Are helicopters just worse than floatplanes?

[golingarf]

From what I understand, compared to 1950 floatplanes, 1970 helicopters have worse speed, range, maneuverability, and toughness, half the payload, and lower ASW capability. Moreover, it seems that floatplanes can have radar and helicopter's can't.

They have the tactical advantage that the ship doesn't have to slow down to recover them, and I have read that they mildly extend their ship's radar range when one is in the air, which is good.

The manual states:

Helicopters can be seen as a modern replacement for the floatplane, but has more flexible uses. Helicopters will considerably enhance the ASW value of ships. They can also enhance the radar range of the carrying ship.
Apart from the radar range and ship ASW benefit to the ship that carries them, though, are they just inferior to floatplanes? What are the more flexible uses?

In particular, should one make a floatplane AV for ASW work rather than a helicopter carrier even in 1970? It appears that such a ship will have worse ship ASW but its aircraft will contribute more to air ASW, and the latter probably matters more for a ship with many aircraft.

[undumbfounded]

My current game, Russia 1983.

Floatplanes are as follows (disregard last line, as it's an HJF):


Helicopters are as follows:



All the helicopters and floatplanes were designed with speed being the first or second priority - as such, they represent (roughly) the maximum that can be achieved in retrospective era. Helicopters do start out slow, but one must understand that they are a reconissance craft - they will not close on the ship and attack it, and they are mostly used in battles where CVs are not present. I cannot imagine a situation where helicopter's 'low' (as compared to floatplanes) speed may turn into a disadvantage. 

What could be noted is their low combat range (floatplanes of the fifties are at 300 nm range, as I have experienced), however one should note that at such ranges one may need a full-blown airbase or a CV to conduct effective searches.

The relative advantage of the floatplane is diminished by several factors:

1. They may close in for an attack. Their glide bombing is not very effective, their bomb load is low compared to specialized craft (as such, they deal almost no damage), and they will get chewed out by AA (later SAM). Considering that floatplane numbers in a battle are usually low, a loss of a one floatplane may hamper one's recon efforts.

2. In the late game (1960-s and beyond) the rockets become an effective weapon. As such, any rocket-carrying craft is at a great advantage. I have yet to see any floatplanes carry rockets, while the helicopters can carry light ASM (with retrospective tech, of course).

3. In addition to p. 2, rockets also evolve. Heavy-SSM will have range that is significantly larger (more than 2 times the) than the range of ship's radar. Ability of the helicopters to provide radar coverage for blind fire cannot be overestimated. Moreover, it also helps if land missile batteries are in the area - they are often able to assist with their missiles when target designation is provided. Moreover, it may be critical for the success of the engagement for player's side to shoot first, damaging enemy missile carriers and denying them the opportunity to fire. Again, the ability of helicopters to provide radar coverage helps.

In regards to ASW value, I have found that my 11000 tons helicopter carrier with 16 helos has an ASW value of 14. If built as a seaplane carrier, they provide ASW value of 11, a loss of 3, in addition to losing all the benefits of helicopter craft mentioned above. Moreover, if the number of helicopters in above design is lowered to 10, ASW value remains at 14. A seaplane carrier with 10 floatplanes has an ASW value of 10, a loss of 4, while providing only 300 tons free space as comprared to helicopters.

[undumbfounded]

Quick addition: I have pitted 7 AVs against three CAs, and this is what I have found out:

1. As I have mentioned, rates of helo losses (even against cruisers with 2xMSAM + HSAM) are very mild - 6 destroyed out of 106 helos flown, (3 by MSAM, 3 by HSAM + 2 damaged), and no firing attempts whatsoever by HAA or MAA.

2. AVs store only one LASM per helo, as such repeated strikes are not possible. This is quite unfortunate - however, I suppose bombs from floatplanes make a terrible weapon. What is sad is that there is no indication of a number of stored missiles on a strike screen, certainly a bug.

3. LASM performance is on par with other ASMs (33 hits out of 106 missiles fired, 30% hit rate, 60% intercepted, coincides with other tests, for ex. nws-online.proboards.com/thread/7203/brief-analysis-missiles-countermeasures). Other missiles were shot down, decoyed etc.

4. However, a strike managed to sink two CA's by themselves (one with 19 missile hits, and other with 6 missile hits) with fires raging out of control, and severely damage the third (with 13 hits, however hits from 3in arty from my AV managed to pop their missiles, it is unclear how it would've been if not for that).

While this may be biased, it proves that helos may be a potent strike weapon when thrown into battle, a quality which floatplanes, IMHO, misses, certainly so in post-1950s situations.

CA design used:

[golingarf]

Aug 9, 2024 8:04:16 GMT -6 undumbfounded said:

My current game, Russia 1983.

Floatplanes are as follows (disregard last line, as it's an HJF):
View Attachment

Helicopters are as follows:

View Attachment

All the helicopters and floatplanes were designed with speed being the first or second priority - as such, they represent (roughly) the maximum that can be achieved in retrospective era. Helicopters do start out slow, but one must understand that they are a reconissance craft - they will not close on the ship and attack it, and they are mostly used in battles where CVs are not present. I cannot imagine a situation where helicopter's 'low' (as compared to floatplanes) speed may turn into a disadvantage. 

What could be noted is their low combat range (floatplanes of the fifties are at 300 nm range, as I have experienced), however one should note that at such ranges one may need a full-blown airbase or a CV to conduct effective searches.

The relative advantage of the floatplane is diminished by several factors:

1. They may close in for an attack. Their glide bombing is not very effective, their bomb load is low compared to specialized craft (as such, they deal almost no damage), and they will get chewed out by AA (later SAM). Considering that floatplane numbers in a battle are usually low, a loss of a one floatplane may hamper one's recon efforts.

2. In the late game (1960-s and beyond) the rockets become an effective weapon. As such, any rocket-carrying craft is at a great advantage. I have yet to see any floatplanes carry rockets, while the helicopters can carry light ASM (with retrospective tech, of course).

3. In addition to p. 2, rockets also evolve. Heavy-SSM will have range that is significantly larger (more than 2 times the) than the range of ship's radar. Ability of the helicopters to provide radar coverage for blind fire cannot be overestimated. Moreover, it also helps if land missile batteries are in the area - they are often able to assist with their missiles when target designation is provided. Moreover, it may be critical for the success of the engagement for player's side to shoot first, damaging enemy missile carriers and denying them the opportunity to fire. Again, the ability of helicopters to provide radar coverage helps.

In regards to ASW value, I have found that my 11000 tons helicopter carrier with 16 helos has an ASW value of 14. If built as a seaplane carrier, they provide ASW value of 11, a loss of 3, in addition to losing all the benefits of helicopter craft mentioned above. Moreover, if the number of helicopters in above design is lowered to 10, ASW value remains at 14. A seaplane carrier with 10 floatplanes has an ASW value of 10, a loss of 4, while providing only 300 tons free space as comprared to helicopters.

Thanks! I didn't realize that floatplanes could never carry an anti-ship missile. That does make a difference, and between that and the radar range enhancement I would certainly rather have helicopters on missile-armed ships post 1960.

I have a question about the last point - you referred to the AV getting a few extra points of ship ASW as a result of carrying helicopters, but did you look at the air ASW? That might be one place where floatplanes outperform.

[undumbfounded]

Aug 10, 2024 7:51:15 GMT -6 golingarf said:

Aug 9, 2024 8:04:16 GMT -6 undumbfounded said:

My current game, Russia 1983.

Floatplanes are as follows (disregard last line, as it's an HJF):
View Attachment

Helicopters are as follows:

View Attachment

All the helicopters and floatplanes were designed with speed being the first or second priority - as such, they represent (roughly) the maximum that can be achieved in retrospective era. Helicopters do start out slow, but one must understand that they are a reconissance craft - they will not close on the ship and attack it, and they are mostly used in battles where CVs are not present. I cannot imagine a situation where helicopter's 'low' (as compared to floatplanes) speed may turn into a disadvantage. 

What could be noted is their low combat range (floatplanes of the fifties are at 300 nm range, as I have experienced), however one should note that at such ranges one may need a full-blown airbase or a CV to conduct effective searches.

The relative advantage of the floatplane is diminished by several factors:

1. They may close in for an attack. Their glide bombing is not very effective, their bomb load is low compared to specialized craft (as such, they deal almost no damage), and they will get chewed out by AA (later SAM). Considering that floatplane numbers in a battle are usually low, a loss of a one floatplane may hamper one's recon efforts.

2. In the late game (1960-s and beyond) the rockets become an effective weapon. As such, any rocket-carrying craft is at a great advantage. I have yet to see any floatplanes carry rockets, while the helicopters can carry light ASM (with retrospective tech, of course).

3. In addition to p. 2, rockets also evolve. Heavy-SSM will have range that is significantly larger (more than 2 times the) than the range of ship's radar. Ability of the helicopters to provide radar coverage for blind fire cannot be overestimated. Moreover, it also helps if land missile batteries are in the area - they are often able to assist with their missiles when target designation is provided. Moreover, it may be critical for the success of the engagement for player's side to shoot first, damaging enemy missile carriers and denying them the opportunity to fire. Again, the ability of helicopters to provide radar coverage helps.

In regards to ASW value, I have found that my 11000 tons helicopter carrier with 16 helos has an ASW value of 14. If built as a seaplane carrier, they provide ASW value of 11, a loss of 3, in addition to losing all the benefits of helicopter craft mentioned above. Moreover, if the number of helicopters in above design is lowered to 10, ASW value remains at 14. A seaplane carrier with 10 floatplanes has an ASW value of 10, a loss of 4, while providing only 300 tons free space as comprared to helicopters.

Thanks! I didn't realize that floatplanes could never carry an anti-ship missile. That does make a difference, and between that and the radar range enhancement I would certainly rather have helicopters on missile-armed ships post 1960.

I have a question about the last point - you referred to the AV getting a few extra points of ship ASW as a result of carrying helicopters, but did you look at the air ASW? That might be one place where floatplanes outperform.

I am not in a war currently to check, however (off the top of my head) I remember that "air" ASW value did not change (as opposed to "ship" ASW value) whenether I assigned some carriers to TP. I surmise that "air" ASW value pertains only to land based air.

[dia]

Question for you undumbfounded since you seem to have have some experience with this, have you noticed if helicopter AVs show up more in actual battles than post-30s floatplane AV's?

[attemptingsuccess]

I don't think either shows up post-1930. Also, lower speed is a downside, The lower your cruise speed is, the slower your recon will fly, meaning that a floatplane will see the enemy ships before a helicopter does

[avimimus]

Aug 9, 2024 17:49:21 GMT -6 undumbfounded said:

2. AVs store only one LASM per helo, as such repeated strikes are not possible. This is quite unfortunate - however, I suppose bombs from floatplanes make a terrible weapon. What is sad is that there is no indication of a number of stored missiles on a strike screen, certainly a bug.

IRL, floatplanes with even extremely light bombs were extremely effective at getting merchant ships to surrender - so having a couple of bomb equipped floatplanes on an AV or raider should significantly increase its ability to both find and catch lone merchants (when used as a raider).

Helicopters should probably slightly contribute to blockade factors (as they can inspect and/or board merchant ships that might try blockade running).

P.S. I did try using the new Torpedo equipped floatplanes, but because of how the game deploys AVs I wasn't able to use them effectively for surprise attacks or raiding coastlines (as the British tried to do with their Type 184s)
IMHO, if one looks at the proposed uses for the Cuckoo and even how the twin-engined torpedo bombers were used in the 1910s-1920s the goal was mainly to ambush ships at anchor (likely due to the low performance of Torpedoes)... so the 'Japanese' style 'surprise attack' template would be most appropriate.

[eaterofsuns]

Aug 18, 2024 4:55:20 GMT -6 avimimus said:

IRL, floatplanes with even extremely light bombs were extremely effective at getting merchant ships to surrender - so having a couple of bomb equipped floatplanes on an AV or raider should significantly increase its ability to both find and catch lone merchants (when used as a raider).

Helicopters should probably slightly contribute to blockade factors (as they can inspect and/or board merchant ships that might try blockade running).

P.S. I did try using the new Torpedo equipped floatplanes, but because of how the game deploys AVs I wasn't able to use them effectively for surprise attacks or raiding coastlines (as the British tried to do with their Type 184s)
IMHO, if one looks at the proposed uses for the Cuckoo and even how the twin-engined torpedo bombers were used in the 1910s-1920s the goal was mainly to ambush ships at anchor (likely due to the low performance of Torpedoes)... so the 'Japanese' style 'surprise attack' template would be most appropriate.

You can assign AV's as surface raiders, I've had some success with them in that role getting quite a few merchant sinkings. I was even able to catapult launch float planes defensively in an interception battle, though I didn't know about the torpedo option at the time so it didn't help much.

IIRC Helicopter AV's do have a small blockade value, though I don't know if it changes at all based on numbers of helo. I don't believe adding them to other ships change the blockade values, based on my 1950s-1960s refits of BCs where they were added.

[attemptingsuccess]

AFAIK helicopters don't have any blockade value. Ship ASW isn't all that great so helicopters' additional ASW isn't that big of a deal. AVs don't show up in battles, and the strike capabilities of both the helicopter and the floatplane are bad, especially because I don't think destroyers/cruisers with helicopters carry LASM for them. Floatplanes are better at scouting. Honestly, I'm pretty sure floatplanes are the current better option.

[wlbjork]

Except for the very key issue that floatplanes cannot designate targets for HSSMs and MSSMs when they operate BVR.

That more than makes up for their lack of deployable weapons.

[attemptingsuccess]

You mean floatplanes can't give the 10% bonus to Radar Range right? That is a big benefit to helocopters.