05/2012 03:51:23 PM
882 Views
Yeah, Black Widow's reaction was a little... weird
- 07/05/2012 06:26:26 PM
935 Views
Re: Yeah, Black Widow's reaction was a little... weird
- 08/05/2012 01:21:24 PM
840 Views
Not really, that is the nature of The Hulk.
- 09/05/2012 02:22:08 PM
784 Views
Re: Not really, that is the nature of The Hulk.
- 09/05/2012 03:13:53 PM
793 Views
It depends on which interpretation of the Hulk they are running with.
- 14/05/2012 01:50:44 PM
823 Views
Haven't you missed the point of the helicarrier?
- 07/05/2012 09:18:31 PM
793 Views
Yes, what have bombers done without fighter screens over the last 100 years?
- 12/05/2012 05:44:32 PM
905 Views
Got shot down a lot, in major confilcts against foes with air power.
- 12/05/2012 08:38:00 PM
752 Views
I thought the disparate power levels were unintentionally hilarious (spoilers)
- 07/05/2012 03:14:34 PM
786 Views
Re: I thought the disparate power levels were unintentionally hilarious (spoilers)
- 07/05/2012 11:23:39 PM
1016 Views
Hawkeye does basically state as much to Black Widow. They're made for a spy movie.
- 14/05/2012 11:20:53 PM
803 Views
???
- 15/05/2012 01:36:39 AM
757 Views
I was just continuing the discussion. Could've replied to same one as you, yeah. *NM*
- 16/05/2012 01:16:08 AM
397 Views
What was up with the Hulk? (spoilers)
- 07/05/2012 06:35:06 PM
877 Views
I think it's just one of the many many plot holes.
- 07/05/2012 08:20:06 PM
836 Views
Regarding Coulson's role in the Marvel movies going forward *SPOILERS*
- 14/05/2012 11:15:12 PM
826 Views
Re: Regarding Coulson's role in the Marvel movies going forward *SPOILERS*
- 15/05/2012 01:50:52 AM
785 Views
Re: Regarding Coulson's role in the Marvel movies going forward *SPOILERS*
- 16/05/2012 01:18:34 AM
944 Views