Navy question

[mthrockmor]

Considering both the benefit of a super carrier, as well the massive complexity, as well the limited need for 35-knts of speed, why would China and Russia not take the hull of an 1,800 foot long super-tanker, slap a massive hangar deck and runway and put it to sea?

Costs and development, minimum. 18-knts of speed sufficient. They could likely put 150 planes to sea.

Why isn't this done?

Boo

[The Fugitive]

The refit would probably cost almost as much as a new ship. Adding elevators for the planes, support for the air wing (mechanics shops, electronics shops, paint and fab shops), air operations equipment and support, ordnance support for the air wing, defensive setups for the ship (guns, missile, rockets) as well as the refit to build a launch/recovery setup on deck, much larger crew setups to handle everything.

On my carrier, the USS Eisenhower, one of the first super carriers, we had 5000 people on board, 7000 when the airwing came on board.

With all that, you still end up with a very slow carrier that has been "Mickey Moused" together to do a job. Whats a few million more for a new ship?

[Nefarious]

I think the first issue is your building against the competition.

At this point, no one is going to rival the US Navy when it comes to super carriers. Supplying your navy with cheaper alternatives is just as pointless as creating dedicated Carriers as neither could face up to the US Navy in a WW2 style carrier battle.

You also have dedicated Naval Aircraft to be built, again, something that no other nation has really done when comparing the US Navy to it's counterparts.

Or - Perhaps these emerging nations realize that autonomous aircraft and drones will replace traditional Naval air wings. Eventually the US Navy will do that too.

[Shamus]

A super tanker hull would not come close to standing up to the stress.

[Ramesis]

Hmmm... does anyone remember Pearl Harbor?
This is the same mindset
Ram

[DaveBB]

Super carriers are really just big targets in a true war.  They are probably about on par with Battleships during World War I (one).  Extremely expensive, too costly to lose in a real engagement.  They are fine for fighting against less technologically developed nations though.

[Mongoose]

Considering both the benefit of a super carrier, as well the massive complexity, as well the limited need for 35-knts of speed, why would China and Russia not take the hull of an 1,800 foot long super-tanker, slap a massive hangar deck and runway and put it to sea?

Costs and development, minimum. 18-knts of speed sufficient. They could likely put 150 planes to sea.

Why isn't this done?

Boo

Stuff like this was done during WWII to make escort carriers.  Escort carriers were very useful, but they had nowhere near the capability and firepower of a full sized Essex class carrier. As Fugitive pointed out, with all the extra stuff that has to be added to support that number of airplanes, you are better off just building a purpose-built ship.

[Volron]

I honestly do not think a Super Tanker was built with a possibility of taking battle damage.  A single Exocet will probably be all it takes to sink a Super Tanker, where as a Nimitz will likely take a few more, even if "well placed".  Then there is a torpedo strike, which one is guaranteed to sink a Super Tanker, while the Nimitz will likely take a few before she's done.