Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mthrockmor on March 11, 2012, 10:27:27 PM
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
a small nimble ship can handle rough sea better couldn't it? Not a deciding factor but something to consider.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :(
-
How about 30 knots with the catapult providing the other 140.
-
How about 30 knots with the catapult providing the other 140.
true
-
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.
(http://www.iridiumspecies.com/gulf/images/supertanker2.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I question more... who would be their cheap labor. :rofl
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :lol
-
Dedalos, there you go.
Boo
-
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, there you go.
Boo
:lol I am not kidding. If you have to ask that question you probably wont be able to understand the answers :neener:
-
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
-
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
-
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.
(http://www.iridiumspecies.com/gulf/images/supertanker2.jpg)
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.
-
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)
-
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, 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
:rofl 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 ;)
-
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...
-
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.
-
The need for both ship speed and catapult could easily be addressed by a ramp, which the Chinese already have with their lone CV.
A super-tank hull coming in at 1,500 feet could easily have overhang adding another 200+ feet on front and back, meaning 1700+ feet of runway. This would afford larger areas of both takeoff and landing. Would this be sufficient to eliminate the need for specialized designed aircraft for ship operations? Could they take their current compliment of J-10s, etc, and operate them from something like this? They would still need arresting gear for landing but with twice the length to land on would this be simpler from an engineering/design perspective? In a pinch would the French provide Rafale's?
The cost of building a 1,500+ foot superhull is incredibly cheap, couple hundred million. Compare that to the cost of a design-built CV, which runs ten times that. Outfitting this ship would likely be the most expensive part, radar, airdefense, etc. using modern commercial techniques could they get a ship crew down to a few hundred? Modern super-tankers have dozens of crew members for operation, highly automated.
The thoughts of needing 30+ knots for open war fighting like Halsey circa WW2 isn't necessary. The concept is being able to move an airfield into a key choke point and project power with a combat aircraft. So far, I'm not reading it is impossible nor that it isn't plausible.
Just wondering.
Boo
-
Tankers are designed to carry a liquid load. This takes a different set of requirements than carrying a large internal load, plus a flight deck that's strong enough to have airplanes crash onto it.
Currently the Chinese have 1 true carrier, they Bought it from the Russians after they decided they couldn't afford to finish it.
-
Repeated overstressing a catapult is a bad idea, there are videos of the results. There is only one super tanker in the 1500 foot range the rest are between 1000 and 1300. Of that length only 500 to 650 would be usable for either launch or recovery. If you want to go back to the straight deck cv, it is still to short to launch a fully loaded and fueled aircraft. Sure they could lessen the weight by in flight refueling but they would still have to launch those from the carrier.
Take a look at the bow of a super tanker, what a waste of energy to push that through the seas. Again, we are talking about a force projection weapon, what a weak force projection it would be if a single torpedo could break her back.
Look at the purpose built aircraft carriers around the world, look at their hulls. They are sleek in front to slice through the seas. There must be a reason all aircraft carrier owning nations use the same general hull design. I mean if a sleek hull design was such a bad idea why are all the world's navies using them. Heck, if you know better than the engineers who designed them you need a job designing ships.
-
Thanks Tom.
Now somebody is going to suggest converting lakers into carriers.
-
Lol, always here to help.
-
One question that hasn't been asked....
Why don't we convert some Ice breakers into carriers? That would solve the problem of aircraft carriers unable to fight near the poles.
-
One question that hasn't been asked....
Why don't we convert some Ice breakers into carriers? That would solve the problem of aircraft carriers unable to fight near the poles.
I hear Polish folks don't mind.
-
I hear Polish folks don't mind.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Skipping most the replies so far, so pardon if someone has already stated the extremely obvious answers as to why nobody makes them any bigger:
#1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal
#2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal
With super tankers, carrying +20x "normal" (canal-sized) capacity, who cares if it takes you 5x-10x as long to reach your destination, since lives aren't on the line and it's netting more money for the boat's owner....
-
Because I do actually find this discussion interesting (to a point), since you have this interest in ship design, I see two worlds in the modern profession.
Mega/super sized, where you're transporting X for the cheapest 0.00000Y-cent (before taking into account foreign currency exchange markets....) from A to B or C. This falls into the niche of specialty designs, much like oil drilling barges/platforms, you don't build many of them in the world, but you build a few of these very specialized (often behemoth-sized) vessels (even the mega oil tankers have a lot more to them than just an oversized bathtub).
Or trying to get X+1 into given maximum dimensions for the canals/channels/gates you have to fit your vessel to get through.
Now, maybe, perhaps this will light up a bulb in your head as to why our (-capitalist consuming Americans) ports (as well as the exporting markets of asia, the philippines, and the west-half of south america are dependent on our nation's West Coast ports - which in turn have developed into some of the largest (size, cargo volume and individual ship sizes) in the nation and world. Hypotheticly, lets say Honda can send a ship with 5,000 cars to Port Hueneme or Los Angeles here in CA (or even Washington State or Frisco or... well you get the idea) in one fell swoop, hire a bunch of American truckers (and Honda PR lights another cigar) and maybe a contract with a couple large railway companies (American companies/union work) and still save more money than shipping 10x500-car shipments through panama on the way to the eastern-half of our nation.
Same example can be made with the mega tankers and the oil industry, the wells in the mid-east, refineries located along the coast from Texas to Maine, the Suez Canal (which given recent history, they've been really interested in leaning away from depending on - enter the boon of mega-tankers in the last decade or two as the demand is still strong), etc.. Cheaper to avoid that whole mess, take the scenic route around Africa, and deliver a mega-tanker full once every few weeks or so "straight" from Dubai to Galveston. It's all dollars and cents.
-
How about a little devil advocacy: maybe cvs should be replaced by disposable drone launchers. Realistically with the development of antiship ballistic missiles (chinese at this time) the cost of a smoking hole in the water is bound to fall and be obtainable by all but the most impoverished nations. If all the carrier group will be able to do safely is provide airsupport against insurgents, might there be a better/less expensive way to accomplish that than another iteration of a ww3 weapons system? Isn't naval aviation, in its current form, a bit like cavalry on the eve of ww1?
-
A bit of humor.
Ice breaker CV? Did you know that the US went pretty far in developing a CV made of ice during WW2. They were trying to solve the issue of protecting fleets up north. CV made of ice could not be sunk; water mixed with saw dust actually stronger then concrete; refrigeration units made for permanent facilities; size not as restricted by then available commercial means. Ultimately not built but seriously considered.
China has very little need, nor does their policy requiring projecting past the Suez and Panama. They realize the Western world must come East for oil and markets. The restrictions then of those two vanals are moot.
Most spend all their time explaining why not. In life its always the few that find better ways.
Boo
PS. Again, little need for 30+ knts. Speed is less an issue then power projection.
-
nukes from orbit.
-
A bit of humor.
Ice breaker CV? Did you know that the US went pretty far in developing a CV made of ice during WW2. They were trying to solve the issue of protecting fleets up north. CV made of ice could not be sunk; water mixed with saw dust actually stronger then concrete; refrigeration units made for permanent facilities; size not as restricted by then available commercial means. Ultimately not built but seriously considered.
China has very little need, nor does their policy requiring projecting past the Suez and Panama. They realize the Western world must come East for oil and markets. The restrictions then of those two vanals are moot.
Most spend all their time explaining why not. In life its always the few that find better ways.
Boo
PS. Again, little need for 30+ knts. Speed is less an issue then power projection.
They never got too far into building one made of ice. The boats melted in the water like icecubes. In addition, while concrete has a high compressile strength, it doesn't have a good shear or tensile strength. In layman terms, that means that one good whack against a rock and the whole thing tears and cracks like a frozen tissue. That's why steel is still the best for the job. It rusts, but paint and this nickel-zapper whose name escapes me keeps it off for the most part.
-Penguin
-
Unless the Chinese want to do the whole "World Police" power projection thing, I'd think improving their inflight refueling capability
would make more sense for their defense needs. Taiwan isn't that far away after all :D
-
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
define "enormous" as you mean it. I doubt it's anywhere near as much as the force applied to the hull during a moderate storm.
-
What? A carrier doing 100 kts?! Say it ain't so :(
Is that Larry Boy as your avatar? Never thought I'd see him again :aok
-
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.
I havnt read the entire thread but has anyone found one tanker hull turned into a CV in WW2? I always thought the converted CVs were originally BB or HVY cruiser Hulls.
-
USS Saratoga and USS Lexington, converted battlecruiser hulls. USS Langley, converted collier (?).
The Navy didn't get that far into building a ship made of ice though they did extensive studies on it, and considered it. The point is, the luxury of having seemingly unlimited funds means the US does what they will. Evidenced by the burn rate of the F-35, F-22, etc, etc. Money is no object. The Russian CVs (one now owned by China) have a ski jump for the reason the Russians did have the funds and knowledge base to solve a catapult system. Converting an ice breaker wasn't so far off reality as it would seem.
Tsun Tsu's art of war thinks further outside the box. A super tanker conversion is crazy, but why wouldn't it work? I hear lots of downsides compared to a Nimitz. What if you don't have the ability to do a Nimitz? The French are pretty far along on the technology scale and have struggled to get the Charles da Gaulle working properly, and they have access to much of our CV technology. I know, time to crack jokes at the French. My point, doing it the American way isn't an option. How far outside of reality is finding a solution with a proven platform the Chinese have the industrial base to do well?
Boo
-
define "enormous" as you mean it. I doubt it's anywhere near as much as the force applied to the hull during a moderate storm.
The deck would need to be completely stripped down and converted in order to withstand a multi-ton aircraft coming down at at least 200 km/h.
-Penguin
-
The deck would need to be completely stripped down and converted in order to withstand a multi-ton aircraft coming down at at least 200 km/h.
-Penguin
Not a difficult process at all. The forces involved aren't all that great. If you had to build carriers in a pinch, not a bad idea.
-
They never got too far into building one made of ice. The boats melted in the water like icecubes. In addition, while concrete has a high compressile strength, it doesn't have a good shear or tensile strength. In layman terms, that means that one good whack against a rock and the whole thing tears and cracks like a frozen tissue. That's why steel is still the best for the job. It rusts, but paint and this nickel-zapper whose name escapes me keeps it off for the most part.
-Penguin
The British actually got quite far in making an aircraft carrier built out of ice (pykrete) that was quite strong and robust. Read about Project Habukkuk before making claims that aren't back up by the historical record.
It was the vast amount of resources needed is what ultimately killed the project, not the tensile strength of the pykrete used to build the CVs.
ack-ack
-
They got it that strong? Amazing! I must have had the wrong formulation of pykrete- or they had something I didn't (likely). The winter after I heard about it, I built a little boat of pykrete and set it out on my little swimming pool (it's about a meter wide and 20cm deep). I threw some rocks at it and the thing just ripped in half, then I watched Mythbusters and saw the boat fail there, too. It just goes to show that nothing beats reading the original account.
-Penguin
-
They got it that strong? Amazing! I must have had the wrong formulation of pykrete- or they had something I didn't (likely). The winter after I heard about it, I built a little boat of pykrete and set it out on my little swimming pool (it's about a meter wide and 20cm deep). I threw some rocks at it and the thing just ripped in half, then I watched Mythbusters and saw the boat fail there, too. It just goes to show that nothing beats reading the original account.
-Penguin
Lol agree
-
Is that Larry Boy as your avatar? Never thought I'd see him again :aok
You sir, just made my day :D :D :D
It is indeed ;)
-
Pykrete is bulletproof. It also melts really really slowly.
During a demonstration of his invention, they shot a block of ice with a revolver, shattering the block of ice.
Then they shot a block of Pykrete, the bullet ricocheted into the leg of an admiral that had come to see the demonstration.
I think the Normandy invasion and the A Bomb did more to kill the habekuk than anything else.
-
Three pics...
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/505/floatingfield2.jpg)
(http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3678/floatingfield1.jpg)
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3624/floatingfield3ice.jpg)
Does it matter if the CV moves at 35 knots, or 15 knots or has to be towed into place? They are no longer dodging Japanese Long Lance torpedoes, 16" shells or Val dive bombers. The threat comes in at 2,000 mph and the movement of 1,000+ foot long metal object going 40 mph is inconsequential. Detection is pretty easy, or so I am told. Satellites pick these bad boys up with much ease. Being sunk or not is about controlling the surface, air and subsurface around them, regardless of speed.
In any case, food for thought.
Boo