just lop the superstructure off and slap a raised modular full flat top deck about 20' above existing deck. Superstructure is just housing so they can live under new deck.
Put elevators on 4 corners and you could fit F-18 tall aircraft under deck.
Steel is cheap.
Now a nation without a big budget could have an aircraft carrier in reserve, but still use as tanker, or a tanker could self escort.
Cut a few holes in a few of the tanks and you could lower a few hundred conex boxes for logistics.
Its so fricking big an enemy would wear its out trying to put enough holes in it. Inner tanks could be behind 1/2 dozen walls and 50' of seawater and air gaps.
Picrel is supertanker but New PanamaMax is 80% as big if unladen.
PS-tell the Eco-Phags its in case a spill happens you need to be able to bring big shit in with C-130s to a remote location ASAP.
Oil tankers make shitty fixed wing aircraft carriers.
Make pretty great budget helicopter carriers though. The ESB's the US operates are converted Alaska Class oil talkers. They have displacements of 80,000 tons and cost less than a frigate.
Plus you can carry 150,000,000 gallons of aviation fuel for an extended operation
>sailors lined up to spell 'ESB5'
>'ESB-4.jpg'
>Plus you can carry 150,000,000 gallons of aviation fuel
audible chuckle
cute, but I'm talking about keeping the ship viable as commercial ship and thus "free", except for some steel plates and posts, which themselves would be more of an "investment" and hold value.
Maybe earn a few shekels hauling super large objects like offshore windmill blades or something on deck.
>pic related
This must be AI generated because with all those empty holes on the side the boat will easily fill with water during a storm and topple.
Whoever makes these shill posts is a schizo and should be jailed in an asylum.
any shithole nation can build big ships, the hard part is making them go fast
>just lop the superstructure off and slap a raised modular full flat top deck about 20' above existing deck
make me
>top speed
>15kts
>no facilities for catapults
hide thread
problem solved
This is factually inaccurate; Marco Polo wrote about Chinese merchants shipping refined surface seep products across the Caspian sea in specially built boats centuries before this.
1st tactical Studies Group solved this 40 years ago: https://combatreform.org/STRATEGICMANEUVER/index.htm
Educate yourself before making a fool of yourself. Oh wait too late.
Maybe this would make sense as a UCAV carrier. Lighter aircraft, therefore lower payload penalty crane launching, plus removes the risk to pilots. Not to mention you could fit more airframes on the ship. For anything crewed, this would be like a modern STOVL carrier but worse.
I could fling a max loaded F-18 to 200mph in 100yds by ganging 100 Tesla's drive wheels to a shaft and spool a cable. Any dozen Jr College engineering/auto-shop students to cobble that together for about $200K in two weeks, not including the cars. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty close to the Tesla factory in Fremont, CA. Maybe I'll have them do it just for the lutz. They could use some good publicity.
Bonus: when in port they could tool around town in the cars, or gift/loan some to bribe local officials.
>tool around town in the cars
big herd of Tesla cars suddenly in town would help prostitutes locate customers.
you have no fricking clue what you are talking about.
>Steel is cheap.
Yes, that's why your solution doesn't solve the problem because the hull isn't the primary cost driver.
>hull isn't the primary cost driver.
True, its the manpwer that costs.
And OP-s solution is kinda simple and moronic so maybe even any shade of shitskins can manage to run and maintain it, keeping the remaining whites as pilots.
Kinda cost effective.
It's a great idea, if you're a tinpot dictator who executed or forced into exile everyone with the engineering ability to design ships other than super tankers and you have several unfinished super tankers to convert, and your country has no air fields within 100 miles of the coast line, and the engineers who could build design them are also gone. Outside of that specific scenario, it's one of the most moronic ideas I've ever seen.
What a waste of digits.
sir, the big brains in the US Navy recently PAID to build USS Zumwalt and....wait for it...here it cums 🙂
TWO classes of "LCS".
and you call ME "moronic"? BAKA.
PS-entire USN, with no other duties, is unable to provide safe passage through the Red Sea when up against a few of not just goat herders, but among the poorest and dumbest goat herders you can find, who AFAIK have exactly zero boats. Its a level of failure I can't even process.
There's a difference between built-to-a-budget commercial construction standards and those used to build warships meant to survive direct attacks and 40yrs of hard service.
If you started adding little bits here and there to improve your tanker carrier, you'll eventually have converged on a dedicated carrier design.
nah, it would be like putting a "structural tent" or metal sheds in a parking garage or sky scraper roof.
heck, the new roof/deck might make operation and maintenance more comfy when they monkey with all the deck piping. They'd have weather protection, overhead lights and winches.
see all those internal walls across the tanks about every 10'? that is more than plenty to support a flight deck.
>survive direct attacks
super tankers hit full size mines during Iraq/Iran War. Blew 50' hole in bow. Ship didn't even change is schedule during voyage, just put in for repairs later.
Meanwhile, one of the most modern and expensive warships in NATO....full "survivibility" on line, crew fully trained and on alert....:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNoMS_Helge_Ingstad_(F313)
>slap a raised modular full flat top deck about 20' above existing deck
Yeah sure I am sure the CoG will be just fine and it won't roll at all should definitely do this.
Firstly: Hello, Revolutionary Guard of Iran. Welcome to the decadent hellhole that is PrepHole. Seeing how limited that 56k modem you smuggled in is, you must have used up at least 80% of your Guards bandwidth just to make this post.
And Secondly: Your idea is stupid. Frick off.
you realize the "Iranian backed Houthies" are who is currently defeating the entire combined NATO navy power in the Red Sea?
USA sent its newest super carrier, and it failed to protect shipping well enough, so ship owners still going around Africa.
>you realize the "Iranian backed Houthies" are who is currently defeating the entire combined NATO navy power in the Red Sea?
>USA sent its newest super carrier, and it failed to protect shipping well enough, so ship owners still going around Africa.
I can tell you don't speak English because of your incorrect grammar. This is why you shills will never actually convince anyone of anything. The correct way of writing your post is as follows.
The USA sent its newest super carrier, and it failed to protect shipping. Ship owners are still going around the cape.
The Brits had done this in WWII. Nothing new.
Forgot link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrier
interesting, never knew, thx.
however the sheer size of even today's average tanker would be a game changer VS small 8,000-16,000 ton ship, as far as ratio of aircraft size to ship, and weather protection from sheer size.