No carrier these days is of any use unless it has a strong AEW & intelligence platform that it can operate.[Not a helo] It is pointless building a cute ship if you then have to go & try and build a plane that will fit it.eg Gripen.Work out what planes you are going to operate [proven designs] then build a carrier to suit, with some growth built in to the design. If this ends up beyond your means do what most countries do & do nothing
Having said all those negative things I just wish Australia had a carrier no matter what size.

I disagree, Hermes and Invincible didn’t have a strong AEW & intelligence platform during the Falklands war and they were far from useless.

Small carriers and V/STOL aircraft are the affordable and easy way of getting the flexibility of airpower to sea. Even small amounts of airpower can make a big difference to a situation.

It looks like LongShot is actually controlled by conventional trailing edge flaps if the pics in this link are accurate http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/gnss2004unsw/OH,%20Sang%20Heon%20P134.pdf

This seems relevant to the first post.

http://www.titech.ac.jp/news/e/news060726.html

World’s first battery-powered manned plane soars – developed by Tokyo Tech students and Matsu****a Electric Industrial Co. –

The students-developed manned plane powered by 160 AA batteries flew for 59 seconds covering 391.4 meters and soared as high as 6.11 meters above the ground.

160 AA batteries 😮

Someones got to develop air-to-air recharging now 😀

But if the standard load out in the role is going to be with two tanks, then the centreline would either be empty or carrying an unnecessary third tank. Might as well put the LDP in the optimum position in those circs.

Standard loads are great for standard missions but what happens when you have to go that little bit further and your air-to-air refuelling capability is limited?

sealordlawrence, IIRC the 1500L tanks have been cancelled for the time being and I don’t think they where supersonic capable either.

“Many opposed the proposed mounting on the forward MRAAM station since it would entail the loss of a weapon, and would disrupt the normal MRAAM weapon release sequence (with any fix being unique for that configuration), while the masking effects of the fuselage and other stores would severely compromise the engagement profiles.”

“Though using the centreline pylon meant giving up the centreline tank this was primarily envisaged for ferry flights. The centreline fit is best aerodynamically and allows the most rigid mounting while the all round view for the pod from the centreline was about as good as it gets.”

Those are seemingly good reasons/excuses aren’t they 😉

I’d still rather loose a single MRAAM than a fuel tank, range and endurance is going to be more important than air-to-air capability and a minor field of view reduction for the forseeable future.

The targeting pod will NOT “go on one of the slots usually used by an AMRAAM or METEOR.”

Plans for an option to mount Litening on a stub pylon on station 9 (forward port MRAAM) for FCP on Block 10 (Tranche 2) have been cancelled. It was always going to be on the centreline for Austere A-G – which is for ALL UK Tranche 1 jets.

The Litening 3 pod has been chosen by the RAF and by all three remaining partner nations, and though other pods could theoretically be integrated onto the Eurofighter (“allowing some choice to potential customers”) this would of course be at a cost.

😡 lazy cheapskate barstewards!!! It’s got to be cheaper in the long run to integrate it now on the missile station rather than loosing a fuel tank and having to reduce operational range or increase the need for air-to-air refuelling.

Great posts shiplover, very interesting pics and info 🙂

Great concept shiplover, is it your own creation and what are the dimensions?