Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: QUESTION ABOUT VIRGINIA-CLASS CRUISERS Message-ID: <14336@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 27 Feb 90 04:41:36 GMT References: <14314@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 39 Approved: military@att.att.com 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 ]