How about a Hawk Variant manufactured in the US? The USN already have the Goshawk in service, might offer some commonality?

Boeing decided to go their own way instead. BAE would have to find a new partner. It would work for commonality of avionics upgrades, lets be honest, the silver and gold wing communities have no real love for each other.

*Two Mk.46 Mod.2 30mm cannons (aft port corner & aft starboard corner)

*One 16-cell VL-MICA Starboard corner by super structure.

*Eight internal NSM launchers (four facing port & for facing starboard)

*Two AW-159 helicopters

So we are supposed to have

-A french SAM not in the US inventory
-NSM. I could see that has a Harpoon replacement
-Two ittle helicopters not in the use my the us military that are far less useful than the MH-60R in ASW and the MH-60S in utility.

Whilst I am in no doubt that HMS Protector will be leased effectively off the self I have put some thought into what an ideal new build would be.

To my thinking a variant of the Norwegian Svalbard class or its derivative Canadian Artic Offshore patrol vessel would be perfect. Adapt the design with a twin hanger for the Lynx and leave out the sensor and weapons fit, also take the chance to build her propulsion and engineering systems closer to RN standards.

http://www.akerarctic.fi/15.%20McGreer_Arctic%20Passion%20Seminar%202010.pdf

http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/art/Norwegian-Coastguards-First-Icebreaker-DNV00955403IN.html

I could see this as a good fit for the Canuck Navy or for Coast Guard service in Alaska. It is not a good fit for the Royal Navy. Why? While Svalbard and the departed Endurance are both 1A1 icebreakers, they are designed for very very different missions. Endurance was a scientific-type icebreaker designed to support Antarctic exploration missions. Svalbard was designed for offshore patrol in ice filled waters.

Building the factory now regardless of the contract would set them up for future US contracts and maybe help a bit more with domestic airlines.

Length, yes (which matters for take-offs), but slimmer & lighter. There’s less deck to move aircraft around on, & while that could probably be widened, her hull’s not big enough to take a deck the size Ark Royal ended up with.

That because Ark was refitted with an angled deck. Cavour is pure axial deck. When it comes to waterline beam, Cavour is 111ft and Ark was 112. The deck overhangs added after the late 60s refit bring it to a flight deck width of 171ft.

Yes. If (very big if) a proper cat & trap Sea Gripen is built, a modified Cavour should be big enough for it.

EMALS might be kinder on aircraft than steam catapults, being more controllable.

Also more scaleable and reliable.

The RN operated Buccaneers (same weight as A-6 or F-4, but better take-off characteristics) & Sea Vixens (much heavier than a Sea Gripen – similar to Rafale) off HMS Hermes, which is slightly smaller than Cavour.

Cavour is actually almost exactly the same size as Ark Royal IV.

better yet with an AEW helo or even better an Osprey with EriEye.

Erieeye wouldn’t work with an Osprey. It would interfere with the wing fold. I take that back, assuming there’s enough ground clearance, you could mount something similar to erieye on the bottom and have it on a hinge like the KA31.

Small Carriers can’t operate Conventional Naval Aircraft. That said, with the advent of the F-35B. It’s Air to Air Capabilities will match most adversaries.:diablo:

Small carriers can’t operate medium class conventional aircraft. Light class aircraft like the proposed sea gripen are another story. With EMALS, wouldn’t need a ship that much larger than than the old Colossus/Majestic classes. 25-30,000 tons would do it.