Revamp-a-Haruna

Dear Members,

In the 1980s I always wondered why the USN did not have cruisers like the VITTORIO VENITO with the cruisers doing the air defense and helicopter ASW role for the larger conventional carriers. I discovered years later that while it looks like a great arrangement that is used by those two Italian cruisers, most of what I read stated it does not work to well on large warships (with a large deck on the stern and hanger space). One, the back part of the warship is where it is pitching up and down a lot and two it seems that the forward part creates winds and other type of air forces that cause landings to be a problem. The main reason that the Spruance class and Ticos have that landing deck located more near the middle of the ship.

The Russians took this type of design for a non amphibious helicopter carrier with the MOSKVA and they built only two, realizing the problem of the design and switching to the KIEV class. According to some Jane’s publications it was a bear to operate its helicopters unless the warship was going at a very slow speed due to the wind conditions its’ high super structure created across the flight deck in the rear.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Not to mention that the heavy weapons load out forward and the hangar in the rear made her trim by the bow.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4392

Interesting on how high the stern is………

Dear Members,

In the 1980s I always wondered why the USN did not have cruisers like the VITTORIO VENITO with the cruisers doing the air defense and helicopter ASW role for the larger conventional carriers. I discovered years later that while it looks like a great arrangement that is used by those two Italian cruisers, most of what I read stated it does not work to well on large warships (with a large deck on the stern and hanger space). One, the back part of the warship is where it is pitching up and down a lot and two it seems that the forward part creates winds and other type of air forces that cause landings to be a problem. The main reason that the Spruance class and Ticos have that landing deck located more near the middle of the ship.

The Russians took this type of design for a non amphibious helicopter carrier with the MOSKVA and they built only two, realizing the problem of the design and switching to the KIEV class. According to some Jane’s publications it was a bear to operate its helicopters unless the warship was going at a very slow speed due to the wind conditions its’ high super structure created across the flight deck in the rear.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Wan,

I’ve stood inside the Schleswig-Holstein’s hangar. Was a decent sized hangar ok and the number of bikes they could fit up on a bulkhead was impressive, but, two Sea Kings would not be a sensible fit in the space. I have a recollection of thinking that it might be a bit tight with a couple of Lynxes in there?!.

Likewise I thought the twin Sea King capability on the Indian Brahmaputra’s was largely theoretical and that in practice it was one Sea King and an Alouette?.

Still I did say I couldnt think of a frigate that could embark two Sea Kings and the Indian ships can obviously do that to some extent. I stand corrected.:)

Yeah, I agree, the Brandenburg class is desgiend to embark Sea Lynxes only. You are right about the P16/P16As usually carrying only 1 Sea King plus 1 other, smaller helicopter (either Alouette III/Chetak or naval ALH/Dhruv), but afaik both hangars are equal size and these ships are designed to embark and operate 2 Sea Kings.

Wan,

I’ve stood inside the Schleswig-Holstein’s hangar. Was a decent sized hangar ok and the number of bikes they could fit up on a bulkhead was impressive, but, two Sea Kings would not be a sensible fit in the space. I have a recollection of thinking that it might be a bit tight with a couple of Lynxes in there?!.

Likewise I thought the twin Sea King capability on the Indian Brahmaputra’s was largely theoretical and that in practice it was one Sea King and an Alouette?.

Still I did say I couldnt think of a frigate that could embark two Sea Kings and the Indian ships can obviously do that to some extent. I stand corrected.:)

I cant off the top of my head think of another frigate design that could embark two Sea King class helicopters.

Definitely the 3.850 tons fl Godavari and later Brahmaputra classes. Possibly the 5400 ton German F-123

Yeah I thought I remembered seeing the DDH tag on the 280’s. Couldnt be positive on it so left it alone – thanks for the confirm Bager.

An older, and quite modestly sized example, would be the Canadian Iroquois/Tribal class. All considered, the flight deck is remarkably small, a testament to the efficacy of Beartrap haul down gear.

Designed as DDH’s to all intents and purposes – i.e their primary weapons system was their helicopter. I cant off the top of my head think of another frigate design that could embark two Sea King class helicopters.

Actually, the RCN did designate them “DDH” from the start… what they may have re-designated them as later does not change the fact that their builders considered them Destroyers.

Since you can already fit two Sea King sized helicopter into the hangar of a conventionally sized frigate, and with modern helicopter haul down gear you can employ a flight deck of normal proportions, what is the point of a dedicated DDH?

I really don’t see the value in going to such great lengths to add another landing spot and a 3rd helicopter.

What other landing spot?

Designed as DDH’s to all intents and purposes – i.e their primary weapons system was their helicopter. I cant off the top of my head think of another frigate design that could embark two Sea King class helicopters.

You need to maintain a helo on station an awful lot more now than you did back then. In the cold war it was a very much simpler job, with all the offboard sensor support and noiser nuke boats, for the helicopter to prosecute a target. Now, against sneaky little SSK’s creeping along the littoral, using a chopper for ‘holddown’ might be about the only way to keep an SSK at arms reach and if you lose the contact for lack of having a chopper available you have to go through the whole process of searching, finding and pinning him again. With a DDH that problem is mitigated.

I’m sure its a wonderful solution to buy a 16DDH and a bunch of screening assets. Bit expensive though. The Shirane sized DDH offers valuable ASW potential without the need to go to the expense of a through deck and an escort for the escort!.

How many Firescouts can you operate simultaneously off a single spot flight deck?. If you are going to have a reasonably sizeable airgroup of UAV’s does it not stand to reason that having a flight deck capable of handling more than one launch/recover cycle is prudent?.

For anything other than ASW certainly there is no absolute need for the 3 large manned helicopters. I am a strong advocate of Boeings A-160 for example. A DDH with a pair of NH90’s, an A-160 with an ISTAR package, and a pair of Firescouts could be an immensely useful surveillance/MIOPS asset. Especially if the larger DDH hull provides room for a couple of squads of EMF. All in a package capable of solo deployment in all manner of threat scenarios with the correct loadout in the VLS.

Sounds like such a design has merit to me. Especially, for countries that can’t afford something as large and complex as a 16DDH. Which, is just a Aircraft Carrier in all but name. Really, such a vessel would likely be a flag ship for a Small Squadron of Destroyers and Frigates.

Note: Personally, I have a hard time such a lage ship couldn’t easily operate 4 ASW Helocopters. At least four medsized ones…………(i.e. Seahawk, Lyxn, etc.)

An older, and quite modestly sized example, would be the Canadian Iroquois/Tribal class. All considered, the flight deck is remarkably small, a testament to the efficacy of Beartrap haul down gear.

Designed as DDH’s to all intents and purposes – i.e their primary weapons system was their helicopter. I cant off the top of my head think of another frigate design that could embark two Sea King class helicopters.

Now why do you need to maintain a helo on station, outside of a Cold War era ASW scenario? That doesn’t seem likely enough to justify a specialist DDH, and if there is that level of concern, why not go to a true through deck type like the 16DDH, which at least offers a degree of flexibility?

You need to maintain a helo on station an awful lot more now than you did back then. In the cold war it was a very much simpler job, with all the offboard sensor support and noiser nuke boats, for the helicopter to prosecute a target. Now, against sneaky little SSK’s creeping along the littoral, using a chopper for ‘holddown’ might be about the only way to keep an SSK at arms reach and if you lose the contact for lack of having a chopper available you have to go through the whole process of searching, finding and pinning him again. With a DDH that problem is mitigated.

I’m sure its a wonderful solution to buy a 16DDH and a bunch of screening assets. Bit expensive though. The Shirane sized DDH offers valuable ASW potential without the need to go to the expense of a through deck and an escort for the escort!.

In this day and age, you don’t need that operational tempo, and it is even questionable that you need a manned platform for anything other than SAR? Just how many Firescout UAVs could you fit in the same hanger space as a Sea King/EH101?

How many Firescouts can you operate simultaneously off a single spot flight deck?. If you are going to have a reasonably sizeable airgroup of UAV’s does it not stand to reason that having a flight deck capable of handling more than one launch/recover cycle is prudent?.

Personally, I don’t see the need for 3 large manned helicopters. How about 1 EH101 and 2 or 3 UAVs?

For anything other than ASW certainly there is no absolute need for the 3 large manned helicopters. I am a strong advocate of Boeings A-160 for example. A DDH with a pair of NH90’s, an A-160 with an ISTAR package, and a pair of Firescouts could be an immensely useful surveillance/MIOPS asset. Especially if the larger DDH hull provides room for a couple of squads of EMF. All in a package capable of solo deployment in all manner of threat scenarios with the correct loadout in the VLS.

1) Which frigate class is capable of accomodating two Sea Kings?.

An older, and quite modestly sized example, would be the Canadian Iroquois/Tribal class. All considered, the flight deck is remarkably small, a testament to the efficacy of Beartrap haul down gear.

2) You need at least three airframes to keep one on station. One on station, one at readiness/transit to station and one down for repair/maintenance. 3 airframes, using NH90 as example, gives about 7hrs cycle time for each airframe deployed to be regenerated. That optempo can be sustained until the ship runs out of avcat, spares and air ordnance.

Two airframes achieving the same thing would need to have 6hr plus endurances on station, would still be dependent on returning to the ship for ordnance replenishment and would offer no cover for any mechanical fault cropping up on the airborne chopper.

Better to have the extra helicopter on your ship than need an extra ship with a helicopter to do the same job!.

Now why do you need to maintain a helo on station, outside of a Cold War era ASW scenario? That doesn’t seem likely enough to justify a specialist DDH, and if there is that level of concern, why not go to a true through deck type like the 16DDH, which at least offers a degree of flexibility?

In this day and age, you don’t need that operational tempo, and it is even questionable that you need a manned platform for anything other than SAR?

Just how many Firescout UAVs could you fit in the same hanger space as a Sea King/EH101?

Personally, I don’t see the need for 3 large manned helicopters. How about 1 EH101 and 2 or 3 UAVs?

Since you can already fit two Sea King sized helicopter into the hangar of a conventionally sized frigate, and with modern helicopter haul down gear you can employ a flight deck of normal proportions, what is the point of a dedicated DDH?

1) Which frigate class is capable of accomodating two Sea Kings?.

2) You need at least three airframes to keep one on station. One on station, one at readiness/transit to station and one down for repair/maintenance. 3 airframes, using NH90 as example, gives about 7hrs cycle time for each airframe deployed to be regenerated. That optempo can be sustained until the ship runs out of avcat, spares and air ordnance.

Two airframes achieving the same thing would need to have 6hr plus endurances on station, would still be dependent on returning to the ship for ordnance replenishment and would offer no cover for any mechanical fault cropping up on the airborne chopper.

Better to have the extra helicopter on your ship than need an extra ship with a helicopter to do the same job!.

Since you can already fit two Sea King sized helicopter into the hangar of a conventionally sized frigate, and with modern helicopter haul down gear you can employ a flight deck of normal proportions, what is the point of a dedicated DDH?

I really don’t see the value in going to such great lengths to add another landing spot and a 3rd helicopter.

Much as I am enjoying the direction Wan has taken this and now have an interesting new present idea for the wife this christmas I think there is a vast under appreciation of the value of the DDH here.

Far from ‘worthless’ the ability to operate a 3 chopper airgroup gives this one vessel the very important capability to set a permanent air patrol slot for the duration of embarked aviation stores and aircrew. For MIOPS, force protection, ASuW, SAR and numerous other missions that ability is extremely valuable for the obvious reasons. For ASW the 3 chopper airgroup also allows for the dispatch of a hunting pair with persistence to back it up off the third airframe throughout a protracted prosecution.

What you end up with, with the DDH, is a vessel that offers much greater flexibility and an expanded sphere of influence over a conventional escort and be cheaper, adding the ability to self-escort, over a through-deck CVH.

Looking at the Shiranes, and my deepest appreciations to Wanshan for giving me good reason to do that again, you have to be impressed as to the packaging job they pulled off with that ship. So much so that it may well be the optimum hull/superstructure design for the airgroup embarked at those dimensions/displacement characteristics. Certainly if I wanted a monohull DDH I dont think I’d try and reinvent the wheel too much.

The same basic hull form. Dual WR21 prime movers with aux diesel gensets feeding an IEP propulsion setup. Primary air/surface search would be something like a Thales Herakles, with a full EO suite backing it up. SONAR2087 towed array plus handling for a pair of Thales Spartan ASW USV’s for the subsurface sensor fit.

Weapons would be in line with the sensor fit and largely European in nature the way I would want this as a general export hull. ‘A’ mount replaced with a new OTO 127mm LW. ‘B’ position and the ASROC deleted in favour of a raised deckhouse for 48 Aster 70 tubes. VL MICA, Aster and SCALP-N carried as appropriate. I’d have inclined launchers for MILAS between the deckhouse and bridge superstructure to round out the capability. For a service using US systems predominatly these, as well as the principle above-water sensors, would naturally change. APAR at masthead. 64 cell Mk41 for ESSM, SM2, VLA and TLAM as dictated by mission profile. Airgroup, by choice, would be 3 NH90 NFH’s with FLASH pinger mounted. MU90/Stingray LWTs and NSM in the air ordnance magazine.

Anyway you cut it that would be a very flexible and powerful unit. As I am developing it mentally this would seem to be an ideal unit for the Indian Navy as centrepiece/leader for a group of ASW corvettes on SSK hunting duties, as a carrier group component with two or three of these hulls forming the outer ASW screen or even as a standalone patrol unit for actions in higher potential threat waters.

If you were building Shirane today to the same rough length and displacement you would have to look very long and hard at how the US progress with LCS-2. That kind of trimaran layout simply offers so much potential as an aviation platform you could not ignore it if time was with you to evaluate how mature the technology actually is.

Right here

A friend of yours?

Right here

Pick a navy and define a role and this will become much easier but at the moment is is remarkably unclear what it is that you are asking for.

And pick a budget. 😉

You are right, you have yet to elaborate your question, when you tell us what it is we will answer it but for now we are left guessing.

Do you want to propose an ASW DDH or a power projection DDH, if you want the latter then the Absalon/F125 is your answer.

Quite possibly one of the most sensible things that you have ever done.:rolleyes:

I don’t know about you guys but I think its time for a beer…………:;)

Seems this thread is working pretty well: lots of interesting responses. Some of which are much more informative than stating -without any elaboration – that my question – whatever you take it to be – is somhow answered by Absalon and F125.

You are right, you have yet to elaborate your question, when you tell us what it is we will answer it but for now we are left guessing.

Do you want to propose an ASW DDH or a power projection DDH, if you want the latter then the Absalon/F125 is your answer.

Pick a navy and define a role and this will become much easier but at the moment is is remarkably unclear what it is that you are asking for.

I apologize for my ignorance and yield to your magnificence

Quite possibly one of the most sensible things that you have ever done.:rolleyes:

Frankly that is a stupid question, there is no such thing as ‘todays environment’, that is determined by the operational requirements of individual navies. If you want this thread to work you need to provide us with a navy first.

But frankly the specific question you are asking has already been answered by the Absalon and the F125.

Seems this thread is working pretty well: lots of interesting responses. Some of which are much more informative than stating -without any elaboration – that my question – whatever you take it to be – is somhow answered by Absalon and F125.

I apologize for my ignorance and yield to your magnificence :dev2:

(please tone down that uncalled-for condescending tone that no one here is waiting for)