Awesome! That's what I call "trawling for ideas" that gets the conversation going as opposed to the negative version, "trolling" that lights off negative arguments
carr wrote:
You're talking about the folded tail length being the same as the HSS-1 dimension, right?
Yes.
carr wrote:
The height of the SH-60 is about a foot taller which might have an effect depending on the hangar height.
I think you have the heights of the helos backward. The HSS-1 is quoted at 14.3' from the wheels to the rotor head:
The SH-60 is 13.3' from its wheels to the rotor head:
I was also incorrect about the lengths! When both are folded, the
SH-60 is about 3' longer than the HHS-1. Probably not a problem. If it is a hair too long front to back, I am willing to bet that the SH-60 could be pulled diagonal on the elevator and fit.
The scan has distorted the numbers a little, but it appears to be between 18.5' and 20.5' tall. Either of these numbers is consistent with ship decks being between 9' and 10' tall.
Attachment:
NNstern.JPG [ 68.83 KiB | Viewed 3949 times ]
The Baltimore-class USS Chicago modified to handle the HSS-1:
As you can see, the hangar goes all the way to the starboard hull; unfortunately no pictures of portside.
There is still a lot of space in there. A friend of mine who was on
Newport News said that the hangar went all the way port to starboard like on Chicago. Chicago just has a bunch of magazines and stuff off to the port side.
carr wrote:
Also, there's a significant weight difference with the HSS-1 being 7900 lb empty and the SH-60 being 15,200 lb which might impact whatever hangar lift mechanism you're thinking about.
I imagine the elevator machinery would have to be replaced one way or the other. It's age would likely be up for replacement. I believe the interior of the hanger would need to be modified like having new racks or other fittings welded to the bulkheads to hold spare rotor blades, wheels, and other bulky spare parts.
Also a huge issue is the hatch and maneuvering the helos around on the flight deck while the birds are on deck. See? It does not look too conducive to moving helos around.
Attachment:
hangarhatch.JPG [ 56.65 KiB | Viewed 3949 times ]
This is how I have planned to make the sliding hatch usable on any below-deck hanger CL, CA, or CB, and if I were to do a new-build battleship it would also incorporate this design.
To do it justice, I am going to have to make a drawing of this, but I have a way to make it to where the reliable, water-tight, sliding hatch can still be used instead of resorting to the Virginia-class CGN design where the elevator elevates all the way. I will try to generally describe it. A flat cover would have to be fabricated over the top of the hatch so a helo could roll across it and so the elevated helicopter landing pad raised to be flush/level with each other. Like on the Iowas, the helo landing pad would have to be elevated anyway for AFFF plumbing to be installed underneath it. The top of the hatch and the raised deck would be flush and provide for a landing area that would accommodate a sliding hatch. This enables the hangar to be closed with the elevator down, and it would keep water out of the hangar.