[QUOTE=90inFIRST;1734526]
In general the trend of design warships destroyers & frigates is to increase the tonnage weights of ships – displacement – for warships since World War II. As a logical consequence of many systems, weapons and other modern multi-systems,and helo on the board compared to counterparts from World War I/ II ships. And you can see below:
Or you could say they got smaller
County class 158.5m @5080 tonnes completed 62-70
Bristol class 154.5m@5790 tonnes completed 72 (Shorter fatter must be bad)
Type 42 125-139m@3560-3880 tonnes completed 74-83 (thinner faster must be good!)
Did you forget the Type 45, 7500-8000 tonnes and 152m?
Couldn’t watch that video – four screens at a time: which one to watch?
As for the USAF buying the Hawk, they’ll probably want to stick with something supersonic to replace the T-38, and of course it’ll have to be ‘Made in the USA’.
GlobalGasPasser
MadRat: They’re part of the blockade (with a light carrier and everything!), but politically unwilling to drop bombs on Libya (I am assured by an Italian on another forum).
Edit to add: Should probably clarify that I mean that the top Italian leadership is (I am assured) politically unwilling – not the entirety of the Italian people….
Could that be due to the fact that Italian companies have lucrative Libyan oil contracts, and AgustaWestland is selling helicopters to Libya?
This is just the hi-tech and extremely expensive version of shooting fish in a barrel: easy, pointless destruction, just so we in the West can postpone the evil day when we have wean ourselves off oil.
A large flying boat/amphibian would certainly be high on the list. Very useful for a lot of things. A Be-12 or a P5M, something in that weight class….
Another large flying boat:

Japan’s ShinMaywa US-2, great seakeeping ability, and STOL too.
The Americans are using Marine Harriers flying off the Kearsage. Could GR9s not do the same job?
(Apologies if this is a re-post)
Source: Eurofighter Typhoon press release
Eurofighter Naval Version makes debut at Aero India 2011
February 21, 2011 by Marcel van Leeuwen

At Aero India 2011 Eurofighter and partner company BAE Systems unveiled for the first time more details about the studies carried out for the initial definition of the navalised version of the Typhoon.
These studies have included the assessment of required design changes, piloted simulations to refine the aircraft’s handling qualities and discussions with key suppliers. The studies indicate that these changes are feasible, and would lead to the development of a world-beating, carrier-based fighter aircraft.
The most important element of the navalised Typhoon is that its exceptional thrust-to-weight ratio allows the aircraft to take off from a carrier without using a catapult but with a simple and much cheaper “ski-jump”. Detailed simulations have shown that the aircraft will be able to take off and land in this way with a full weapon and fuel load – providing a truly potent and flexible naval aviation capability.

The basic design of Typhoon helps to minimise the modifications needed to allow a Typhoon to conduct naval operations from a carrier. The aircraft’s structure is exceptionally strong, having been designed from the outset for the high dynamic loads associated with extreme air combat manoeuvring. The modifications required are limited and include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and localised strengthening on some fuselage sections near the landing gear, as well as updates the EJ200 engines.
To reduce the aircraft’s approach speed and the resulting landing loads the study envisages the introduction of a thrust-vectored variant of the Eurojet EJ200 engine. Thrust vectoring (Engines with TVN have already undergone factory testing in the Eurojet facility) could be fully integrated into Typhoon’s advanced Flight Control System (FCS), allowing the pilot to focus on flying the approach path while the FCS manages the engine nozzle position. The ability to change the angle of the engines’ thrust will allow for a further enhancement in Typhoon’s already outstanding manoeuvrability, supercruise performance, fuel consumption and the handling of asymmetric weapon configurations.
A key design driver for navalised Typhoon is the commonality at 95 per cent with the land variant. Design changes are minimised, allowing for most of the spare parts and test equipment to be shared across a customer’s air force and navy fleets. The sensors, systems and weapons available to both variants will be common, allowing for a reduction in the aircrew training requirements. And in addition, the two variants will benefit from a common upgrade path – new capabilities will be available to both the air force and navy in similar timescales. A navalised Typhoon can deliver this commonality, without compromising on capability.
Why don’t the USAF just send a squadron of F-22s, stealthy ‘air-dominance’ fighters? Isn’t this the sort of thing that they were designed for? Would any other aircraft be needed?
Who suggested that the CVF would not have last-ditch self defence?.
The context of the conversation was very clear in that the money spent adding an AESA MFR plus Aster SAMs was gold-plating at a time when funds were very tight. The ship will be outfitted with Artisan-3D capable of providing TI-cueing for FLAADS if, at some later time, money was available to augment ship self-defence and such an upgrade was deemed necessary. Until that time the ship will be outfitted with standard RN CIWS and soft-kill.
Hypothetical question: if – big if – CVF had Sampson or an equivalent radar and Aster SAMS, would there be a need for a Type 45 at all?
Seriously there is absolutely no need for any sort of air defence on the CVF. They will not go anywhere near dangerous waters without a T45 or two and a couple of frigates. On top of this there will be air support on tap, add to that the close in gun systems in case things get a little hairy! Let’s not spend money for spending money’s sake! Any potential attacker would have a hard enough nut to crack already.
Is that saying that the CVF will never be hit by enemy fire? Does that imply that it doesn’t need to be built to naval construction standards, doesn’t need sophisticated damage control, doesn’t need any armour etc….?
The Italians wrong also?

…..
The placement of the gas turbines under the islands, into sponsons, will make mainteinance and replacement and all that kind of work immensely easier.
Would it not also make them much more vulnerable to damage from an attack, compared to the traditional engine position low down in the hull?
120 Billion for 48 airplanes for 30 years
a developing country could develope an aircraft industry from scratch for these kinds of money!
Wonder how many Gripens they could have got for that kind of money :rolleyes:
Something to look forward to: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/work_in_progress/queen_elizabeth_class_carrier.aspx