Do helicopters really count as naval aircraft?

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.

At higher speeds the wings of the Mi-24 Hind provide about 20% - 25% of the lift force of the aircraft, but that is irrelevant to that discussion. The Kamov 50 was initially declared to be a carrier-borne helicopter-killer, but that can also be attributed to deliberate misinformation. However both it, and its direct commercial opponent - the Mi-28 have been trialed from the Admiral Kuznetzov aircraft carrier.

I think some of you use naval and carrier aircraft interchangeably, which is false. Naval combat aircraft derive from the "land" combat aircraft, which are designed for air forces and army aviations. They may be designed from scratch, but follow the same principles to some point, after which they also receive special features, normally not found in "land" combat aircraft. These are features like Anti-Ship targeting systems, seaborne navigation systems, anti-corosive protection of the airframe, due to salt water, more powerfull ECM suit, seaborne survival kit in case of emergency.

Some "land" aircraft of air forces, marine aviation and army aviation may include some of these features, but the naval aircraft include all of them.

And then come the carrier aircraft, which have all the features of the naval aircraft and some additional features, such as:

better protection of the avionics from the powerfull electronic impulses emmited form close positioned radars, when the airplane is aboard a carrier or the helicopter is aboard a ship, enforced landing gear, due to the rough impact with the vessel upon landing (or also at take-off, when the airplane is catapult-assisted), etc.etc.


I think that the distinction between aircraft supporting naval vessels should be as follows:

aircraft carrier - a ship, which can provide the operational means for arrested-landing aircraft - it can be equipped with a catapult, like the american or french aircraft carriers, or with a sky-jump like the Russian Kuznetzov or the future Indian carriers. Of course such a ship will also be able and will carry a complement of naval helicopters, it may also carry carrier-suited AEW&C, ASW, cargo airplanes, but the major feature is arrested-landing supersonic fighters

aircraft carrying cruiser - a ship, which can provide the operational means for VTOL aircraft - it should be equipped with a sky-jump like the Spanish, Italian, British "carriers". Of course such a ship will also be able and will carry a complement of naval helicopters. Its combat airplanes could be supersonic, if technology allows that, such as the Yak-141 or the F-35B, but until present no serial-produced supersonic VTOL fighters have been taken into service by any naval aviation.

helicopter carrier - the ship's air wing features exclusively helicopters. This may be a ship, aimed at ASW with the suitable helicopters on board, but more commonly such a ship is tasked with amphibious landings and for that reason it is much more than a plain aviation carrying platform. It turnes into a multirole naval vessel and an offshore military base with the facilities to both operate helicopters, operate amphibious landing craft aswell as house signifficant land forces, equipped with anything up to MBTs.
I see the American LHAs and LHDs as a mix between a aircraft carrying cruiser and a helicopter carrier, because they can and also normally house a small complement of Harrier VTOL combat jets.

major surface combatants - ships, which next to their own weapon platforms provide the support facilities to base up to three helicopters. These may be cruisers. destroyers, frigates and corvettes.

support naval vessels - ships, which normally have weapon platforms for self protection only and are tasked with support roles as science research and seaborne replenishment etc. They may carry up to 3 helicopters.
 
BUSOF...

...Excellent summary, to which only a seaplane carrier (now obsolete) could be added.

Do we close this TL or do you wish to discuss this further?
 
Well, I am far away from being an expert, but I would say, that the seaplane carrier is the aircraft carrier's "poor cousin". Excluding some very early exceptions like the British Argus and the American Langley it was almost impossible to convert to an aircraft arrier a vessel, that has been designed as a different type of vessel. The major European navies and the USN have learned that lesson early enough, but the Imperial Japanese Navy has converted a significant number of vessels to carriers. Later their bad performance has proven the flaws of that concept.

However it is much easier to convert a vessel to a seaplane carrier. Aircraft and seaplane carriers were excluded from the Washington naval treaty. So the admirals of the leading navies of the world were faced with the treaty's limitations and had to either scrap a great number of vessels or find another role for them. Aircraft carrier role was out of the question, so about the only option left was conversion to seaplane carriers. No one had the illusion, that a seplane carrier can be as useful as a aircraft carrier, but it is still better than nothing.

The aviation (helicopter) carrying cruisers from the post-WWII period is something else. It is also an effort to provide aviation support to regions, which otherwise cannot be covered without aircraft carriers, which the said country just could not afford, or it could, but wouldn't risk losing a whole carrier in operations close to the shore, such as the Suez for example. For that reason these vessels were purpose-built with the following features:
- these ships are much smaller, than an aircraft carrier, which makes them harder to detect, and so they need a smaller escort vessels party
- they have their own weapons, so they could to an extend, far greater than an aircraft carrier, take care of themselves, even if they get detached from theyr escorts
- since these vessels are closer to the cruisers, than to the aircraft carriers, they do not demand for their building the vast shore facilities needed to build an a/c carrier, nor do they need such a significant leap in technology from major surface combatants to carriers
- they are much easier, faster, cheaper built

With all that being said, THEY ARE NO AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, they CANNOT REPLACE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Hope that was helpfull. :)
 
Well, I am far away from being an expert, but I would say, that the seaplane carrier is the aircraft carrier's "poor cousin". Excluding some very early exceptions like the British Argus and the American Langley it was almost impossible to convert to an aircraft arrier a vessel, that has been designed as a different type of vessel. The major European navies and the USN have learned that lesson early enough, but the Imperial Japanese Navy has converted a significant number of vessels to carriers. Later their bad performance has proven the flaws of that concept.
Courageous, Glorious, Furious, Lexington, Saratoga, Akagi, Kaga all were decent to good carriers for their time.
 
Courageous, Glorious, Furious, Lexington, Saratoga, Akagi, Kaga all were decent to good carriers for their time.
The American Indepence class light carriers were also pretty good conversions as were the Sangamon class escort carriers. The ultimate conversions were the Wolverine and Sable which while not fully operational carriers they did a fantastic job in their intended role as training carriers even though they were side wheel steamers!
 
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.

and while the Westland Built WAH64 Apache is carrier capable it;s not a fully marinised aircraft

the interesting point to take off here is what about an Apache like helo that is the size of an A10 how would that change the face of 'close air support'
 

Sandman396

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

Can I ask why you would argue about this?
 

GarethC

Donor
and while the Westland Built WAH64 Apache is carrier capable it;s not a fully marinised aircraft
The British flew Apaches off Ocean in Libya - did they undergo any particular conversion process to do so?

Actually, the RAF flew ordinary GR Harriers from carriers from the Falklands to Gulf War II - which certainly lacked some features (like radar) you'd expect to find in "proper" naval aircraft. Did those airframes differ from the land-based ones in any way?
 
The British flew Apaches off Ocean in Libya - did they undergo any particular conversion process to do so?

Actually, the RAF flew ordinary GR Harriers from carriers from the Falklands to Gulf War II - which certainly lacked some features (like radar) you'd expect to find in "proper" naval aircraft. Did those airframes differ from the land-based ones in any way?
You just don't want to do it too often because the humid, salty air would dramatically shorten the lifespan of non-marinised aircraft.
 
Top