It will be interesting to see what form the minesweeper takes – there is an increasing trend for regular ships to be fitted to carry an ROV and sonar suite, without being a dedicated minesweeper. The attraction is obvious in terms of cost, and since most minesweeping now is actually mine hunting (which is safer, if a bit slower), using non-dedicated ships makes some sense.

$1.5bn? Just buy the CVF instead of the LHA(R), five CVFs would allow for replacement of the (4) LHAs, and the JFK. I suspect the Marines would love to receive a ship of that size, capable of carrying a full airwing of JSFs and helicopters, unlike the Wasp class, which can only carry either a full helicopter component, or a full STOVL airwing!

Just think, the US, UK and France all operating the same class of ships… :diablo:

In terms of years left, I have a feeling the answer is quite a few. If operated as a training carrier, it would have an operational tempo more like the Kitty Hawk, i.e. frequent short cruises, which are relatively kind to the ship.

As for the running costs, I am not sure I believe the $1bn per year figure, but also, you do not need a full crew to run the ship as a training carrier – you do not need all the other ships in the normal battle group. Basically, the ship just goes out for a 30-60 day cruise, a few times a year, with a very small crew (no need for a lot of the normal crew, since it is only going out for a few weeks).

I doubt it will be bought by any other Navy – it is too expensive for the countries that cannot afford a carrier normally (okay, stating the obvious), and too old for the countries that can afford carriers!

Part of the problem is that hovercraft always had speed as their novelty – they could make 40-50 knots, whereas conventional ships could only make 30 knots. This difference has narrowed, with high speed monohulls and cats making up to ~45 knots. Hovercraft cost a lot to run, and have a lot of downtime, so the benefits come at a very high cost. The other problem is that of integrating anything with recoil on a hovercraft – you probably cannot mount even a 40mm.

In a few years, I suspect the USMC will probably be trying to play around with Netfires boxes on LCACs… One LCAC could probably carry 32 Netfires boxes, each with 15 missiles, meaning 480 missiles!

The real reason is Gordon England – he is the defence weenie who keeps wanting to cut the military to ‘improve’ it. He has a terrible history of deciding the outcome of a report, then getting the report made. Congress will, hopefully veto the retirement, since there is still a requirement for 12 carriers.

Now, who is betting that the hawks in the Argentine government will try to buy the JFK? :diablo:

To be honest, I think the F-35 troubles could prove a godsend, with doubts over the availability of STOVL fighters hopefully meaning that the RN will get CTOL carriers. I doubt the Rafale will be purchased – my money would be on either Naval Typhoon or, more likely, the F-35C. Certainly I think the Hawkeye is the desired outcome – none of the alternatives measure up (Merlin AEW is too low, slow and short on endurance, and EV-22 is almost the definition of a white elephant).

In terms of training, there is no real problem with operating different types – the T-45s would be common to all three nations, and only the actual fighter type would need to be country specific. As for COD, I think the best bet would be to buy time in American Greyhounds.

P.S. Naval Typhoon may not be as insane as you may think, they need something to do with Tranche 3…

Neptune: sorry, I was meaning the SSMs, not the fact that it has a VLS. It was more to do with the fact that up until the missile age, ships were guaged by their main gun, which was reliant on the size. In the west, anti-ship missiles are, broadly, just anti-ship missiles, whether they are mounted on patrol boats or frigates. I agree, size does still dictate the type of missiles that can be used, particularly with Russian missiles, where they seem to have a missile for every day of the week.

(As for the Flyvefisken, if memory serves, it is around 450 tons displacement, whereas the Hamina is a bit smaller)

It is good to know that the HASC has such a high opinion of America’s allies! Somebody really needs to give him a lesson in tact!