how difficult would it be to trebuchet an aircraft carrier?

>>63958860 (OP)
Very

>>63958860 (OP)
It'd be a fcuking big trebuchet. What would you launch an aircraft carrier at?

>>63958860 (OP)
the bigger question is, how big would the trebuchet have to be.

>>63958894
Can modern material science even make one big enough?

>>63958860 (OP)
Not very. A large trebuchet wpuld be needed, but they operate on very simple principles.

>>63960020
but wouldn't it be so heavy that it would collapse under its own internal stresses? such a massive assembly of moving components seems impossible to keep stable long enough to do even one launch.

>>63960037
make it out of steel ya dingus

>>63960045
what if a plane crashes into it and its fuel melts all the steel?

>>63958860 (OP)
Anon, my brain cells kill themselves because of you
Maximum autist
Answer your question: VERY DIFFICULT

If you loaded an aircraft carrier aboard the Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller (a feat that is (just barely) physically possible, for the Nimitz-class at least), would that make the aircraft carrier technically a boat?

>>63963676
Only if it could be launched.

Carrier anon here. Nothing launched by a trebuchet in human history is capable of doing much more than peeling the paint off a parked carrier. After Forrestal, the flight decks are blast and fire resistant. Even if you tried going for the tower, that glass is bullet resistant. And this is assuming it's parked with no crew or defensive weapons active. The Warwolf had, at best, a range of 350 yards, being very generous. One M2 doublestack has a range of 2,000. That's ignoring the Mk38. Or the CIWS. Yes, I know, bot question, but I liked my time on them.

If you have a trebuchet for the size, and means to move the carrier, then it shouldn't be difficult.

>>63964340
You're the only anon in the thread who lacks reading comprehension. The only one. Everyone else is talking about the correct thing.

>>63958960
Maybe. But I imagine it would perform like shit even if it were possible. Consider how heavy the trebuchet's structure would have to be, which means it would have massive inertia, which would be very self-limiting. It's sort of like why early crossbows were so limited in power due to the mass of the bow.

>>63964469
my only guess would be it would need some kind of reaction mass system like a giant flywheel or rockets to rotate a lever, but that would probably hit even bigger hurdles because of the stress on that giant ass column of steel. it would have to look like the Eiffel tower but sideways or something.

>>63958860 (OP)
hypersonic trebuchet

>>63964526
Just make two Eiffel towers, lay them sideways, and use that.

>intercontinental trebuchet
so this is how the nuclear winter begins

>>63964340
>>63964427
Sasuga navy.

To launch an aircraft carrier (~100,000 tons) with a trebuchet, you'd need:

A counterweight of about 1 billion kg
A trebuchet arm around 500 meters long
A structure the size of a mountain or skyscraper
Energy equivalent to 119 tons of TNT
Launch speed of around 100 m/s (360 km/h)
Note: Jews did 9/11

>>63967860
>t.

>>63968319
This anon is right, tricknology could do this.

>>63963716
You can launch it by sinking the ship underneath it.

>>63964340
ESL?

>>63964340
Ladies and gentlemen, military mind autism.