Nerd question of the week...Chinese CVx

[Shuffler]

I question more... who would be their cheap labor. 

[mthrockmor]

Without doing the research I believe the USS Yorktown and USS Lexington were built from converted battle-cruiser hulls due to the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty with UK, Germany, Japan, France and US.

Boo

[Shuffler]

Without doing the research I believe the USS Yorktown and USS Lexington were built from converted battle-cruiser hulls due to the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty with UK, Germany, Japan, France and US.

Boo

Some were along with jeep carriers.

[dedalos]

Reading about the Big-E retiring got me to thinking about a question I've wondered for a while.

I know the Chinese are working on developing a Naval program and CVs. Replicating the US Navy's 100-yrs of experience is not going to be easy. What if...

Why would it be a bad idea to take a massive, 1,800+ foot long super-tanker and turn into a truly floating runway. That kind of size could mitigate many engineering factors. While it seems neat to have a 35+ knot fast attack, nuc CV, having a floating airfield capable of handling 200+ aircraft is its own beauty. This kind of size would also lesson the need for items like catapults and even landing could be simplified. Throw in the cost could be so much less then a modern CV.

Correct the technical errors of my ways: why is this a bad idea?

Boo

I guess the fact that you even ask that question, makes it pointless to try and answer it 

[mthrockmor]

Dedalos, there you go.

Boo

[superpug1]

everyone pretty much hit the nail on the head. It would be slow, it would be thin skinned, and the cost of modifying it would  be about as much as buying a Russian Carrier from Putin's Pre-owned Naval Emporium

[dedalos]

Dedalos, there you go.

Boo

  I am not kidding.  If you have to ask that question you probably wont be able to understand the answers 

[PR3D4TOR]

Name   Date   Nation   Displacement   Speed   Aircraft   Notes

HMS Argus   1918   UK   14,000 tons (net)   20 knots   18   converted liner

USS Langley   1922   United States   11,500 tons   15 knots   30   converted collier

Hōshō   1923   Japan   7,500 tons (standard)   25 knots   12   early fleet carrier

HMS Hermes   1924   UK   10,850 tons (standard)   25 knots   12   early fleet carrier

HMS Audacity   1941   UK   5,540 tons (gross)   15 knots   6   merchant conversion[9]

USS Long Island, HMS Archer   1941   United States and UK   9000 tons   17 knots   15–21   merchant conversions

HMS Avenger, Biter, Dasher, USS Charger   1941   United States and UK   8,200 tons   17 knots   15–21   merchant conversions

Taiyō, Unyō, Chūyō   1941   Japan   17,830 tons (standard)   21 knots   27   converted liners

USS Kitty Hawk, Hammondsport, Lakehurst   1941   United States   8,100 tons   17 knots      merchant conversion aircraft ferries

HMS Activity   1942   UK   11,800 tons (standard)   18 knots   10–15   merchant conversion

Bogue class   1942   United States and UK   9,800 tons   18 knots   15–21   45 conversions of C-3 merchant hulls

USS Sangamon, Suwanee, Chenango, Santee   1942   United States   11,400 tons (standard)   18 knots   31   converted oilers

Campania   1943   UK   12,400 tons (standard)   18 knots   18   merchant conversion

Vindex   1943   UK   13,400 tons (standard)   16 knots   15–20   merchant conversion

Nairana   1943   UK   14,000 tons (standard)   16 knots   15–20   merchant conversion

Rapana class (Acavus, Adula, Alexia, Amastra, Ancylus, Gadila, Macoma, Miralda, Rapana)   1943   UK   12,000 tons   12 knots   3   tankers converted to Merchant aircraft carriers

Casablanca class   1943   United States   7,800 tons   19 knots   28   50 built as escort aircraft carriers

Kaiyo   1943   Japan   13,600 tons (standard)   23 knots   24   converted liner

HMS Pretoria Castle   1943   UK   17400 tons (standard)   18 knots   21   merchant conversion

Empire MacAlpine, Empire MacAndrew, Empire MacRae, Empire MacKendrick, Empire MacCallum, Empire MacDermott   1943   UK   8,000 tons (gross)   12 knots   4   grain carrying Merchant aircraft carriers

Empire MacCabe, Empire MacKay, Empire MacMahon, Empire MacColl   1943   UK   9,000 tons (gross)   11 knots   3   tanker Merchant aircraft carriers

Commencement Bay class   1944   United States   10,900 tons   19 knots   34   19 built as escort aircraft carriers

Shinyo   1944   Japan   17,500 tons   22 knots   33   converted liner

[mthrockmor]

Dedalos, I'm not sure if you think you're being tricky or if you are an MIT grad and want to talk extensive engineering. In either case, I think it is you that doesn't belong in this discussion. So by all means, move onto the next thread unless you have something relevant to say.

Boo

[B-17]

However, a supertanker is 200-300 feet longer than a Nimitz class and about twice as wide at the waterline. If you add an overhanging flight deck (like on the Nimitz) on top you could extend that even more.

(Image removed from quote.)

That big thing is long dead, scrapped several years ag now. It couldn't fit through most channels anyways. You'd have to physically convert it in deep water and transport all materials by ship-- ineffective and slow.

[B-17]

The Berge Sigval is 1087.6 feet long and cruises at 15.3 knots.

That's probably because a) she only has 1 three-bladed screw, only about 9m across, and her DIESEL engine can only put out about 27k horsepower, versus the Enterprise-- I think (IIRC) it has 4 screws, and 8 nuclear reactors. They combine for about 250k shp..? Correct me if I'm wrong. (probably am)

[Tom5572]

I did say believe, when wrong, I admit it. To convert a super tanker today would be foolish, yes the carriers of old could launch aircraft at 13 knots but the aircraft of WWII did not need the speed of today's to fly. 15 knots will not do it, it is not cost effective to convert anymore. And now I'm done beating that horse.

[dedalos]

Dedalos, I'm not sure if you think you're being tricky or if you are an MIT grad and want to talk extensive engineering. In either case, I think it is you that doesn't belong in this discussion. So by all means, move onto the next thread unless you have something relevant to say.

Boo

  I belong here as much as you do and I do have something to offer.  I am trying to save some people the time and effort of trying to explain to you something you will most likely not understand (like the humor in my first response).  People like Tom for example.  Here, let me waste some time also now.  In WWII as the name implies, there was a war.  That probably meant there was an emergency to get something out there at all costs ASAP.  Therefore, the conversions to save time. 

There is no such emergency today and therefore, if you are going to spend the money you may as well design something that you can use for the next 50-100 years.  Then again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE   

[PR3D4TOR]

I did say believe, when wrong, I admit it. To convert a super tanker today would be foolish, yes the carriers of old could launch aircraft at 13 knots but the aircraft of WWII did not need the speed of today's to fly. 15 knots will not do it, it is not cost effective to convert anymore. And now I'm done beating that horse.

Launching aircraft isn't the problem. You can easily dial in 30 knots more on the catapult. Landing otoh...

[Reschke]

If anyone is willing to try it the Chinese would be willing to do so. Also they can afford to loose more material and people than we can and just by giving our SSN's more targets to chase they are negating the overwhelming factor we have in submarine design and superiority.