V059L49Z@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (IF INSANITY IS AN ART, CALL ME PICASO) (02/25/90)
From: "IF INSANITY IS AN ART, CALL ME PICASO" <V059L49Z@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu> I realize that being a primarily air-defense platform, Virginia-class crusiers don't have as much need of an ASW helicopter that ASW destroyers and frigates would. However, I see in the latest JANE'S FIGHTING SHIPS that the helicopter- capability was removed by the addition of Tomahawk cruise-missle launchers. I don't think I understand this action. Since it had an elevator installed for moving the helicopter down into the hanger (my MODERN NAVAL COMBAT book says this is the only ship-class to have an elevator system like outside of carriers), putting a missle-launcher where the helicopter goes seems to have made the elevator installation a waste of money. I should think that they could have placed it somewhere else. I also read in my book at up to 1986, Virginias never even had a helicopter embarked on it. It says it was to carry a SH-2 Sea Sprite (I forget if it was capable of carrying two or not). This seems like a waste as well. The Navy had Kaman (the builder of SH-2's) reopen the production line to fill their order of new copters due to some ships not being able to handle the new SH-60's. The Navy couldn't have sent a few SH-2's the Virginias' way? For anyone interested..... The novel DEFCON ONE (taking place roughly in the mid 1990's) has the USS VIRGINIA carrying a helicopter (possibly a SH-2) on board which pursues an attacking Russian Sierra (I think)-class sub. It's been a little while since I've read it. Paul State University of New York at Buffalo
mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (02/27/90)
From: mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
As I remember from my active duty days, this class of cruiser did not carry
helos because of the problem with corrosion, etc. with the hanger elevators.
The freeboard on the cruiser was obviously much lower than that of a carrier,
and the elevator did not get as much work as the elevators on the carrier.
This all adds up to the damn thing just didn't work reliably.
Also important here is the way these ships are thought of by the battle group
commander. He's just not going to let this guy too far away from the carrier.
Hence no real reason to put a helo on board.
One final note, the Navy has a history of adding helo capabilities to ships
with little intention of embarking helos on board. More helo capable platforms
means they can ask Congress for more helos. Washington just doesn't seem to
check on where all those aircraft go after they have been purchased......
Mike
[mod.note: A pleasant side-effect of the unused helo capacity is that
it provide extra room and weight for modifications. This is an important
consideration; should a war occur, we may quickly discover a need to add
some new piece of equipment, and the margin will be very valuable.
The US Navy ran into a similar problem when we entered WWII; prewar
destroyers had been limited to 1500 tons (except for a limited number of
heaver "destroyer leaders", and all had been built right to that margin.
There was little unused space, and no spare topweight, so that any
additions had to be counterbalanced by removing something else so that
stability would not be threatened. This posed serious problems when it
was suddenly realized that more antiaircraft weapons and depth charges
were needed aboard.
The Japanese navy, on the other hand, had left considerable excess
space and stability in their pre-war designs, even while staying within
treaty limits for tonnage, and thus were able to refit without these
headaches.
I'd like to think the US Navy is now planning for such a situation...
naahhh. - Bill ]scottm@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C) (03/06/90)
From: boulder!boulder!scottm@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C) The Japanese DID have some weight problems with the modifications they made to their destroyers during WW-II. They added many 25mm guns (in twin and triple mounts) and generally always removed one of the three twin five-inch mounts. The mount removed in each case was the 'X' turret; the aft raised mount. Even our larger destroyers ran up against some weight problems. The Gearing class DD's had a lot more clear deck space than the Fletchers did, due to the introduction of twin mounts for the 5" L38's. This deck space was used to expand the 40mm antiaircraft battery (including, for the first time in a destroyer, a quadruple mount.) Additional equipment was also added (a tripod mast for the radar picket conversions, an additional 40mm quad mount for the AA upgrade version, etc.) These conversions resulted in the removal of the quintuple torpedo tubes. Nor were destroyers alone in the battle against topweight. The mass- produced Cleveland-class light cruisers wound up so topheavy as a result of the continued addition of antiaircraft guns and other equipment, that by 1945 severe restrictions had to be imposed on the amounts of ready-use AA ammunition that could be kept in the respective gun mounts. This problem was acute enough that the last two ships of the class (starting with USS Fargo) were redesigned topside; this included trunking of the two funnels into one, and lowering of the 5" twin L38 mounts by one deck level. The Atlanta-class light cruisers had this problem also (alleviated somewhat by omission of four five-inch guns and all of the torpedo tubes in the later ships.) The Baltimore-class heavy cruisers were the only smaller combatants the US built during the war to escape the problems of excessive topweight. They were, of course, much larger (at 13,600 tons) than the Clevelands (10,000 tons), and several of them were converted into fine missile cruisers after the war (including Albany, Chicago, and Columbus.) --Mike --don't like snow, miss Deirdre, and wish I was still in Santa Cruz.