Do helicopters really count as naval aircraft?

Recent arguments over carriers have made me wonder whether helicopters do not count, and that only 'fixed wing' aircraft do.

Leaving aside 'swing wing' for the moment, do the A-10 and the stub-winged Hind, let alone the Harrier, qualify like a Buccaneer or a Typhoon?

Distinctions, distinctions...

So I thought I'd start this hare and see where it ran...:D
 
I'd say they more readily count as naval aircraft than fixed wing aircraft frequently do. They are far easier to operate from ships than fixed wing aircraft and can be operated from more than just aircraft carriers.
 
Sure they count, just make sure that whenever you mention aircraft numbers you mention them apart, just like any complete account mentions fighters, attack aircraft, MPA, etc apart as well, since helicopters can do many things fixed wing aircraft can't and vice versa. Stub wings or not, a hind is still a helicopter, and A-10 & Harrier count just as much as a Buccaneer or a Typhoon, why wouldn't they?

Also, what hare? :p
 
Presumably any aircraft operated by the navy counts as a naval aircraft, and especially those operated from ships. Are helicopters operated by the navy from ships? Quite often, yes. Are they aircraft? Undoubtedly. Good, question resolved then.

/thread, next topic pls :p
 

Hyperion

Banned
Recent arguments over carriers have made me wonder whether helicopters do not count, and that only 'fixed wing' aircraft do.

Leaving aside 'swing wing' for the moment, do the A-10 and the stub-winged Hind, let alone the Harrier, qualify like a Buccaneer or a Typhoon?

Distinctions, distinctions...

So I thought I'd start this hare and see where it ran...:D

Facepalm.

The A-10 could never land on a carrier, and last I checked, nobody has modified the Typhoon to be able to handle landings and takeoffs from a carrier either. Poor, poor research on your part.

As far as helicopters, they're critical for naval air operations as far as transport, special forces missions, anti submarine warfare, and air/sea rescue missions, at least in the US Navy.

Several US Navy officers that have commanded helicopter squadrons have even gone into the aircraft carrier command pipeline and successfully commanded their own aircraft carriers over the years, if that tells you anything.
 
The A-10 could never land on a carrier, and last I checked, nobody has modified the Typhoon to be able to handle landings and takeoffs from a carrier either.

The Hind isn't exactly notable for being a carrier aircraft either. Insofar as it has wings at all, they're rotary wings; the stub wings are more for supporting weapon pylons than any lift they might provide. Regardless of that, AFAIK the Russians/Soviets haven't even trialled it for use from a carrier.
 
Yes, because proper naval helicopters are marinised so that they can operate from ships. For example the Lynx HMA.8 is somewhat different from the Lynx AH.7.
 
Ah, oops, kinda forgot the 'naval' part after answering the 'aircraft' part:eek:

A-10, Hind & Typhoon in the currently existing versions are not naval, though if the Bundesmarine had kept it's attack wings they would have land-based Typhoons in the future who would have a maritime mission. Counting them as naval or not depends on your POV.
 
Missile boat killers

Since the RN Sea Skua carrying Linx helis demonstrated their superb missile boat killing capabiliti in the Gulf nobody on the intended targets of those missiles would have questioned their naval aviation credibility...
 

Hyperion

Banned
Ah, oops, kinda forgot the 'naval' part after answering the 'aircraft' part:eek:

A-10, Hind & Typhoon in the currently existing versions are not naval, though if the Bundesmarine had kept it's attack wings they would have land-based Typhoons in the future who would have a maritime mission. Counting them as naval or not depends on your POV.

They would be naval in the sense that the German navy would be the ones using them.

For them to be able to operate off of an aircraft carrier, they would need reinforced landing gear and support around the wings and fuselage to boost the structural integrity of the airframe. Catapult launches put a lot of strain on an aircraft, going from zero to over 100 mph in only a few seconds, and the shock of landing on the flight deck with a very small amount of room to stop also puts a lot of pressure on an airframe as well.
 

Sior

Banned
Any aircraft can land on a carrier...once. :p


C130 count?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjNyQvhsQE8

C-130 takes off and lands on a Carrier USS Forrestal

c130_13.jpg
 
There are big differences between carrier ac and "ordinary" air force ac:

The landing gear must be much more sturdy. Landing on a carrier is comparable to a controlle crash.

Take-off, catapult assisted, really pulls the nose gear.

PS: If you have the load wrong, the catapult will hurl the ac without too much force, making sure it lands in frnt of the ship, motoring at some 30+kn. That can ruin anybody's day. Not to be tried at home.

The other way is just as grim: It will rip the nose wheel off, and probably the front part of the ac as well. No insurance will look at it.

Land based ac can typically sit in nice and warm (or cold) hangars. Salty water, typically to be found in abundance in the oceans) are not healthy to any type ac.

Maritime Typhoon is a totally different project.

F32 A and B versions are also different.

So, carrier based ac is more an art than engineering (sort of).

Ivan
 
Well, they are aircaft and navies operate them from ships for naval warfare purposes, so yes how can you not call them "naval aircraft"?

But I can understand them not being treated as naval aircraft in some contexts because, unlike most fixed-wing naval aircraft that are specifically designed for catapault launches and deck landings, helicopters need no such special design.

Also, fixed-wing aircraft can fulfill a variety of offensive and defensive roles - and their carriers essentially function only as mobile airfields. Without airplanes there would be no fleet carriers. Many naval helicopters, however, function as an extension of the combat capability of the destroyers or cruisers that carry them, and have specialized (usually ASW) roles. THis is quite different from what an F/A-18 does.
 
You can get into a real definition issue here and it depends upon where you draw the line and whose definition you use.

Naval aircraft are defined in many places as those aircraft that are owned and operated by a navy. This includes helicopers and transport aircraft. The US Navy lists all of its aircraft including transports such as the C-130 as part of its "Naval Aircraft Inventory".

Carrier aircraft on the other hand are specifically those designed to land on an aircraft carrier and the term is generally used only for fixed wing aircraft.
 
Helicopters count as naval aircraft. If we consider the roles that they perform particularly anti submarine warfare, target identification / spotting for anti surface warfare or even acting as a radar picquet. All of these roles were traditionally performed by fixed wing aircraft in world war two, so I would say that as they have taken over the role, they would count.

Helicopters also act as an excellent force multiplier for a small to medium navy. They enable a surface combantant to fight a submarine at arms length which is important considering the effectiveness of the modern torpedo. This could involve sono buoys, dipping sonar, utilising air launched torpedos.

In an anti surface component they can act as a targeting entity, that could feed the task force with information. Alternatively if they have the capacity to carry an anti surface missile then they can engage if you can find their surface combatants. So helicopters act as a fantastic force multiplier...

Well that's the theory, usually the bird is broken and consequently the f$cking birdie pilots end up in the wardroom watching endless movies and drinking all the coffee.
 
Mostly good, but...

...I know very well that the A-10 and Typhoon aren't suited to carrier operations, so be nice. The C-130 is able to go anywhere, near enough - although I had a 'Hornet' moment seeing it on the 'USS Forrestal'.

Helicopters can do a lot, but can they substitute for fixed wing aircraft?

The point was that since 'HMS Illustrious' lost her Harriers, the popular opinion has been that her capabilities have been degraded. Maybe I should have been more specific. I'm fond of the Harrier and feel its retention would have been preferable to disposal - we nearly lost the Vulcans just as they were needed in 1982, remember? I fear that the RAF mandarins still hate the Fleet Air Arm.

As for Hares - Lepus timidus (Mountain Hare) is common here in Scotland.:D But since we're studying ideas, the electric hare was once common on greyhound racetracks.
 
Helicopters can do a lot, but can they substitute for fixed wing aircraft?
Substitute, no, helicopters absolutely suck at shooting other aircraft out of the sky, and their ground/surface attack is also limited compared to fixed wing.

The point was that since 'HMS Illustrious' lost her Harriers, the popular opinion has been that her capabilities have been degraded. Maybe I should have been more specific. I'm fond of the Harrier and feel its retention would have been preferable to disposal - we nearly lost the Vulcans just as they were needed in 1982, remember? I fear that the RAF mandarins still hate the Fleet Air Arm.
Well, the capabilities are indeed degraded, and yes, the UK should have kept the Harriers, and at least Ark Royal as well, until Lizzie gets her F-35s, whenever that will be...
 
I think that a good mix of helicopters and Harriers can provide the modern middle power with a significant power projection. For the small power helicopters are the only naval aviation option available. Many naval ships these days cannot operate effectively without their embarked helicopter.
 
Top