Oil Tanker as a Helicopter and troops carrier : Brainstorming

[RealNapster]

I was studying about Pakistan's oil and cargo ship fleet where I came to know about LR-1 crude oil tanker. It is 75000 DWT ship. I saw this particular picture which already have one landing area for helicopters. So I thought why not turn an LR-1 oil tanker to helicopter carrier ? Can it be done ?


Now there are all the arguments that we don't need helicopter carriers, we have a different doctrine and helicopter carrier don't fit in it and i know these. Just want to know can this be done ? Will it work ? Would it be technically, financially and practically feasible ?

An LR-1 oil tanker coast around $35-38 million. I am sure retrofitting won't cost more than $15 million. Thoughts please.

Pros :

1. It's cheap.
2. Cost less to retrofit and make it fit for operation.
3. Can be easily purchased and retrofitted in bulk with minimal associated cost.
4. Easy to operate. Our ports already have the necessary infrastructure to handle this type of ships.
5. In the existing (above picture) configuration it can carry atleast 7 heavy helicopters. This may include submarine hunters, rescue or even troop carriers helis.

Cons :
1. Due to the degradation caused by oil, you will need to buy new one. But good thing is that it's cheap to buy new.
2. It will be slow.
3. No hanger to cover the helis in case of harsh weather, storms, rains etc. (Though this issue can be solved by simply providing the landing areas in a lower position instead of the upper portion of ship and provide a retractable roof on the individual helicopter landing area).
4. Retrofitting for troops compartments to make it able to carry 800 around troops will be costly. A simple helicopter carrier is easy to go for but a troop carrier will take much time, effort and money.

 

[Akh1112]

Iranian navy commissions converted tanker

The Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (IRIN) commissioned its largest vessel on 13 January in the form of IRINS Makran (441), a tanker converted into a multipurpose naval...

www.janes.com

 

[Darth Vader]

I was studying about Pakistan's oil and cargo ship fleet where I came to know about LR-1 crude oil tanker. It is 75000 DWT ship. I saw this particular picture which already have one landing area for helicopters. So I thought why not turn an LR-1 oil tanker to helicopter carrier ? Can it be done ?


Now there are all the arguments that we don't need helicopter carriers, we have a different doctrine and helicopter carrier don't fit in it and i know these. Just want to know can this be done ? Will it work ? Would it be technically, financially and practically feasible ?

An LR-1 oil tanker coast around $35-38 million. I am sure retrofitting won't cost more than $15 million. Thoughts please.

View attachment 791049
Pros :

1. It's cheap.
2. Cost less to retrofit and make it fit for operation.
3. Can be easily purchased and retrofitted in bulk with minimal associated cost.
4. Easy to operate. Our ports already have the necessary infrastructure to handle this type of ships.
5. In the existing (above picture) configuration it can carry atleast 7 heavy helicopters. This may include submarine hunters, rescue or even troop carriers helis.

Cons :
1. Due to the degradation caused by oil, you will need to buy new one. But good thing is that it's cheap to buy new.
2. It will be slow.
3. No hanger to cover the helis in case of harsh weather, storms, rains etc. (Though this issue can be solved by simply providing the landing areas in a lower position instead of the upper portion of ship and provide a retractable roof on the individual helicopter landing area).
4. Retrofitting for troops compartments to make it able to carry 800 around troops will be costly. A simple helicopter carrier is easy to go for but a troop carrier will take much time, effort and money.

What's the Point ?
You will need a dedicated fleet to protect that much investment, which means you are allocating other assets for this GIANT WHALE which will become a priority target for no reason.

 

[Shotgunner51]

I was studying about Pakistan's oil and cargo ship fleet where I came to know about LR-1 crude oil tanker. It is 75000 DWT ship. I saw this particular picture which already have one landing area for helicopters. So I thought why not turn an LR-1 oil tanker to helicopter carrier ? Can it be done ?


Now there are all the arguments that we don't need helicopter carriers, we have a different doctrine and helicopter carrier don't fit in it and i know these. Just want to know can this be done ? Will it work ? Would it be technically, financially and practically feasible ?

An LR-1 oil tanker coast around $35-38 million. I am sure retrofitting won't cost more than $15 million. Thoughts please.

View attachment 791049
Pros :

1. It's cheap.
2. Cost less to retrofit and make it fit for operation.
3. Can be easily purchased and retrofitted in bulk with minimal associated cost.
4. Easy to operate. Our ports already have the necessary infrastructure to handle this type of ships.
5. In the existing (above picture) configuration it can carry atleast 7 heavy helicopters. This may include submarine hunters, rescue or even troop carriers helis.

Cons :
1. Due to the degradation caused by oil, you will need to buy new one. But good thing is that it's cheap to buy new.
2. It will be slow.
3. No hanger to cover the helis in case of harsh weather, storms, rains etc. (Though this issue can be solved by simply providing the landing areas in a lower position instead of the upper portion of ship and provide a retractable roof on the individual helicopter landing area).
4. Retrofitting for troops compartments to make it able to carry 800 around troops will be costly. A simple helicopter carrier is easy to go for but a troop carrier will take much time, effort and money.

You talking about in a Merchant Marine context? Yes ships can be converted to naval auxiliary standard during wartime, and converted back afterwards. In China we have law since 2015 that merchant ships could be drafted/converted for military use if situation calls for it.

However if you are talking about active duty for regular navy then it's not recommended at all. These ships are not built to naval specs, can't effectively interoperate with other naval combatants, can't cope with naval combat doctrine. Moreover LPDs (Landing Platform Docks) or simply Helo/Light CVs aren't expensive to build, they can be very budget friendly.

 

[K_Bin_W]

I was studying about Pakistan's oil and cargo ship fleet where I came to know about LR-1 crude oil tanker. It is 75000 DWT ship. I saw this particular picture which already have one landing area for helicopters. So I thought why not turn an LR-1 oil tanker to helicopter carrier ? Can it be done ?


Now there are all the arguments that we don't need helicopter carriers, we have a different doctrine and helicopter carrier don't fit in it and i know these. Just want to know can this be done ? Will it work ? Would it be technically, financially and practically feasible ?

An LR-1 oil tanker coast around $35-38 million. I am sure retrofitting won't cost more than $15 million. Thoughts please.

View attachment 791049
Pros :

1. It's cheap.
2. Cost less to retrofit and make it fit for operation.
3. Can be easily purchased and retrofitted in bulk with minimal associated cost.
4. Easy to operate. Our ports already have the necessary infrastructure to handle this type of ships.
5. In the existing (above picture) configuration it can carry atleast 7 heavy helicopters. This may include submarine hunters, rescue or even troop carriers helis.

Cons :
1. Due to the degradation caused by oil, you will need to buy new one. But good thing is that it's cheap to buy new.
2. It will be slow.
3. No hanger to cover the helis in case of harsh weather, storms, rains etc. (Though this issue can be solved by simply providing the landing areas in a lower position instead of the upper portion of ship and provide a retractable roof on the individual helicopter landing area).
4. Retrofitting for troops compartments to make it able to carry 800 around troops will be costly. A simple helicopter carrier is easy to go for but a troop carrier will take much time, effort and money.

Isn't India already doing that, their latest midsized/ small carrier is basically an oil tanker?

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

1- I believe Aircraft carriers internally have better design to sustain hits from Missiles vs Tanker
a Tanker would sink pretty rapidly , and all asset

But in theory you can use Tanker to have helicopters launched from platform for Anti Submarine or Anti Ship missions

During world war 1 , many of the larger ships were converted to make shift carriers


2- You can't land planes on Tanker as one side has the Command center for ship (it blocks the plan's path)

(Note: I am not expert on subject of internals of Aircraft carrier)

 

[Bilal9]

You talking about in a Merchant Marine context? Yes ships can be converted to naval auxiliary standard during wartime, and converted back afterwards. In China we have law since 2015 that merchant ships could be drafted/converted for military use if situation calls for it.

However if you are talking about active duty for regular navy then it's not recommended at all. These ships are not built to naval specs, can't effectively interoperate with other naval combatants, can't cope with naval combat doctrine. Moreover LPDs (Landing Platform Docks) or simply Helo/Light CVs aren't expensive to build, they can be very budget friendly.

While we're on the subject, any ideas on rough estimates for the 075 class LHD, PLAN launched this week? 075 class has 40,000 ton displacement, and is similar in size to the US Wasp class. All nations do not need LHDs or LPDs this big and unwieldy. There is the South Korean Dokdo class for example which is much smaller. Around 20,000 tons all loaded up.

The Japanese HYUGA Class Helicopter Destroyer is about the same size as the Dokdo class. I don't believe we in South Asia need anything larger than this. More numbers are fine though.

But making LHD's from an oil tanker would need a lot of expensive modifications, such as arranging for a re-inforced and floodable Well Deck to house and launch smaller expeditionary LCAC and/or watercraft/amphibious tanks to invade seashores, not to mention reinforcing a very wide platform on top as well as adding a command tower, all of which could alter the static/dynamic balance of the ship. You also have to have a large lift installed to lift helis onto the top deck from mid deck storage. These are significant customization challenges and may not ultimately be worth it, either money-wise or engineering challenge-wise.

In WWII, Japanese Imperial Navy converted many normal cargo ships and destroyers into aircraft carriers in cost effective manner. See pictures.

These are size comparisons of Japanese WWII Aircraft Carriers, all were modified from regular hulls and had a top deck supported by open columns. Only larger carriers had a command tower.

Now about the helis themselves, all South Asian nations currently operate Mi-8s, MI-17s, and MI-171s, Pakistan and India operate Sea Kings which will be decommissioned soon.

Future transport Helis for these LHD not yet purchase by Pakistan/Bangladesh (but could be) are Mi-38s and Changhe Z-8G/L. EH-101 and Airbus 225s are more expensive choices. I don't know if the Russian and Chinese helis are capable of having their rotor blades folded. That is a mandatory requirement for storage on board LHDs.

Mi-38-2

Changhe Z-8G

 

[Shotgunner51]

Excellent post you got there!

any ideas on rough estimates for the 075 class LHD, PLAN launched this week?

You mean price? Can't find any public info on PLAN procurement price, but I think it will be somewhere around $400 million if put on export, taking the 071 deal with Thailand as reference. Just very rough estimate, but amphibious ships can't be expensive anyway, those helos and LCAC are the big ticket items.

In WWII

A more recent example is how the Royal Navy use their merchant fleet in 1982, it could be a case study for the topic.

 

[Solidify]

I was studying about Pakistan's oil and cargo ship fleet where I came to know about LR-1 crude oil tanker. It is 75000 DWT ship. I saw this particular picture which already have one landing area for helicopters. So I thought why not turn an LR-1 oil tanker to helicopter carrier ? Can it be done ?


Now there are all the arguments that we don't need helicopter carriers, we have a different doctrine and helicopter carrier don't fit in it and i know these. Just want to know can this be done ? Will it work ? Would it be technically, financially and practically feasible ?

An LR-1 oil tanker coast around $35-38 million. I am sure retrofitting won't cost more than $15 million. Thoughts please.

View attachment 791049
Pros :

1. It's cheap.
2. Cost less to retrofit and make it fit for operation.
3. Can be easily purchased and retrofitted in bulk with minimal associated cost.
4. Easy to operate. Our ports already have the necessary infrastructure to handle this type of ships.
5. In the existing (above picture) configuration it can carry atleast 7 heavy helicopters. This may include submarine hunters, rescue or even troop carriers helis.

Cons :
1. Due to the degradation caused by oil, you will need to buy new one. But good thing is that it's cheap to buy new.
2. It will be slow.
3. No hanger to cover the helis in case of harsh weather, storms, rains etc. (Though this issue can be solved by simply providing the landing areas in a lower position instead of the upper portion of ship and provide a retractable roof on the individual helicopter landing area).
4. Retrofitting for troops compartments to make it able to carry 800 around troops will be costly. A simple helicopter carrier is easy to go for but a troop carrier will take much time, effort and money.

Iranian navy commissions converted tanker

The Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (IRIN) commissioned its largest vessel on 13 January in the form of IRINS Makran (441), a tanker converted into a multipurpose naval...

www.janes.com

While we're on the subject, any ideas on rough estimates for the 075 class LHD, PLAN launched this week? 075 class has 40,000 ton displacement, and is similar in size to the US Wasp class. All nations do not need LHDs or LPDs this big and unwieldy. There is the South Korean Dokdo class for example which is much smaller. Around 20,000 tons all loaded up.

The Japanese HYUGA Class Helicopter Destroyer is about the same size as the Dokdo class. I don't believe we in South Asia need anything larger than this. More numbers are fine though.

But making LHD's from an oil tanker would need a lot of expensive modifications, such as arranging for a re-inforced and floodable Well Deck to house and launch smaller expeditionary LCAC and/or watercraft/amphibious tanks to invade seashores, not to mention reinforcing a very wide platform on top as well as adding a command tower, all of which could alter the static/dynamic balance of the ship. You also have to have a large lift installed to lift helis onto the top deck from mid deck storage. These are significant customization challenges and may not ultimately be worth it, either money-wise or engineering challenge-wise.

In WWII, Japanese Imperial Navy converted many normal cargo ships and destroyers into aircraft carriers in cost effective manner. See pictures.

These are size comparisons of Japanese WWII Aircraft Carriers, all were modified from regular hulls and had a top deck supported by open columns. Only larger carriers had a command tower.

Now about the helis themselves, all South Asian nations currently operate Mi-8s, MI-17s, and MI-171s, Pakistan and India operate Sea Kings which will be decommissioned soon.

Future transport Helis for these LHD not yet purchase by Pakistan/Bangladesh (but could be) are Mi-38s and Changhe Z-8G/L. EH-101 and Airbus 225s are more expensive choices. I don't know if the Russian and Chinese helis are capable of having their rotor blades folded. That is a mandatory requirement for storage on board LHDs.

Mi-38-2

Changhe Z-8G

 

[Bilal9]

Excellent post you got there!

You mean price? Can't find any public info on PLAN procurement price, but I think it will be somewhere around $400 million if put on export, taking the 071 deal with Thailand as reference. Just very rough estimate, but amphibious ships can't be expensive anyway, those helos and LCAC are the big ticket items.

A more recent example is how the Royal Navy use their merchant fleet in 1982, it could be a case study for the topic.

The 071 class is more of an LPD, and the 075 class is more of a proper LHD it seems.

I understand LCAC's or hovercraft can be expensive and hard to maintain as transports and though Pakistan Navy does operate hovercrafts and China has the YuYi class, for long-term use and reliability, one must think of simpler solutions than LCAC, such as the French Ship-to-shore transport RO-RO L-CATs, which are actually combat proven and have been supplied to the US Navy for transporting men, equipment, tanks to shore from the sea-level well-decks of LHDs and LPDs all the way to beach landings.

In any case, here is the L-CAT operating in USN/USMC service. As one can clearly see, these French made L-CATs are Catamaran designs and are practical. I don't know if China manufactures equivalent products but it is unlikely to be too complicated to make.

 

[RealNapster]

Isn't India already doing that, their latest midsized/ small carrier is basically an oil tanker?

Don't know about that. Members can shed some light on it.

 

[Signalian]

I was studying about Pakistan's oil and cargo ship fleet where I came to know about LR-1 crude oil tanker. It is 75000 DWT ship. I saw this particular picture which already have one landing area for helicopters. So I thought why not turn an LR-1 oil tanker to helicopter carrier ? Can it be done ?


Now there are all the arguments that we don't need helicopter carriers, we have a different doctrine and helicopter carrier don't fit in it and i know these. Just want to know can this be done ? Will it work ? Would it be technically, financially and practically feasible ?

An LR-1 oil tanker coast around $35-38 million. I am sure retrofitting won't cost more than $15 million. Thoughts please.

View attachment 791049
Pros :

1. It's cheap.
2. Cost less to retrofit and make it fit for operation.
3. Can be easily purchased and retrofitted in bulk with minimal associated cost.
4. Easy to operate. Our ports already have the necessary infrastructure to handle this type of ships.
5. In the existing (above picture) configuration it can carry atleast 7 heavy helicopters. This may include submarine hunters, rescue or even troop carriers helis.

Cons :
1. Due to the degradation caused by oil, you will need to buy new one. But good thing is that it's cheap to buy new.
2. It will be slow.
3. No hanger to cover the helis in case of harsh weather, storms, rains etc. (Though this issue can be solved by simply providing the landing areas in a lower position instead of the upper portion of ship and provide a retractable roof on the individual helicopter landing area).
4. Retrofitting for troops compartments to make it able to carry 800 around troops will be costly. A simple helicopter carrier is easy to go for but a troop carrier will take much time, effort and money.

PN going for amphibious landings ?

Don't know about that. Members can shed some light on it.

Which helis and what role do you want those helis to perform ?

 

[arjunk]

The Japanese HYUGA Class Helicopter Destroyer is about the same size as the Dokdo class. I don't believe we in South Asia need anything larger than this. More numbers are fine though.

Time to invade Junagarh

 

[Muhammed45]

This approach is developed under defensive doctrine. First of all you need to protect these ships against incoming threats and hence have to Define when and where it has to operate and what platforms are capable of defending it.

Iran has developed two Forward base ship Makran for navy and Roudaki for IRGC.

IRGC has armed the transformed ship with anti ship, anti air and anti submarine subsystems. As per IRGC navy commander any missile that one could imagine is already installed on IRGC Forward base ship. It has also small boats, helicopters and drones onboard.

The main duty of these Forward base ships is to shift the location of a possible naval conflict between Iran and USA from Persian Gulf into Arabian sea and Indian ocean.

As you can see they are actually increasing the A2/AD capability of Iranian armed forces as the first outcome of this defensive doctrine. They will be supported by other small frigates, FACs, CAS fighter jets and Fateh submarines.

In Iranian military doctrine, IRIN and IRGCN are ordered to keep USA out of Persian Gulf so that during a possible war, USN loses its range of fighter jets and cruise missiles. This consequence for Americans will make them fight from thousands of kilometres away from Persian Gulf and as a benefit for Iran it will make the possibility of a naval blockade Zero. Americans will surely try to announce a blockade along Iranian shores and also will try to stop Foreign ships from docking on Iranian ports.

The long range Forward base ships are a must for a country that seeks asymmetric warfare against a coalition of enemies.

Now you have to Ask this question, does Pakistan navy really need such ships?

My answer is NO since Pakistan's Mortal enemy is located along its land and naval borders.

Submarines are the best chioce for PN to fight Indian navy which is considered a blue water navy.

 

[lcloo]

Future transport Helis for these LHD not yet purchase by Pakistan/Bangladesh (but could be) are Mi-38s and Changhe Z-8G/L. EH-101 and Airbus 225s are more expensive choices. I don't know if the Russian and Chinese helis are capable of having their rotor blades folded. That is a mandatory requirement for storage on board LHDs.

Mi-38-2


Changhe Z-8G

Z8G helicopter is army variant and are not fitted with foldable rotor blades, though other Z8 variants currently serving under PLA Navy do have foldable rotor blades, also Z9 and Z20 naval variants are also fitted with foldable rotor blades as well.

China has this rotor folding technology for many decades by now.