Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Mistral class question
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5158		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Obsydian Shade [ April 27th, 2014, 1:13 am ]
Post subject:  Mistral class question
If you only wanted the thing to act as a helo carrier, say for ASW, and didn't want to worry about things like carrying tanks and such, how many more helos do you think could be accommodated? I was just debating the usefulness of it in such a role, or is the class just not optimal for anything else but its present configuration?
Author:  acelanceloet [ April 27th, 2014, 9:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Mistral class question
I should look up the ships exact layout, but IIRC she has an heli hangar deck and an vehicle deck. leaving the vehicle deck empty will of course do nothing for the amount of helicopters that can be carried. the opposite though is very much possible, of course.
Author:  Obsydian Shade [ April 27th, 2014, 9:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Mistral class question
Hmm...true, especially if the vehicle deck is under the helo deck, though I suppose what one might be able to gain would be more room for fuel, spares, and maintenance facilities, though a modular sort of arrangement for this could likely be managed, leaving the original capabilities in place if needed.
Author:  acelanceloet [ April 27th, 2014, 9:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Mistral class question
true. it might even be that the vehicle deck is high enough for some helicopters, with or without their rotors. this would lengthen the endurance of the helicopters and would make the mistral more capable in for example the ASW carrier role. less then an purpose build ship though.
Author:  erik_t [ April 27th, 2014, 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mistral class question
One might also find things like MQ-8C useful in a sea control capacity, on ESM duty if nothing else, and those would likely fit, unmodified and assembled, on the vehicle decks. I doubt they'd be useful enough to include in a purpose-designed ASW helicarrier, but that's not really what we're talking about...

I think the real gain would be in spares, shops, and the like. Possibly even modularized helo payloads, like a tiny mutant CH-54
[ img ],
if you REALLY want to be crazy.
Author:  Thiel [ April 27th, 2014, 7:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mistral class question
Isn't that the troop carrier where step one in the all engines out emergency procedure was to drop the troop compartment?
Author:  apdsmith [ April 27th, 2014, 11:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mistral class question
The thing is, I can see a peverted kind of sense to that ... less weight for the helo to carry, yes, gets vulnerable, squishy troops away from imminent meeting of litres and litres of high-octane fuel and the surrounding scenery, yes. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's not the kind of decision I'd want to have to make, but given it's an engines-out situation and you're going to hit anyway, wouldn't you at least be in the chunk that won't catch fire \ explode?

(I'm assuming that for whatever reason, probably weight, attempting to autorotate with the payload will turn the plummet into, well, a plummet)
Author:  sparky42 [ May 24th, 2014, 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mistral class question
I think the Juan Carlos class does have the capability to use the lower vehicle deck for additional storage capacity, though I don't know if that's full up helicopters.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/