Nerd question of the week...Chinese CVx

[mthrockmor]

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

[Penguin]

Diminishing marginal returns on cheap equipment would quickly eat up whatever you saved by buying it.  The barge can carry a lot of oil, but the force of an aircraft landing is enormous.  Add in the weight of supplies, ordnance, planes, cabins, reinforcements, and defensive armament and you have violated goal of CV design- creating a mobile, offensive, aircraft platform.

-Penguin

[uptown]

With the smart weapons we have today, I don't reckon we need boats with 200+ aircraft on them. That and take into account what a loss it would be to have a huge vessel with 200 planes onboard sunk. And not to mention the lives that would be lost.

[PR3D4TOR]

It's not a new idea, but with today's supertankers it would be a much more potent platform. Most supertankers cruise at more than 15 knots, so adding a little more power should make a super auxiliary carrier plenty mobile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangamon_class_escort_carrier

[mthrockmor]

From what I understand these vessels are incredible strong, and relatively cheap to build. While not a sports car like the Nimitz it would allow the Chinese to park combat aircraft in an area they have no input on now. The size would allow for tremendous damage absorption and plenty of room for air defense. Of course a Virginia class popping it with some torpedoes is another thing.

Boo

[mechanic]

a small nimble ship can handle rough sea better couldn't it? Not a deciding factor but something to consider.

[B-17]

a small nimble ship can handle rough sea better couldn't it? Not a deciding factor but something to consider.

It's all relative. A small fishing boat for example, would simply ride out the waves. There's not usually much on board, save for some small things (and the pilot) that can be thrown around. An aircraft carrier, on the other hand, would simply plow through the waves, not ride them. But, there's a HELL of a lot more on boad that can move.

[Tom5572]

While modern tankers are strong, they are not designed to take a torpedo shot. After reinforcing the deck to take the shock of repeated controlled crashes, all the additional armor to beef up the hull, all the self protection armament, all the ordinance for the ac, the addition of a hangar deck and elevators to move the aircraft to and from, adding an angled deck for recovery operations, moving the bridge, and everything else which would have to be done. It seems to me it would be more cost effective to build a carrier from the ground up.  Tankers were not designed for speed either, they are steady. One of the reasons for the speed requirement of US carriers is to put enough air over the deck to launch aircraft regardless of the wind conditions.

[B-17]

One of the reasons for the speed requirement of US carriers is to put enough air over the deck to launch aircraft regardless of the wind conditions.

What? A carrier doing 100 kts?! Say it ain't so

[Tom5572]

How about 30 knots with the catapult providing the other 140.

[B-17]

How about 30 knots with the catapult providing the other 140.

true

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

[Tom5572]

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

The USS Nimitz is 1092 feet long and cruises at 30+ knots.

I still believe it is a waste of money to convert a super tanker to a carrier.

[PR3D4TOR]

Then why did the U.S., U.K. and Japan convert all those tankers and freighters into carriers in WWII? Many were even new built with freighter hulls.

[Tom5572]

World War II? I think the US stopped using converted ships between the wars. If I recall correctly, the Hornet, Yorktown, and Enterprise were all built from the ground up to be carriers. Now perhaps some of the escort carriers were initially laid as something else but were changed in mid build.