WI Wasp (or USN equivalent) instead of DASH?

WI instead of the 750 DASH helicopter drones the USN built something akin to the RN Westland Wasp? With a very small helicopter would the FRAM conversion of WW2 destroyers be practical? How would a Wasp have fared in Vietnam, would it have fired AS12 missiles?
 
Interesting question. Just going by wikipedia, the Wasp is bigger and requires more supporting infrastructure on the ship that carries it, so the conversion plan might no longer be possible. Having said that, the RN Rothesay-class frigates managed a similar conversion to carry Wasps, so it might work ok. It certainly seems like a more flexible platform than the drone, so it would have other uses. Even the drones were used as artillery observers, so we might see Wasps doing similar jobs such as SAR as well.
 
The Wasp is bigger than it strictly needs to be, being able to carry 3 passengers. In theory you could ditch the row of back seats and make the helo smaller and maybe for suitable for FRAM ships.
 
Bell variants

There were excelent naval variants of the Huey family, in Italy. The USN could have bought its own AB205 and later AB212 equivalents. They would fit as easily or better than than the SH2 that eventualy replaced DASH.
If they would have proved better than the SH2 in service I'm not sure.
 
Given those ships would serve as escorts to carriers they'd not need helicopters, so, with money going on the carrier force, missile cruisers and SSNs, it would have been an expensive luxury; especially as these ships had long-range ASW weapons.

It would have enhanced their ability to act independently against nuclear submarines and patrol boats, but that wasn't their primary purpose in the USN.

Some of the WW2 FRAM conversions carried aircraft in subsequent non-USN service, so it's possible.
 
The reason they needed DASH was because sonars began to outrange ASW weapons, and the DASH carried the ASW weapons out to the edge of sonar range. This was exactly the same role as the Wasp, but SH2 and ASW versions of the Huey came along 5-10 years later and carried their own sensor fit rather than just weapons, as such they were bigger and more expensive, but I think they needed that decade or so of helo development to be practical.
 
Carriers

I think the point FN was making was that the USN had a large number of carriers at the time, with the Essex conversions still in service, and with all the S2 trackers in the carriers the escort vessels wouldn't need helis. The fact is that the DASH drones were unmanned helis, and were let down by the tech of the time. The UAV was still too immature. The need for DASH is in itself an acceptance that ASW vessels need helis, just not pilots.
 
WI instead of the 750 DASH helicopter drones the USN built something akin to the RN Westland Wasp? With a very small helicopter would the FRAM conversion of WW2 destroyers be practical? How would a Wasp have fared in Vietnam, would it have fired AS12 missiles?

There was a problem. The QH-50 was designed to carry a nuclear depth charge on a one-way mission to a drop point that put its launch platform outside the lethal radius of the depth charge. Only after it had been designed and put into production was a decision taken to hang a couple of conventional torpedoes on it. By doing so it became reusable which was another problem because all the parts were rated for a one-way mission.

Designing it as a Wasp would mean accepting at an early design stage that the pilot and crew were going on a one-way mission as well. Come to think of it, the Japanese really liked the QH-50.
 
IIRC, in a DASH-related discussions that I saw on Navweaps a couple years ago, both South Korea & Argentina (and possibly Taiwan & Spain but I don' recall) operated a small helicopter from the DASH helipad & hanger on their FRAM I/II destroyers, but I don't recall what sort of helo it was, though I think it might have been a French design.
 
There was a problem. The QH-50 was designed to carry a nuclear depth charge on a one-way mission to a drop point that put its launch platform outside the lethal radius of the depth charge. Only after it had been designed and put into production was a decision taken to hang a couple of conventional torpedoes on it. By doing so it became reusable which was another problem because all the parts were rated for a one-way mission.

Designing it as a Wasp would mean accepting at an early design stage that the pilot and crew were going on a one-way mission as well. Come to think of it, the Japanese really liked the QH-50.

Obviously it would be the other way around, and that is the problem. DASH was designed to be semi-expendable, but in practice not every mission is so important that you can afford to ditch a gas turbine powered UAV on it, they certainly recovered drones like the Ryan Firebee. If the USN thought from the start that it wasn`t about to throw away these vehicles willy-nilly they might have decided to give them a crew in the first place and reaped the rewards of a more capable machine.
 
Top