The Ship Model Forum

chuck wrote:Container ship hulls designs are not strengthened, or intended to be able to be strengthened, against under keel explosions. Their hull shapes are not designed to permit the degree of maneuverability expected of a warship. They are not required to maintain speed in heavy seas. They are not compartmentalized to anything like naval standards. There are no internal structural partitions along damage containment lines. They have relatively low structural redundancy compared to proper naval hulls.

Now if we accept these major intrinsic weakness of the merchant hull, but in every other way equip a merchant hull carrier to match the capability standards found in a proper naval carrier. How much do you think savings in the hull would amount to relative to the entire expense of building, equipping, fitting out, and bring to operational standard a single carrier? No if we take a longer view and calculate the entire life cycle non-hull cost of a carrier, how significant would savings in hull cost next to that?

If it is imperative to put as many planes into the air as possible at whatever cost, mercantile hulls would be a solution. But in a peacetime situation where a carrier is a capital ship, and the loss of a carrier a major national disaster, and limitations on an carrier's operational capabilities and survivability a major national policy handicap, then it makes no sense to harp on the minor savings that might be expected from building mercantile hulled carriers.

chuck wrote:

Jack Ray wrote: I think it could work. French shipyards build massive ships (i.e., QM2) and I am sure they must build big container ships. Such a project would have to be much cheaper than building traditional, military standard CVs from scratch. I envision it as a modern and very capable escort carrier.

On the flip side, I am surprised China and India aren't moving towards this concept.

Jack

The requirements of the 3 navies are so different it would be a farce to equip them with identical carriers. Building carriers out of merchantile hulls would also be a farce if the navies in question actually thinks real fighting might be in the cards, as oppose to the carrier of navies like Thailand, which exist as ego boost to the monarch.

Regarding specific details, QM2 is not a particularly large ship despite the hype, she is just a voluminous ship, which gives her a high tonnage. But she is not a very heavy ship, and weighs less, and has less displacement, than a CVN. I still smirk when I see the hype about how much bigger she is than a giant carrier. The French did build the biggest and heaviest class of ships of all time back in the late 1970s however, when they built a class of 4 super ultra tankers. These displaced well over 550,000 tons at the time of completion, and that is still unsurpassed.

Regarding China and India not moving toward this concept of mercantile carriers, perhaps they are not because it doesn't work?

Jack Ray wrote:

richter111 wrote:perhaps even a design which the US and Britian and France could all build, a joint project if you will (with all it's internal problems and such)

I think it could work. French shipyards build massive ships (i.e., QM2) and I am sure they must build big container ships. Such a project would have to be much cheaper than building traditional, military standard CVs from scratch. I envision it as a modern and very capable escort carrier.

On the flip side, I am surprised China and India aren't moving towards this concept.

Jack

simon b wrote:Replying to an earlier post. If the US did had massive cut backs in its military, surely the likes of N Korea and China would be even more inclined to build, build and build.

The F/A-18 and F-35 are great aircraft, but they are neither the superiority fighter the F-14 was, nor the attack aircraft the A-6 was. The EA-18G Growler will never be and can never be the EW aircraft the EA-6B is.

Mark Petersen wrote:The Democratic field is down to Hillary and Obama. IMO if Obama wins the nomination and the election the future of the Naval building programs in the country will be in serious jeapordy. As I suspect the future of the F-35 and F-22 will be as well. I think if Obama wins th election we will see a major foriegn policy shift on the part of the United States. And not just in respect to Iraq and the WOT. We will see a major effort a concensus building. Whicjh is not an altogether bad thing but I suspect that an Obama administration would perfectly willing to place international concerns ahead of Us concerns. In addition to cutailment of building programs I think we will see the withdrawl of troops from Korea and Japan, most of the US forces in Europe with the possible exception of USAF base/s in the UK and maybe the 6th Fleets base in Italy. Diego Garcia would be closed. By the end of an eight year Obama administration I think we would see the USN down to five maybe six carriers and their supporting vessels, the submartine force would be scaled back as well including the Ohios as a "demonstation" of US commitment to disarmement and non-proliferation. The sole combat branches of the military that will see their funding grow are the USMC and Army airborne type units. This will be due to the willingness an Obama Administration to commit US forces to UN peacekeeping missions. Just my $.02

richter111 wrote:perhaps even a design which the US and Britian and France could all build, a joint project if you will (with all it's internal problems and such)