tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post894253141130988120..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: ASW and HelicoptersComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74375124314863435372019-12-01T10:47:29.624-08:002019-12-01T10:47:29.624-08:00"I thought one of the goals with the concept ..."I thought one of the goals with the concept was to get the helo's off of the Burkes"<br /><br />No. You're mixing two separate missions together. An ASW helo carrier is NOT a battle group / carrier group escort. A helo carrier for a carrier group is redundant. The carrier, itself, has all the ASW helos needed and room for many more.<br /><br />An ASW helo carrier has two purposes:<br /><br />1. Convoy escort<br />2. Independent hunter-killer groupComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25689656101047136272019-12-01T10:03:42.701-08:002019-12-01T10:03:42.701-08:00“An ASW helo carrier is not a front line warship”
...“An ASW helo carrier is not a front line warship”<br />“"$1.25B-$1.4B" <br /><br />So what is going to be the doing ASW for the combat fleets deployed in hostile waters? As I was conceptualizing this the saving came in not trying to have distributed helicopter lethality everywhere. So a type Hyuga as DE leader is expensive and makes and the goal to save money on its helcopter-less small DE consorts, that are focused on one thing ASW and also surface/anti-air/missle ships not having helo crews, or wasted space.<br /><br />On the cost its that its doubtful that the US can beat Japan at cost. But that said the Hyuga is perhaps over built for a DE leader. If you want to eliminate their inherit ASW ability they would be less expensive. <br /><br />But that leads to the Bogue <br /><br />It seems to it rather slow. Has almost no sensors, nor any ability to defend itself sans aircraft. A simple design such as that would almost assuredly require one of its DEs to stand by closely to it. Or if hanging with a CV group be fast enough to do so. Also I would be curious to what extent the Bogue class could service its aircraft, or carry spare air crew? Its a post start of the war design with a very minimal set goals. <br /><br />I would think speed would be important you really don't want the thing carrying all the ASW aircraft to go down. <br /><br />“Conceptually, it should be a converted cargo ship with a flat deck - nothing more. Industry routinely builds $100M giant tankers. Take one of those and make some modifications and you're done - say a total cost of $400M. Why do we keep gravitating to full fledged naval warships for 'half-fledged' naval missions? “<br /><br />Slow. Rather not agile. Likely to sink easily. A tad large as well. Also I think you are being generous on the cost. The MLPs dropped the ability to support helicopters almost immediately to keep the ~450 million cost.<br /><br />What is half fledged navel mission? I thought one of the goals with the concept was to get the helo's off of the Burkes and mini Burkes and presumably avoid having to too many ASW helos on the CVs so that dedicates DEs and/or small corvettes would do the job for the fleets fighting wars. If you mean just inexpensive convoy escorts. I suppose it fits but than a Burke or more has to be around right? Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09782968433043931011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12684674373282641452019-11-29T16:06:07.740-08:002019-11-29T16:06:07.740-08:00Thanks for the response. It just seems crazy to me...Thanks for the response. It just seems crazy to me a 50k pound aircraft requires a ship that displaces 100 times that amount!<br /><br />I’m trying to understand the possibilities of a fast-sprinting ship that can act as a lilypad for one 50-60k pound V-22 tanker. Wouldn’t need hangar space. <br /><br />I had something like the Spearhead class or Sea Fighter in mind, but it sounds like those ships are simply too small to support that much weight on the flight deck.Globe345https://www.blogger.com/profile/03839837937157991647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40331010565848736862019-11-29T12:53:13.112-08:002019-11-29T12:53:13.112-08:00JMSGF still has several non helo ASW corvettes, th...JMSGF still has several non helo ASW corvettes, the Abukuma class, which they officially rate as DE. They used to have a lot more. Its a concept worth bringing back.<br /><br />https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abukuma-class_destroyer_escort<br /><br />Bluebackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14032254521923350018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62611155700828164402019-11-29T05:52:52.803-08:002019-11-29T05:52:52.803-08:00@Globe345
>> As a naval engineer, I am curio...@Globe345<br />>> As a naval engineer, I am curious what you think is the smallest vessel (both in terms of displacement and length) that could support a single 60k pound vertical takeoff aircraft. What would be the limiting factors and considerations?<br /><br />Well, that depends, what are the CONOPS of the ship and the properties of the aircraft?<br />The former determines the considerations, the latter determines the limiting factors.<br /><br />For aircraft, let's use a F35B (50k lb) that was given J/RATO equipment as a hypothetical example, even though it's not a proper VTOL.<br /><br />If the ship wasn't expected to do anything else at all, merely act as a mobile launch/landing platform for a single aircraft, and was not expected to perform full maintenance on said aircraft: it would be entirely possible to place one on a hull that was roughly the size of a Sumner-Gearing (~380' length), just a couple feet wider (45' beam), maybe 3000-3500ts displacement.<br /><br />If you expected the ship to perform full maintenance and keep that single aircraft up as long as reasonably possible, then you'd be needing a wider hull to allow full access to the aircraft, including with forklifts. So, you'd be needing a (guesstimate number) ~60' wide hull, but I believe the same length would work. You end up with a ~5500-6500ts hull. At this point, you'd be better off building a Long Island/Bogue and carrying multiple aircraft.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47089760623089029342019-11-29T05:49:52.228-08:002019-11-29T05:49:52.228-08:00@CNO
>> Then explain to me how Burkes, Perry...@CNO<br />>> Then explain to me how Burkes, Perrys, Ticos, and LPD-17s have flight decks that are 70 ft or so?<br /><br />The Burkes, Perrys. and Ticos are both aftdeckers and only operate one Spot, they don't have to worry about interference from other Helos. Additionally, they're actually older than the 75' regs in question, which increased as the size of the helos did.<br />With single-spot helo decks, you only need to concern yourself with the 75' (68' for Burkes; Perrys and Ticos were designed with Sea Sprites in mind). The 45' between spots reg only applies to flattops with multiple spots.<br />As I said, I'm not that familiar with the LPD-17s, but from my understanding they took their required length from anglespot and actually do meet the width requirements.<br /><br />>> So, again, a Bogue size carrier is more than sufficient.<br /><br />I agree that a roughly Bogue-size hull is sufficient for the CONOPS you've specified if you do not require 4 spots, you'd still get two spots out of that and a healthy wing of 6-8 aircraft. I disagreed with the SMALLER hull.<br /><br />>> You might want to check out the America starboard forward spot and the port aft spot.<br /><br />These are the staging areas. They are lines painted on the decks so crews know where it's considered safe to park the aircraft.<br />On that topic:<br /><br />>> staging areas<br /><br />When an aircraft lands it momentarily applies force to the deck of between 5 (biplanes) and 13-15 (MV-22) times their own weight, rule of thumb figures. This is simply physics at work: hitting the floor after jumping applies far more pressure to the floor than merely standing on it. <br />You may find it hard to believe, but it's a fact. We cut corners with both cost and weight wherever we could, so the starboard side deck is not as 'impact resistant' as the port side deck.<br />Personally, I'd like to build everything to reasonable maximums, but that's 'battleship mentality' which is looked down upon by the Navy anymore.<br /><br />>> height<br /><br />Height affects wind speed on a moving object drastically. As little as 10ft above surface level can increase the felt wind speed by as much as 5kts, and that increaeses as the height increases, which can have a drastic effect at 45-50' up when you're already moving at cruise speeds.<br />Of course, you are correct, you could just slow down the CHS, which is an entirely reasonable action which I overlooked. I openly admit, I forgot to consider this. Flattops automatically get fixed wing profiles in my mind due to what I'm used to, and they prefer launching at 27+ kts. This is my error.<br /><br />>> wind<br /><br />Yes, the difference between a Flattop and an Aftdecker is primarily the 'wind screen effect' of the superstructure, if you want to call it that.<br />Said superstructure is both a blessing and a curse: operating inside that 'null area' is easier than in the open wind current, but passing through the 'wind wall'/turbulence is the problem. The turbulence is a known hazard, which is why most USN aftdeckers in recent years have had some form of assisted landing system for their helos (usually in the form of the RAST system). This makes the turbulence far more acceptable, as when passing through the 'wall' they have anchored themselves to the ship.<br />Ships with very large superstructures providing a 'wind screen' (LPD-17) actually don't need the RAST system as the Helo can move fully inside the 'null area' and then land while ignoring the 'wind wall' turbulence.<br />Incidentally, this turbulence is actually one of the reasons for the 45' between spots on flattops (in addition to the rotor wash), as parked Helos actually can generate turbulence. This isn't so much an issue when at low speeds, however, the primary concern being the rotor wash.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85157118204588599402019-11-29T05:44:05.493-08:002019-11-29T05:44:05.493-08:00"I think where the Bogue class or something s..."I think where the Bogue class or something smaller run into space problems would be providing adequate hangar and maintenance facilities. ... Hyuga "<br /><br />So, you think a 646 ft Hyuga which can carry 18 aircraft has sufficient hangar facilities but a 496 ft Bogue with 8-12 aircraft can't have sufficient hangar facilities? Let's do the math. The Hyuga has 36 ft per aircraft whereas the Bogue (with 12 aircraft) has MORE room at 41 ft per aircraft! Admittedly, ft/aircraft is not a direct measurement of hangar capacity but it does indicate that a Bogue has more potential hangar space.<br /><br />"$1.25B-$1.4B"<br /><br />For a simple helo carrier?! That's why we can't afford our fleet. We have to stop buying more capability than we need. An ASW helo carrier is not a front line warship. Conceptually, it should be a converted cargo ship with a flat deck - nothing more. Industry routinely builds $100M giant tankers. Take one of those and make some modifications and you're done - say a total cost of $400M. Why do we keep gravitating to full fledged naval warships for 'half-fledged' naval missions?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3032370357107142002019-11-29T05:35:03.644-08:002019-11-29T05:35:03.644-08:00"My problem with the 15-20 year life"
Y..."My problem with the 15-20 year life"<br /><br />You completely miss the underlying concept of the 15-20 year life cycle. A 40 yr ship is hugely more expensive because you know you won't get more ships anytime soon. So, you pack everything you can think of into it and you build as much excess capacity, space, power, etc. into it as you can - most of which won't be used. You also have to provide much more maintenance or else you'll be forced to retire the ship early which is exactly what the Navy does. Most ship classes are retired early which means you paid for the 40 yr life and only used it for 25 (witness the tragedy of the Los Angeles class subs!). The 40 yr ships are always bordering on obsolete.<br /><br />With a 15 yr ship you get the ship for half the cost, it's always got the latest tech, you don't have to do excessive maintenance, and you can change design direction on a frequent basis. <br /><br />"you need twice as many ships to maintain the same fleet size"<br /><br />No, you need the exact same number of ships. I think what you're saying is that you need to build twice as many ships which is correct. Of course, since each costs half the cost, twice as many works out to the same cost along with all the aforementioned attendant benefits.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12326740249025726762019-11-28T21:34:34.163-08:002019-11-28T21:34:34.163-08:00I think where the Bogue class or something smaller...I think where the Bogue class or something smaller run into space problems would be providing adequate hangar and maintenance facilities. I think something like a Hyuga would provide sufficient hangar and maintenance space. Japan built them for about US $1B each, so I would think we should be able to make them for $1.25B-$1.4B, if we can keep the admirals and staffs from growing the scope.CDR Chipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84677717515769950482019-11-28T21:22:24.823-08:002019-11-28T21:22:24.823-08:00Agree with more ships more frequently to amortize ...Agree with more ships more frequently to amortize the design and other overhead. And more ships more frequently necessarily drives using more shipyards. I don't think you make them all small and single function, but I think there's definitely a place for a high/low mix of some bigger and more capable and some smaller and single purpose.<br /><br />The big differences are designing ships that use only existing technology and locking in a design once construction begins. <br /><br />If you must do a Ford or Zumwalt or LCS, do one to test the technology, and don't do any more until you have proved that everything works. Rickover had the right idea--we had one-off Nautilus to prove nuclear power, one-off Albacore to prove the teardrop hull, and then Skipjack class to combine the two. <br /><br />My problem with the 15-20 year life is that you may make an individual ship cheaper, but over a 40-year time frame you need twice as many ships to maintain the same fleet size, and sheer numbers can be very costly. I still like the idea of a 40-year life cycle, but a major maintenance and overhaul in years 20 and 21. CDR Chipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24632204407706256842019-11-28T20:10:10.329-08:002019-11-28T20:10:10.329-08:00"superstructure on the ships you mention scre..."superstructure on the ships you mention screen the wind whereas flattops don’t "<br /><br />No, he didn't actually say that. Possibly, he suggested it with a comment about wind screens although it's not clear what that meant especially since carriers routinely operate helos and have no wind screens. Interestingly, Soviet experience was that the superstructure on Moskva type helo-cruisers actually cause MORE problems by creating turbulence aft of the superstructure. Nimitz/Ford carriers have this same problem aft of their islands and landing aircraft have to fly through the turbulence. Finally, if wind speed is an issue, a carrier could simply slow down a bit as a helo was launching or landing. For a ASW helo carrier, launches and landings would not be all that frequent so it would impose no great impact on normal movement.<br /><br />His other explicit explanation was deck height though he offered no explanation why deck height would be an issue and none come to mind. A Bogue class, for example, would not have much deck height compared to a Ford/Nimitz. Why an additional 10-30 ft of deck height would impose some significant added danger is unclear to me.<br /><br />"staging areas"<br /><br />Regarding the staging areas, I find it very hard to believe that the Wasp/America's flight deck is built stronger on the port side than the starboard. The incremental weight difference between a loaded and unloaded helo seems insignificant relative to the structural capacity of a flight deck that is built to handle the weight of dozens of parked aircraft.<br /><br />In short, the information on spot spacing is interesting but the explanations defy common sense and are very difficult to believe. For example, the usable flight deck area on a Tico cruiser looks to be around 50-60 ft measured fore and aft and that is shorter than the length of a SH-60 type helo! It seems very hard to believe that we can safely operate helos on Ticos with 50-60 ft of space and yet REQUIRE 120 ft or more on a WASP/America. Does that sound right to you?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5801696997994467272019-11-28T18:00:49.707-08:002019-11-28T18:00:49.707-08:00He said why your examples are different - The supe...He said why your examples are different - The superstructure on the ships you mention screen the wind whereas flattops don’t have that benefit. Also that multiple helicopters in close proximity create disruptive rotor wash and require more space to safely operate. The ships you mention (except the San Antonio) only operate one helo at a time.<br /><br />I am also guessing those smaller starboard spots are the staging areas he was referring to.<br /><br />Great information from him, though I agree it doesn’t really matter since you will not need to launch more than one or two helos at a time.Globe345https://www.blogger.com/profile/03839837937157991647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87807595668354172452019-11-28T16:44:41.694-08:002019-11-28T16:44:41.694-08:00Why not? one advantage of the swordfish was that i...Why not? one advantage of the swordfish was that it required a short deck for takeoff and landing and could take off and fly in rougher weather than the RN or RN used USN planes of the time.<br /><br />Sure modernise it, build it safer and from modern materials but keep it small and cheap.<br /><br />You could have a combination of a few modernised S-2 Trackers and more cheap biplane or if you don't like biplanes how about new build A-1 Skyraider's for anti-sub work.<br /><br />Aren't high end ultra expensive aircraft the reason the USN has less airwings than carriers now? <br /><br />It has to be easier and cheaper to train people to fly those types of plane and another advantage unlike with the cheap ground attack plane anti-sub planes aren't going to be shot at unless things go very, very wrong.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06931688015064892573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34641822520930251352019-11-28T15:57:28.420-08:002019-11-28T15:57:28.420-08:00"75' x 60' clearance … a REQUIRED 45..."75' x 60' clearance … a REQUIRED 45 additional feet of DECK clearance (which excludes off-deck clearance entirely) on the fore and aft ends of the spot."<br /><br />You might want to check out the America starboard forward spot and the port aft spot. I don't have a dimensioned flight deck drawing but the photos don't seem to show anywhere near the clearance you've indicated. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87868376251251126822019-11-28T12:15:52.204-08:002019-11-28T12:15:52.204-08:00" that wasn't what I was intending."..." that wasn't what I was intending."<br /><br />No problem! You're offering good information and I thank you for that. However, based on the observed flight deck sizes and spots for the classes I listed, I think your big deck amphib 'rules' are convenience rather than true safety. If you can explain how/why those classes can get away with 'violating' your rules, I'm perfectly happy to be persuaded.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7622703794545541262019-11-28T12:12:40.099-08:002019-11-28T12:12:40.099-08:00"by regulation, 120' of flight deck per s..."by regulation, 120' of flight deck per spot"<br /><br />Then explain to me how Burkes, Perrys, Ticos, and LPD-17s have flight decks that are 70 ft or so? LPD-17 is longer but also has two spots.<br /><br />I can plainly see the spotting distances on the Wasp/Americas but there is no flight safety reason for it that I can see. They have huge flight decks so I assume they simply use more space because they have more space.<br /><br />If anything less than 120 ft is unsafe then you'll have to explain the Perry, Burke, Tico, and LPD-17.<br /><br />Also, for an ASW helo carrier, the number of spots is almost irrelevant. Unlike an amphibious assault carrier where the helos MUST assemble, load, and launch at, essentially, the same time, an ASW carrier could operate 500 helos (throwing in some hyperbole, there) with only one spot since the helos have no need to launch simultaneously. So, again, a Bogue size carrier is more than sufficient.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15616488764485594062019-11-28T11:38:30.980-08:002019-11-28T11:38:30.980-08:00As a naval engineer, I am curious what you think i...As a naval engineer, I am curious what you think is the smallest vessel (both in terms of displacement and length) that could support a single 60k pound vertical takeoff aircraft. What would be the limiting factors and considerations?Globe345https://www.blogger.com/profile/03839837937157991647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41866822164761642152019-11-28T08:41:59.576-08:002019-11-28T08:41:59.576-08:00>> It's not my 'opinion', it'...>> It's not my 'opinion', it's the reality of mathematics and engineering; you are the one disagreeing with reality.<br /><br />In hindsight, this could be taken as both rude and hostile. I apologize, that wasn't what I was intending.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86348487463036179522019-11-28T08:16:14.538-08:002019-11-28T08:16:14.538-08:00CNO, I should probably explain where my perspectiv...CNO, I should probably explain where my perspective is coming from.<br />Just to be clear, I am not even remotely trying to be hostile with any of this post or the previous post, I am merely sharing my 'professional' input on the subject.<br />I am a (former) Naval Engineer who has worked on US Navy ship designs before; I won't state what firm I worked with, however I will state that I am intimately familiar with the America-class LPH, but not that familiar with the San Antonio-class LPDs.<br />Fact is that Flattops and Aftdecks are entirely different creatures when it comes to standards of operations and have different regulations, largely due to the wind interference provided by the presence (or lack thereof) of the Ship's Superstructure.<br />The San Antonio-class can get away with its spotting arrangement because it's an Aftdecker with angled spotting (although I call shenanigans on the claim of 4 spotting that flight deck, 2 spots is completely reasonable). Your short-hull Bogue absolutely could not because it's a Flattop — unless you wanted to go island-less and angle-spot, but every navy who has ever tried island-less CVs has hated them for many reasons I will not get into here.<br />For Flattop Carriers, USN Regulation requires 75' x 60' clearance (allowing off-deck clearance for up to 15' on one side) per Spot not including a REQUIRED 45 additional feet of DECK clearance (which excludes off-deck clearance entirely) on the fore and aft ends of the spot. That is, by regulation, 120' of flight deck per spot (plus an extra 45' on the end for the aftmost slot).<br />That gives a minimum of 525' length for a 4 spot flattop Helicopter Carrier, by USN Regulation, which is actually fairly aggressive.<br />This is due to safety hazards introduced by the height of the flight deck on carriers (and the lack of a wind screen), it has little to do with on-loading or offloading troops and equipment.<br />Now, I am aware that some of the flattops in service push things to unreasonable levels, but there is still a practical limit to how close you can push helos together: helos do not like landing or taking off close to each other, the rotor wash can and will interfere with nearby helos.<br /><br />Additionally, the America-class LHA has 6 'spots' and 4 'stations', which are not relegated for take offs and landings but stand-by aircraft. Those stations are NOT designed for combat operations, they ARE NOT safe for such. This is one thing I can say with 100% certainty, they are NOT safe for flight operations. <br />That is so important that I will repeat myself: those stations are NOT safe for flight operations!<br />I don't care how they are used, this is fact: they are not meant for regular flight operations, at most they can be used to launch lightweight (mostly load-less SH-60s) aircraft for cross-ship transportation of personnel, but they are NOT reinforced landing points meaning they are NOT designed to take that shock!<br />They may take one, two, or a hundred landings, but they will fail much sooner than the actual built-as-such spots, and that's another thing I'm going to have nightmares about now.<br /><br />It's not my 'opinion', it's the reality of mathematics and engineering; you are the one disagreeing with reality.<br />Incidentally, you can't just decided to use an aftdecker design to shorten the hull, either. The 2-4 spot aftdeckers (Haruna-class, Moskva-class, San Antonio-class) are still 500+ feet in length for a very good reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29029213225926027712019-11-28T06:04:01.005-08:002019-11-28T06:04:01.005-08:00"Sound's like it's time to modernise ..."Sound's like it's time to modernise the Swordfish IV"<br /><br />You're suggesting a WWII biplane?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14206195459844536692019-11-28T06:00:56.105-08:002019-11-28T06:00:56.105-08:00"A Bogue-class couldn't handle 12 Helos o..."A Bogue-class couldn't handle 12 Helos optimally, it'd barely be able to handle 8 and you'd be suffering in performance — and that's assuming the flight deck only had 4 spots (which you'd be trying to commit murder to do - Helos don't like taking off or landing near other Helos)."<br /><br />Well, you can disagree but you'd be wrong. Opinion aside, actual facts demonstrate that a Bogue could easily handle four spots. The LPD-17 class has two spots on about a 170 ft flight deck which is 85 ft per spot. Thus, a Bogue size flight deck at 439 ft could accommodate 5 spots. I suggested a smaller vesion at around 350 ft which, doing the math, would accommodate 4 spots, just as I said.<br /><br />Many other ships (Perry, Burke, Tico) have flight decks (1 spot) of 70 ft or so.<br /><br />Even the America class LHA, whose spots are spread out to allow troop/gear assembly and loading (which an ASW helo wouldn't need), has ten spots on an 840 ft flight deck by using diagonally opposed spots on port and starboard sides of the deck. Thus, a Bogue, using port/starboard spots could possibly accommodate even more than 5 spots but, hey, let's not get greedy - 4 will suffice.<br /><br />So, if you still 'disagree' then you're disagreeing with reality.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2498923402615290442019-11-28T05:16:47.597-08:002019-11-28T05:16:47.597-08:00Sound's like it's time to modernise the Sw...Sound's like it's time to modernise the Swordfish IV significantly smaller than a SH-60 with a 5+ hour endurance carrying 2 anti sub torps.<br /><br />Or combination there of.<br /><br /><br /><br />Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06931688015064892573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14881039254773151222019-11-28T04:37:48.061-08:002019-11-28T04:37:48.061-08:00Going to have to disagree here on some aspects, CN...Going to have to disagree here on some aspects, CNO.<br />A Bogue-class couldn't handle 12 Helos optimally, it'd barely be able to handle 8 and you'd be suffering in performance — and that's assuming the flight deck only had 4 spots (which you'd be trying to commit murder to do - Helos don't like taking off or landing near other Helos).<br />If you were to shorten the ship even farther like you're suggesting, I think the ship would have trouble even keeping two Helos airborne.<br />That being said, that'd be two more Helos than Burkes manage to keep airborne.<br />See, there's a common misconception about the Burkes and Helos: People think because the Aircraft are deployed aboard the Burke that the Burke must be capable of maintaining those aircraft.<br />Simple fact is, that's entirely false — the Burkes are not actually capable of performing full maintenance of their airwing, they have to rely on nearby CVs to perform the heavy maintenance, all they can do is the equivalence of checking the oil and tire pressure in a car. Enough in day to day affairs, but any actual damage or serious maintenance has to be performed on a ship with an actual maintenance wing, which in the modern US Navy is only the CVs; and we both know the Navy's track record on shore-side routine maintenance: basically non-existent. <br />Therefore, you cannot attempt to approximate the deck and hanger space required for a single Helicopter on aa dedicated CHS (Carrier, Helicopter, ASW) by using the flight deck of the Burkes. That only tells you stowage and a single 'spot', it doesn't even remotely touch upon the full maintenance that any fully-fledged Helicopter Carrier ought to be able to handle.<br /><br />A good model for a Helicopter Carrier of around the capabilities that you are asking for is the Japanese Hyuga.<br />It's fully capable of internal Maintenance of its standard airwing of around 12-16 aircraft (Globalsecurity's figure of '18-24 aircraft' must be a transport figure, they physically do not have the room in the hanger to carry and maintain that many active Helos), and it ONLY has 4 Deck Spots for Helos (and they are squeezing).<br />The much larger Izumo-class has only 5 deck spots (much more comfortably) and is the size of an Essex-class, but can carry a comparatively whopping 28 active aircraft.<br /><br />It's a little hard for most people to accept (saying this for general readership), but the fact is Rotary Wing aircraft actually take far more space per aircraft than WW2 Fixed Wings!<br />...WW2 Fixed Wings that could do almost everything that the ASW Helos can do except hover.<br />In short, maybe we should be thinking less on ASW Helos and more on reviving the S-2 Tracker (which could land on an Essex with room to spare, as compared to the Jet-powered S-3 Viking which couldn't).<br />Same result, different method, better range and speed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85704157043473627152019-11-27T17:04:41.351-08:002019-11-27T17:04:41.351-08:00"Yes but what would it look like?"
A Bo..."Yes but what would it look like?"<br /><br />A Bogue class escort carrier is a good starting point. It's built off a cargo ship hull but should be shorter. The Bogue class was 496 ft long (439 flight deck) but that was to operate around 24 aircraft. For 8-12 helos, something around 350 ft might be about right. Any smaller and it won't be open ocean suitable (need a certain amount of stability to operate helos). Any larger and it's wasted space/cost.<br /><br />The flight deck doesn't have to be capable of operating all 8-12 helos simultaneously. Perhaps 4 operating spots would be sufficient.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36338400367621256202019-11-27T16:54:27.352-08:002019-11-27T16:54:27.352-08:00Yes but what would it look like? a very small carr...Yes but what would it look like? a very small carrier or one of the Helicopter cruisers that the European's built in the 50's and 60's?<br /><br />I guess a diesel powered Casablanca class escort carrier sized ship would work but that still seems to big for just 8-12 helos.<br /><br />Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06931688015064892573noreply@blogger.com