Shipbucket

Moreover would the space that two tightly squeezed Chinook type helicopters take be better served by three Lynx sized or two (or maybe even three) comfortably stored and supplied Seahawk sized helicopters? I certainly think so.

It's more than being able to clear the hangar dimensions, it's also room to be able to do stuff. A hanger is more than a place to just store the helicopter, it's also a full maintenance shop. You also want some wiggle room to avoid scraping the side of the helicopter against the hangar door because of oops.

... So, what, the Absalon is now a stupid design for being able to fit two EH.101's?

Maybe I feel a bit upset at a tide of what feels a great deal like patronizing criticism, but, seriously. The CH-47 is less than one foot taller than a folded Merlin, narrower without the expanded saddle tanks on the later models, and approximately the same length. Yes, you need a larger flight deck to operate one due to the twin rotors, but come on - twin rotor ASW helicopters would have been adopted by the Royal Navy if they had the money in the 1960's - and I haven't heard a very good reason for why, if there is a legacy capability present, it would be abandoned when doing so would require designing and acquiring yet another new helicopter.

If it was a CH-53K, perhaps I could see the complaint, but...
Merlin:
15750mm length, metal-to-metal, tail folded
5200mm width, metal-to-metal, rotors folded
5200mm height, hub-to-ground, static

CH-47:
~15550mm length, metal-to-metal, rotors folded
~3660 width, metal-to-metal, rotors folded
~5480mm height, hub-to-ground, static

You feel like asking legitimate questions about hangar dimensions, helo requirements and operation, and below-decks clearances is being patronizing? I'm so terribly sorry you're offended.

Good news! I won't bother to patronize you any longer.

No, Erik, I don't find asking those questions to be condescension. I don't know, maybe I'd be more kindly disposed to it if every I didn't cringe every time recently I'd seen you post in this thread, as it will - apparently by default while looking the last several pages - involve yet another criticism that attempting to answer will result in zero perceived result. So, yes, it feels that way when I get 'Why is it single screw', 'that'd never work', and a chorus of people telling me that I apparently can't read a clearance and dimensions drawing.

So, yes, maybe I'm butthurt over it, but I was, and still am tired, cranky and half-frozen, and if it's not understandable that I might snap at you over the apparent inability to satisfy your criticisms at any point, whatever.

Welcome to Shipbucket...

I do generally agree with you re: criticism around here and can assure you that I was not trying to be "mean" or anything... I was just genuinely curious how a ship like this could operate two helicopters of that size. It doesn't make the design "stupid" and it's certainly not difficult to fix (just put two Lynx helicopters in the place of the Chinooks).

Voyager989 wrote:... So, what, the Absalon is now a stupid design for being able to fit two EH.101's?

No, I'm just highlighting some things for consideration when considering hangars. Since the CH-47 is a stand-in I'm not sure what the true dimensions of the helicopter is going to be (maybe you're going to change your mind), plus whatever else requirements and the internal arrangement of the hangars. Note that for years and years the USN had used the CH-46 Sea Knight and still uses the much larger CH-53 Sea Stallion and insanely huge -E Super Stallion.

note also, that with no reference material for usage of helicopters like that on board ships, there is little known about the requirements of helicopters that size on an combatant. note that ships and hangars seem to size up exponentially with the size of the helicopter (compare, let's say, a perry with an iroquis, with respectively the SH-2/SH-60 and the sea king. the iroquis is much larger with systems on board which could be fitted on smaller ships as well.

sizes of the hangar are not related to the hangar alone, but also to maintenance and if there are crossings along the side of the hangar (meaning, should personnel get safely through the hangar towards the stern or not) and most likely many other factors I (we) haven't even thought about.

so, I don't think anybody was trying to burn the ship down, but legitimately asking questions for more knowledge and for improvement of the design. for ships counts, that almost everything can work as long as your reasoning works. checking sizes is only half of that, and we cannot check if you did the other estimations (I am certain you did, but to see your thought process we ask questions and make remarks).
depending on the beam and arrangement, I think 2 chinooks would fit just fine, but I doubt about maintenance, and slightly about the strength of that hangar being able to keep the CIWS on top stable. I think this would require an 'box structure' so making the hangar side double bulkheads with some width as well. have you kept that in mind, voyager? (I base this on LPD hangar designs, which are slightly bigger ships but those are the only ones which operate helo's like this.

the skegs are indeed modified from one of erik's drawings and fitted to the flight 3 burke they just fitted perfectly

... Have I run into some brainbug where the Chinook is mentally dismissed as 'too large' but the EH101 airframe is acceptable despite being very similar in dimensions?