Merchant Raider Aircraft Carrier

DoomBunny

I recently went through my stash of old Commando comics, and came across a rather interesting one featuring an oil tanker which the evil huns had converted into a disguised aircraft carrier. As usual, the dirty jerries got their just desserts, our heroes winning through. It got me thinking.

How practical would it be to convert an oil tanker into an aircraft carrier for the purposes of commerce raiding? How effective would such a design be? How easy would it be to maintain the disguise?
 

bsmart

A full fledged flatdeck carrier? The conversion process would draw attention and once at sea how do you disguise a carrier deck and keep it usable? Only in a comic strip!

The best chance would be for seaplanes and possibly a catapult disguised on the ship.
 
Meadow

Meadow

I've got a friend, I can't remember who so it might be someone here on AH.com, whose grandfather served on a British oil tanker that was converted to a 'half-carrier'/escort carrier. I've seen pictures of them and they don't look easy to disguise.
 

bsmart

jerard said:
http://www.usmm.org/tankers.html

Apparently some oil tankers were converted to escort carriers if this site is to be believed. Probably would be just as good for commerce raiding but I don't know about disguise.
Click to expand...

Yes tankers made good basis for conversion but once converted there was no attempt to diguise their purpose. Successful merchant raiders were able to disguise their identity when approaching targets or avoiding searchers.
 

sharlin

Banned
Aye the converted tankers were just tankers with a flightdeck slapped on top and a small island, they could still carry stuff but it was not disguised, they looked like CVEs.
 

DoomBunny

Would it not be possible to create some form of collapsible structure on the flight deck, thereby keeping much the same profile as a normal tanker? It wouldn't need to be totally disguised, just enough to satisfy an aircraft or ship that taking a second glance wasn't worthwhile.
 

Archibald

Banned
Slightly off topic but I've long thought about converting one one these immense 500 000 tons tankers into a makeshift aircraft carrier. How hard would it be to add a flat (angled ?) deck on such ship ? How long could the flight deck be ?
 

sharlin

Banned
Archibald said:
Slightly off topic but I've long thought about converting one one these immense 500 000 tons tankers into a makeshift aircraft carrier. How hard would it be to add a flat (angled ?) deck on such ship ? How long could the flight deck be ?
Click to expand...

In theory yes it is possible but you'd not need an angled flight deck, they are so immensely broad of beam that if you plated over the whole deck you'd have huge volumes of room for landing and taking off. Problem is the speed and manouverability or lack their of. You could fit powerful catapults to help get the aircraft up without wind over the flight deck.
 

Mike Stearns

Andras said:
The Sangamon class CVEs were 24000ton oilers converted to CVEs. They retained their full capacity as oilers, and were large enough to operate dive bombers.
Click to expand...

But the problem is that that's clearly an aircraft carrier. What about a merchant raiding helicopter carrier, though?

I think Autogyros could also be a possibility as they have a very short take off distance and don't take up much room.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Archibald said:
Slightly off topic but I've long thought about converting one one these immense 500 000 tons tankers into a makeshift aircraft carrier. How hard would it be to add a flat (angled ?) deck on such ship ? How long could the flight deck be ?
Click to expand...


Be okay for a VTOL, not for a CATOBAR. Tankers are way too slow, you need a minimum of 25 knots of wind over the deck to conduct flight operations, The difficulty would come from the added top weight, not just for the deck itself, but for plane handling equipment, elevators, and a hanger deck (unless the plan would be to deck stow everything. Top heavy ships are a nightmare, they are unmanageable at best, death traps at worst. This could be reduced by having the cargo tanks filled with water I suppose, but that would also reduce speed. If you are going to use the ship for fixed wing operation with Harriers or F-35s you will need a fairly robust deck (the AV-8B max weight is 31,000 pounds & the F-35 is 70,000) and a "ski jump" ramp to assist take off.

For single helo operation you can get away with as little as 55 feet of landing pad, although 75-80 would be better. Max length would be whatever the design can get away with on top weight.

Figure a good year, maybe two, to make the conversion. Then hope some clown doesn't come along and hit the extremely expensive civilian grade hull with a few 2,000 pound bombs or a torpedo.
 

Archibald

Banned
Thank you. Didn't the Iraqis spend dozens of Exocets against Iranian tankers that were too big to be sunk by the tiny missiles ? Can't remember...
 

sonofpegasus

Andras said:
The Sangamon class CVEs were 24000ton oilers converted to CVEs. They retained their full capacity as oilers, and were large enough to operate dive bombers.
Click to expand...

IIRC the Sangamon clsss did not retain there full oil cargo capacity, some of the tank space was coverted to ordinance magazines,aviation fuel storage and anciliary spaces. Yes they did retain tankage for their own bunkers and supplying other ships but they did not retain a cargo carrying capacity pre-ce. Whereas the Merchant Aircraft Carrier (MAC) conversions retained their cargo carrying function. Pictures of the converted grain carriers show the access shutes to the grain holds visible in their hangers. The Tanker conversions on the whole did not have any hanger capacity and relied on deck parking their aircraft.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Archibald said:
Thank you. Didn't the Iraqis spend dozens of Exocets against Iranian tankers that were too big to be sunk by the tiny missiles ? Can't remember...
Click to expand...


The Exocet is too small to sink a lot of things. :D

A supertanker would not be an "easy" kill, but she would be far easier than any large purpose built warship. Civilian ships are designed to deal with the normal hazards of the seas, they are not designed to handle battle damage, which is an entirely different sort of bad. Civilian vessels make extensive use of aluminium throughout the ship, not just in the superstructure but throughout the hull. Aluminium melts when confronted by the heat from unexpended solid rocket fuel (steel does in some cases, but not to the distressing degree that the lighter metal does). The term of art used here is "survivability", civilian ships do not usually even make it to Level I while most warships are Level III.

A single SS-N-19 Granit or SS-N-22 Mosket would almost certainly be enough to cripple a converted tanker, maybe even sink one, although that would depend a lot on exactly how she was compartmented. The combination of a 1.500 pound warhead along with Mach 3 speed at impact is quite impressive. Same goes for a couple JDAM 2,000 pound bombs (the Exocet has a 360 pound warhead). A single modern Mark 48 ADCAP or Russian 65-76 torpedo would almost certainly break the ship's back.
 

FlyingDutchman

Mike Stearns said:
But the problem is that that's clearly an aircraft carrier. What about a merchant raiding helicopter carrier, though?

I think Autogyros could also be a possibility as they have a very short take off distance and don't take up much room.
Click to expand...

I'd check out what the British did during the Falklands war if you're looking into this. They equipped merchant ships such as the SS Atlantic Conveyor and others (small 15.000 tonnage container ships) with a helicopter landing pad and they would carry a dozen helicopters stored (and mostly boxed I'd presume) and almost a dozen Sea Harriers. The latter would be able to take off on their own powers, however that would only be VTOL, so don't expect them to do any CAP or strike; they would take off and land almost inmediately without much weapons carried.

Conveyor was lost to 1 or 2 Exocets though; she wasn't a big ship and all the combustibles carried for the navy did make for a volatile cargo, especially as it wasn't carrying any defensive weaponry.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
DoomBunny said:
How practical would it be to convert an oil tanker into an aircraft carrier for the purposes of commerce raiding? How effective would such a design be? How easy would it be to maintain the disguise?
Click to expand...

What decade are you asking about?

And what nation?

And do you want an AMC that is built on hiding its identity? Or are you looking for "cheap" and "quick" carrier for a faster buildup time?
 

Barry Bull

Donor
CalBear said:
The Exocet is too small to sink a lot of things. :D

A supertanker would not be an "easy" kill, but she would be far easier than any large purpose built warship. Civilian ships are designed to deal with the normal hazards of the seas, they are not designed to handle battle damage, which is an entirely different sort of bad. Civilian vessels make extensive use of aluminium throughout the ship, not just in the superstructure but throughout the hull. Aluminium melts when confronted by the heat from unexpended solid rocket fuel (steel does in some cases, but not to the distressing degree that the lighter metal does). The term of art used here is "survivability", civilian ships do not usually even make it to Level I while most warships are Level III.
Click to expand...

Aren't most supertankers double-hulled, built to tougher standard and have much more reserve buoyancy though?
 

zert

I could see a pirate/raider carrier with hidden decks and planes in a steam punk type situation. Otherwise just too much to hide from prying eyes on the seas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top