Shipbucket

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?

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

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.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

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.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

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.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

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
,
if you REALLY want to be crazy.

Isn't that the troop carrier where step one in the all engines out emergency procedure was to drop the troop compartment?

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

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)

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

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.