Sounds interesting!
Do you have anything more on this proposal – specifications, drawing……etc?

Regards
Pioneer

http://www.bmt.org/News/?/1/0/160

There was a pdf factsheet that went in depth on their website but I can’t seem to find it now.

http://damncoolpics.blogspot.com/2007/01/lego-aircraft-carrier.html

Google;)

Seconded

Kev

Why would it need STOL?.

Remember the kind of flight endurances we are talking about here – 24hrs plus. At maximum you might be looking at 3 slots in the daily flying programme – use RATO gear if you need to for that few evolutions. Cant imagine that you’d need arresting gear for a vehicle that will be looking at a landing speed of, what, 100knts or so?. Less when you knock off the carriers speed!.

If RATO is a put off a modest hydraulic cat on the port deck edge cutback angled slighty offboard should do the job at, possibly, a slightly higher cost in whole-life terms.

What you get, for relatively modest outlay, is an organic, high-endurance combined ISTAR/AEW platform perhaps even adding ELINT type roles. Potentially even an ability to deploy the ‘conventional’ armed-recce variant which could be useful for traditional Force Protection, light ASuW and loiter-CAS support ashore offloading the F-35B’s.

Considering General Atomics allegedly stated they could get a carrier capability out of their single-engined Mariner vehicle, a ‘Sea Mantis’ couldn’t be considered wildly outlandish and its a platform that would offer revolutionary capabilities to a STOVL or STOBAR carrier airwing. Capabilities, in some areas, outstripping that on offer by more conventional manned platforms.

I say STOL because it’s got to take off and land off a short run way, but then again if its true that a Hawkeye has been tried successfully off a ski jump then maybe Mantis could do it too.

I’ve been saying for a while that I’d like to see the conventional Mantis as part of CVF’s air wing for precisely the reasons you’ve mentioned if it can do AEW then even better.

Not sure that the MOD have this in mind though.

I see what you mean but the problem with MARS is the only industry supported is that of the associated metal bashers inc. MARS can be built cheaply almost anywhere and really, while it would support UK PLC somewhat, we want the ‘stimulus’ to be spread wider than that.

Follow-on T45’s accomplish the latter as they support the tech sector as well as shipbuilding and would come, if ordered about now(ish), in time to get economy-of-scale rewards from the current build run of hulls.

BAE have already stated that the costs of the T45 builds are coming down so hulls 7 & 8 for reasonable money, keeping the work going at BAE Cowes on the radar side, keeping RR building a few more gas turbines etc and keeping countless jocks merrily bashing steel can only be considered a good thing!.

Not going to happen of course….but to my way of thinking its a pretty fair approximation of win-win!!!.

But of course much of the electronics are European which means money leaving the country and then there’s the question of a less favourable exchange rate to contend with, then there’s the cost as well there’s not a lot of money to be had at the moment.

I can’t see the UK and US working on a common class of SSBN, US Subs are always larger than UK ones, in all likelihood a US design would be too large and costly for the UK Government.

You can bet both will be the primary air to ground weapon of the F-35. Regardless, of the operator………..:eek:

Yeah well the UK uses Paveways so something has to give otherwise they won’t have anything for F35s to carry internally.