F-35C a gateway to smaller carriers?

[simon b]

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.

[chuck]

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.

Build and build and build as they might, their annual defense budgets combined would not fund the US DoD for a month.

[chuck]

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

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?

[Seasick]

India has lots of coal, they don't need oil in super large quantities. I recall that they have a plan of a dominantly electric economy. Large coal powered electrical plants feeding the economy via high voltage lines. The grid is inspired by the USA's. I doubt that India would build large tankers that can't pass through the Suez canal. The USA does not have an offshore unloading terminal on the west coast. The only offshore terminal that can unload a super tanker in the US is the one that belongs to the Port of New Orleans. At other ports the super taankers have to off load oil on to smaller tankers to bring it into port. The Port Authority of New York New Jersey might be able to off load a super tanker pier side but I'm not sure.

[richter111]

I was looking at a WWII navy book earlier tonight. Setting aside the nuclear fuel issue in modern carriers, I noticed the Atlantic war was fought by Jeep carriers, the long legged Essex hulls working the pacific.

In the future, a simular concept. Nuc's for the Pacific, turbine for the Atlantic. Smaller carriers for the smaller pond, nucs for the big lake...

[Jack Ray]

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?

I disagree, Chuck.

Modern container ships have strong outer structures to maintain rigidity--flight decks and some inner tranversal bulheads would certainly strengthen this. They have efficient hull designs for speed and economy.

It is rather silly to criticize QM2 for lacking displacement vis-avis size. In shipbuilding capability, size is what matters. The fact the yards in Brittany, etc.. can build ships like QM2 and the 550K (fully loaded) tankers that you speak of is precisely what makes them suitable for building these other large container ship type hulls--they have the space and drydocks to do it.

As regards the hypothesis that the concept does not work, it would be interesting to have some proof. I understand that you are an engineer, so it should not be too difficult for you to find it.

V/R,

Jack

[chuck]

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.

[Jack Ray]

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.

Speaking to some naval engineers and LHA drivers, the consensus is that such converted ships would be a useful possibility for 2nd and 3rd tier navies. One could beef them up with strengthened bottoms and sides, but their thought is that the sheer size of the vessels (50K tons and up), would make them relatively difficult to sink. In any event, such conversions would by definition involve the installation of tranversal bulkheads and strength decks.

Remember, the Colossus and Majestic classes were the original austere fleet carriers (merchant standards, lack of protection).

Jack