Cruiser with 4 helicopters

[Larso66]

Hello,

I'm curious as to what a warship with the ability to carry 4 helicopters would look like? Practically only two would operate at a time, with the other two stored below deck. Such a ship could carry 2 (or more) anti-sub warfare helos, a gunship and a troop carrier of some sort. It seems a very useful mix to me. How big would such a ship need to be, to also include the usual weapons of a destroyer.

 

[oldsig127]

Hello,

I'm curious as to what a warship with the ability to carry 4 helicopters would look like? Practically only two would operate at a time, with the other two stored below deck. Such a ship could carry 2 (or more) anti-sub warfare helos, a gunship and a troop carrier of some sort. It seems a very useful mix to me. How big would such a ship need to be, to also include the usual weapons of a destroyer.

Wild guess by drawing a line through HMS Tiger and her sister, which were gun cruiser conversions displacing around 11000 tons, and vessels like Jeanne D'Arc and Moskva, and allowing that modern warships just grow and grow...at least 12,000 tons?

More likely to use small flat tops like those in Korean and Japanese service though.

oldsig

 

[Larso66]

Wild guess by drawing a line through HMS Tiger and her sister, which were gun cruiser conversions displacing around 11000 tons, and vessels like Jeanne D'Arc and Moskva, and allowing that modern warships just grow and grow...at least 12,000 tons?

More likely to use small flat tops like those in Korean and Japanese service though.

oldsig

Thanks for that. Yes, I looked at some stuff on Tiger yesterday (15,000 tonnes?). It was a bit of a sad story in the end. Some time back I also found some stuff on a Japanese 'destroyer/helicopter' from the 1970s which did carry 4 helicopters. It had, from memory, twin gun turrets at the front too? The Huran class or something?

 

[Redlands18]

https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_cruiser_Vittorio_Veneto

French cruiser Jeanne d'Arc (R97) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Arguably the 2 best examples of the Helicopter Cruiser concept, interestingly both stored their Helicopters below the flight deck. The Italians done away with the concept though when they replaced the earlier Andrea Doria class with the through Deck Garibaldi

 

[Larso66]

Now I've checked my spelling - that was the Haruna class. These were replaced by the Shirane (also 1970s) which could carry three choppers and appears to have deck space for two at once. This is on a smallish ship too - 159m length and 17.5m beam and 5,200 tonnes.

 

[Redlands18]

They were a fad that really only lasted from the early 60s to the mid 70s and all 5 Navies UK, France*,Japan, Italy, USSR dropped the concept and went to through Deck Carriers.
*By the end of her very long Career, the Jeanne de Arc was operating as a Amphib/Trg/HADR ship and was in part replaced by the Mistrals.

 

[Larso66]

Thanks for that Redlands.

Wiki explains - 'Vittorio Veneto has a raised rear deck to accommodate a hangar beneath the helicopter platform, rather than a frigate/destroyer style hangar in the superstructure. There are two elevators to transfer the helicopters between the hangar and the deck.'
Which meant it could carry 6 - 9 helicopters! This on a ship 180m long and of 7,500 tonnes.

 

[Larso66]

'They were a fad that really only lasted from the early 60s to the mid 70s' - so it seems.
Yes, a proper carrier would be best but I think a smaller (and cheaper) vessel with the armament of a destroyer AND several helicopters would still be very useful? I imagine you could have two, even three, for the price of a carrier. I guess I look at Australia's long coastline and can't help but think that more vessels with multiple helicopters would be better for anti-submarine duties?

 

[Redlands18]

'They were a fad that really only lasted from the early 60s to the mid 70s' - so it seems.
Yes, a proper carrier would be best but I think a smaller (and cheaper) vessel with the armament of a destroyer AND several helicopters would still be very useful? I imagine you could have two, even three, for the price of a carrier. I guess I look at Australia's long coastline and can't help but think that more vessels with multiple helicopters would be better for anti-submarine duties?

When they were being built there was still very few Escorts that could carry a Helicopter and the way they would operate, is with a group of non Helicopter carrying Escorts, by the 1980s nearly all Escorts being built could carry Helicopters. They were probably the quickest and easiest way at the time to get a decent number of Helicopters to Sea. As a comparison you can look at the RAN, in the 1970s we had only one Ship capable of taking Helicopters to sea and that was only about 30% of the time at best and operating them in ASW operations, today we have 11 Vessels and there is nearly always a Seahawk at sea.
In some ways we are heading back that way with the Type 26 and her large Mission Bay but that is going to be more for Drones, then more Manned Helicopters.

 

[Feanor]

It seems to me that the main problem is with the core concept. Cruisers operate as part of a multi-vessel taskforce. And it makes less sense to tack extra helos on a cruiser then to have a helo-carrier, or simply multiple other vessels bringing the capability. Take the 1164 Moskva class that was mentioned. It carries a single helo, but a taskforce could conceivably include (if we're talking Soviet era, not modern) a pair of 1155s and a pair of 956s. That's a total of 7 helos.

 

[Ananda]

DAMEN presents CROSSOVER ultimate mission modular naval concept at DIMDEX 2014

Fully developed to execute current tasks and cater for future capabilities, the Damen CROSSOVER is the ultimate mission modular naval concept. Pivotal to this innovative solution is the so-called X-Deck - a single, flexible deck to handle, store, operate and deploy mission equipment, fast RHIBs...

www.navyrecognition.com

This is the closet thing that a update present day design try to sell the idea of Hybrid Warship with large flight deck design. Damen after doing their research come with Frigate LPD Hybrid, which they seems think there's market demand for that. Still even then up until now, there's no order for that design. Some Navies shown attraction to the design, but Damen as far as I know still not building it yet.

So if an Hybrid Frigate LPD design (which's more tune) to the present Navy operational need (base on Market resarch done by one of leading Naval Yard), but still no takers. How hybrid cruisers/destroyers-helicopter carriers can fly in present market ? The amount of cost building one will not be much different than building through deck helicopter carriers. Building a hybrid that can only take 4 helicopter at most, simply not worth the cost.

 

[ASSAIL]

When they were being built there was still very few Escorts that could carry a Helicopter and the way they would operate, is with a group of non Helicopter carrying Escorts, by the 1980s nearly all Escorts being built could carry Helicopters. They were probably the quickest and easiest way at the time to get a decent number of Helicopters to Sea. As a comparison you can look at the RAN, in the 1970s we had only one Ship capable of taking Helicopters to sea and that was only about 30% of the time at best and operating them in ASW operations, today we have 11 Vessels and there is nearly always a Seahawk at sea.
In some ways we are heading back that way with the Type 26 and her large Mission Bay but that is going to be more for Drones, then more Manned Helicopters.

From the mid 60’s to the early 80’s the RAN CONOPS were based on an ASW Hunter Killer Group led by CVS21 HMAS Melbourne.
Firstly with the Squadron of Wessex 31Bs and later Seakings the ASW capability was first class and this was supported by all the escorts being fitted with Ikara with data links to the dipping helos.
Given this situation escort ship helos were superfluous.
Naturally, away from that specialist scenario and when operating independently, escorts without helos were disadvantaged particularly for anti surface ops and surveillance.

 

[alexsa]

When they were being built there was still very few Escorts that could carry a Helicopter and the way they would operate, is with a group of non Helicopter carrying Escorts, by the 1980s nearly all Escorts being built could carry Helicopters. They were probably the quickest and easiest way at the time to get a decent number of Helicopters to Sea. As a comparison you can look at the RAN, in the 1970s we had only one Ship capable of taking Helicopters to sea and that was only about 30% of the time at best and operating them in ASW operations, today we have 11 Vessels and there is nearly always a Seahawk at sea.
In some ways we are heading back that way with the Type 26 and her large Mission Bay but that is going to be more for Drones, then more Manned Helicopters.

Essentially correct on the 70's with Sydney being gone by 1973. However, both HMAS Stalwart (Wessex and later Sea King) and HMAS Moresby (small utility helicopter Scout then Bell) could carry helos until they decommissioned. To be fair these were just used in the utility role.

 

[Larso66]

I guess what got me thinking about this was reading about the proposed Hunter Class Frigates. One of the options was to have room for a second helicopter. Apparently a 20m beam allows two hangers to operate at once. For anti-sub warfare it just seemed to make sense too. A much greater surface coverage is allowed - or operating as a tag team, for a longer time frame. Then I thought well why not add another one or two as reserves or to allow multiple mission options.
Seeing what's been posted, the smaller helicopters of the 1960/70 generations allowed multiple to be carried. These days I assumed a larger ship, near the 10,000 tonnes mark would probably be needed. I just thought 'cruiser' was a more suitable term for a ship with more capability. They can project a lot of force all by themselves.
I find it interesting, in an odd way, that the Hunter Frigates at 8,800 tonnes are bigger than the Hobart destroyers at 7,000. The terminology is pretty flexible sometimes.....

 

[Stampede]

I guess what got me thinking about this was reading about the proposed Hunter Class Frigates. One of the options was to have room for a second helicopter. Apparently a 20m beam allows two hangers to operate at once. For anti-sub warfare it just seemed to make sense too. A much greater surface coverage is allowed - or operating as a tag team, for a longer time frame. Then I thought well why not add another one or two as reserves or to allow multiple mission options.
Seeing what's been posted, the smaller helicopters of the 1960/70 generations allowed multiple to be carried. These days I assumed a larger ship, near the 10,000 tonnes mark would probably be needed. I just thought 'cruiser' was a more suitable term for a ship with more capability. They can project a lot of force all by themselves.
I find it interesting, in an odd way, that the Hunter Frigates at 8,800 tonnes are bigger than the Hobart destroyers at 7,000. The terminology is pretty flexible sometimes.....

This has been discussed before but you maybe interested in the following links re the layout of the Type 26 mission bay / hangar space.

The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 1 – design and development | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 2 – configuration and contents | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

The Type 26 will serve its customers well, but I agree that my preference would of being to have the ability to have two medium helicopters side by side plus a flexi space.

Anyway I'm sure there are reasons for the layout.

Regards S

 

[FormerDirtDart]

A thought.
As acknowledged above, the helicopter cruiser became less advantageous as the other ships in the task force became capable of supporting full helicopter operations. Could the almost assured adoption of unmanned/minimally manned vessels joining the surface task force push a need for multi-role surface combatants to increase their helicopter support capabilities? And, would not the a number of hybrid combatant/helicopter carrier seem of more use to a task fore conducting more dispersed operations than a single through deck helicopter carrier?

 

[Anthony_B_78]

I think it all comes down to what capability you want to achieve. The biggest problem with only carrying 4 or 6 helicopters is that this doesn't allow you to keep one on station 24 hours a day, or certainly not for very long anyway. I read a USN article saying you needed 9 (or maybe 10?) SH-60-type helicopters to do that, based on 2 sorties per helicopter per day, including allowing for so many to react to contacts. So if you look at the air groups the Invincibles commonly carried - and the HMAS Melbourne - you can see they had something like that number. A cruiser with 6 could deliver the bulk of such a capability with three or four more destroyers/frigates providing a helicopter each perhaps. Then you start to think about what the cruiser needs to look like. If the major capability is actually ASW courtesy of helicopters then do you need a 5 inch gun forward? The more of that thinking you start to do the more you head towards a through deck design.

 

[kato]

I read a USN article saying you needed 9 (or maybe 10?) SH-60-type helicopters to do that, based on 2 sorties per helicopter per day, including allowing for so many to react to contacts.

In other navies the usual ratio is six hours of downtime per flight hour for embarked naval helicopters (typically: Lynx), i.e. six helos being required to keep one on station in the air 24/7.

*By the end of her very long Career, the Jeanne de Arc was operating as a Amphib/Trg/HADR ship and was in part replaced by the Mistrals.

Jeanne d'Arc in her 40 cruises never actually deployed with the "4 Super Frelon package" that public sources make her out to have had assigned. In fact i'm fairly sure those helos never even existed as "spares" either. And the "8 in wartime" that wikipedia still spouts is based off of her initial cross-atlantic cruise in which they tested out how many helos you could latch onto the deck in addition to the hangar...

She originally from 1964 carried 4 HSS-1 Seabat (H-34) as ASW helos in her training role alongside her default 2 liaison helos (Alouette III). The HSS were retired in 1979 and replaced with a variable number of Lynx onboard Jeanne and her (now helo-carrying) escort destroyer, with the same number of 4 ASW helos carried within the group.

Due to the end of the Cold War that 4-helo ASW package was removed entirely - in fact the Lynx of 35F were reassigned stante pede in January 1990. Onboard Jeanne it was replaced with an assault package (2 Cougar or Puma and 3 Gazelle) provided by the Army from 1992 onwards.

 

[Git_Kraken]

It definitively is an interesting discussion. A single helicopter adds all kinds of capabilities to a ship, particularly a general-purpose design like a frigate. RMP, ASW, search and rescue, personnel transfer (emergency/routine) etc...

Now, most if not every major combatant carries a helicopter or has a flight deck. If every ship in the task group carries a helicopter (4-6 ships say) then wouldn't it be better to invest in another one of those destroyer/frigates that can do all sorts of other things instead of one that mainly carries helicopters? And if you are going to invest in that then do it so you can do a job that those other ships can't do alone. Like Zone ASW with multiple helicopters and dedicated RMP helicopters/UAVs. Which would require a bigger vessel than a 4 helo version.

Its kinda like a Ute, why use that if you can afford a pickup truck?

 

[Anthony_B_78]

In other navies the usual ratio is six hours of downtime per flight hour for embarked naval helicopters (typically: Lynx), i.e. six helos being required to keep one on station in the air 24/7.

I've seen that figure too. I think that basically translates to two sorties a day too. But with no allowance for sorties to react to contacts. The article I read suggested a task group could expect 10 a day or so requiring the launch of an alert helicopter. Not that they'd be enemy subs necessarily, but contacts that needed to be treated seriously.