And if they can come up with a carrier design that’s radically smaller and cheaper – perhaps by using the one area of flightdeck for take-offs and landings, then combined withe Sea Gripren, it might make an attractive package for many customers.

Some thoughts and questions…

What are the design factors that determine the major dimensions of a carrier (displacement, length, beam, draught etc.), and of course its cost, both acquisition cost and operating costs?

For example, there was talk a while back that CVF’s size was driven by the sortie rate requirement. Is it the number and size of aircraft to be carried, or the take-off and/or landing distances required, or the deck parking area, or hangar size?

Is it aircraft design – bigger, heavier – that has been driving the size and therefore the cost of carriers? For example, how would carrier design be affected if light fighters such as the Gripen or Naval Tejas were to be used?

(Remember the US Essex class, around 30,000 tons and carried up to 100 aircraft…..)

40,000-45,000 tonnes is a big ship. It’s the size of a US LHD. Even by comparison with the US supercarriers, it could be classed as medium rather than light. IMHO, light carriers should be more like 20,000 – 30,000 tonnes, like the Invincible class, or the Spanish Principe de Asturias.

The size and complexity of carriers have virtually priced themselves out of most countries’ range. One of the advantages of light carriers is that they are more affordable. That means increasing the potential for new customers, and increasing the number of flat-tops that existing carrier operators can afford to buy.

Smaller carriers have relied on the Harrier’s STOVL capability to date. With the all the costs, complexities, delays and uncertainties surrounding the F-35B – the planned Harrier replacement – there would appear to be a market requirement for a small, light, STOL fighter, which the proposed Sea Gripen seems very well placed to meet.

EMALS looks good, but it’s expensive. A ski-jump is a simpler, cheaper option, even if it means a reduced MTOW. Let’s be honest: it’s highly unlikely that most potential customers for a light carrier/Sea Gripen combo, will end up in a full-on, high-intensity, peer-level combat situation, requiring high sortie rates and full fuel+weapon loads.

No, that was the Americans. I believe Obamas words were something like “America has no greater friend than France”

IMO we should have kept closer ties (trade and otherwise) with the Commonwealth countries. The European union do us no favours.

The problem is the same as in any relationship: Britain needs to commit to Europe, instead of standing on the sidelines slagging off the EU and banking on the ‘special relationship’ with the US. Geography rules, ok?

“Having the carrier close enough to make use of fireshadow would be quite risky.”

Depends on what enemy you are facing! HMS Ocean went even closer to that to the Libyan coast, more than once, it seems. They could see the fires of the Apache attacks from the deck!

…

While the RAF is proud to state that they are flying missions “like taking off from Oslo and going to Paris and back…”, lasting “up to 7 hours!”

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/RafTyphoonsReturnFromLibyaOperations.htm

Too bad there isn’t a Facepalm emoticon, because i’d use one.
Although this is of course a great accomplishment and everything, EVERYONE can see that being closer thanks to an aircraft carrier would be a lot better.
If we could avoid talking of the distance in triumphant terms, it would be better.

When the cost of ops comes out, that distance will be paid in LOTS of money.

Also, is anyone aware of any real reason for flying all the Storm Shadow raids all the way from Marham?
Other than showing off, i don’t see why a bunch of missiles can’t be brought to Gioia (which is already far enough as it is) like Paveway IV and Brimstones.

Hell, ask us Italians for a bunch if it is “urgent”, we use it too. (better saying, we HAVE it too…) Then you can give Italy back an equal numbers of yours at leisure afterwards…
But no. Better to fly 8 hours, refuel in flight each plane four times and expend all that money… Sincerely, i do not get it.

You think that’s bad? Remember Black Buck!

The RAF have always focused more on PR than the other more traditional services.

As for Fire Shadow, seems like a very expensive way of taking out a pick-up truck. Wouldn’t an armed UAV make more sense in that situation?

Sounds more like the result of military industry lobbying, making sure they get a slice of every pie.

Actually I’m starting to see QE starting as a mega LPH ….

Will QE be able to accommodate an RM Commando, the way Ocean does?

Star Wars is where those designs belong! Next-generation combat aircraft will not need to be manned.