Replies

That was my point: the things are so big that you could store an enormous load of missiles spaced along the center and stuff the outside and bottom tanks with additional compartments filled with some fire resistant foam and the thing would be almost impossible to sink.

Add some redundant power, comms, propulsion, and CWS defense and it would take an armada to destroy the thing.

It wouldn't move fast or maneuver, but why bother? It's not as though the radar signature would get much smaller.

There are two fundamental problems. Fist, large oil tankers (VLCCs -- Very Large Crude Carriers) have a useful life of about 20 to 25 years. Those that get sold off cheaply are old enough to have expended most of their economic value and to be nearing the point at which in a commercial context they must be scrapped or undergo detailed assessment and expensive repairs and upgrades.

Thus, like an old clunker of a car, those surplus oil tankers are cheap because they are nearing the end of their useful lives. Whatever the Navy spends to acquire, rehab, and modify the tankers must then suffer rapid depreciation. How long will these navalized, missile-spewing Tankers of Death last in service? Ten or fifteen years, with lots of babying and maintenance expense. Then they must be written off. Budget analysts will be highly skeptical.

Second, against modern naval weapons, the damage absorbing capacity of oil tankers is much less than it may seem. Modern missiles and bombs can easily penetrate the unarmored sides of a tanker and explode in the vitals of the ship. A single torpedo will commonly be fatal by exploding under the hull and breaking it in half.

Due to the innovations of naval weapon designers in fashioning more lethal warheads and more accurate missiles, the example of the Atlantic Conveyor containership during the Falklands War is no longer relevant. Yes, after a hit by an Argentine Exocet missile, the ship lingered for days, but that would not happen today. One and done is far more likely against any unarmored civilian vessel, even a large tanker.

The basic problem is that without armor, watertight compartments and bulkheads, damage control systems, and defensive anti-missile systems, large civilian ships are easy targets these days.

It is an interesting idea, but did you know we’ve converted four Ohio class ballistic missile submarines into Tomahawk launching platforms?

The older Ohios had the C4 Trident SLBMs while the newer ones have the D5 Tridents. Instead of upgrading their SLBM capability, they modified the tubes to be able to carry 154 Tomahawks.

Almost like your tanker idea.