It rather depends on if catapults are fitted now doesnt it.

If we co-design with the French they will be denied access to the latest US catapult, my guess is that between the three Indian CVs and these three (CV2+CVFx2) there will be enough demand for short take off and arrested landing to develop a suitable (ramp capable?) Hawkeye (jet?). We are waiting on EM catapult technology to become available (fitted for but not with), but we need something in the meantime and V22, UAV or Merlin is not it. DSTL are probably working on a reinforced front landing wheel as we 'speak'.

[i]If we co-design with the French they will be denied access to the latest US catapult[/i] And this would be a problem why? In fact, why should French involvement make that a certainty?

RB on the quality Navy Matters site has a rumour that the CTOL route is now favoured with 33% french build of three carriers. They certainly have the yard to build large hulls.

Posted by flamingknives; >>[i]If we co-design with the French they will be denied access to the latest US catapult[/i] flamingknives And this would be a problem why? In fact, why should French involvement make that a certainty?<< It depends on the political situation. There are many foolish Americans and French in government who hate each other right now. As to how to get an AEW capability for a STOVL carrier? Here is a thought. India, France(CDG), Britain, Spain, Brazil, soon Japan, the USA(LHA-R?), possibly in the near future;, Australia, and even Thailand will need one for their aviation carrying ships. A STOVL AEW aircraft is a formidable, and (very) expensive undertaking, but if it can be done, then there is a fifty to a hundred aircraft init6ial order waiting to be snapped up immediately. What would you need to accomplish in your aircraft? 1. Rolling launch from less than one hundred meters of runway. 2. Onboard trap onto a flightdeck and stop within fifty meters. 3. Operate with a service ceiling of at least seven thousand meters. 4. Have an endurance of four hours aloft, minimum, and be capable of mid-air refuelling. 5. Incorporate an usable AESA radar that is near equivalent to the best E-2 Hawkeye system currently operating. 6. Weigh less than thirty tons. 7. Do it for less than two hundred million dollars a copy. Good luck on that one. As an alternative, you could try fielding your carriers under the cover of shore-based AEW aircraft, or use AEW helicopters, or try using an AEW aerostat from a sacrifice frigate. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/tars.htm The aerostat has a lot of problems(weather, operational availability downtime, a big bullseye saying,"Here we are. Come get us!"), but it is cheap, and you can launch it from the frigate. The best option for the CVF at the moment is shore-based AEW support or helicopters, unless you take something sized, like the S-3 Viking, give it a STOVL capability and slap a radar on it. You won't have the onboard air battle management or detection range of an E-3(everything the radar receives would have to be transmitted to the carrier or the air defense ships), but what the hey.). Patroclus

The whole idea of relying on land-based AEW is insane - it is exactly what they claimed would work in the '70s, and look how well that worked! The fact is, land based AEW coverage simply would not work, since the aircraft would have to fly huge distances, and then need refuelling support to stay on station for more than a few hours. The best solution for the UK is simply to buy the Hawkeye, which gives the best capability balance, for the best price. In terms of the export market: Spain - they will probably just go for the Italian AEW Merlin, replacing their Sea Kings. France - they have no need for STOVL AEW, they already use Hawkeye, and seem very happy with it. India - they will probably go for a version of the Hawkeye, if they decide to supplement their Kamov Ka-31 fleet. They do not need STOVL either, since their carriers are going to be fitted with arrestor gear. Japan - they have no STOVL aircraft, and there would be a lot of problems politically with getting any. If they decide they need AEW coverage, they would probably just use a mixture of helicopters and UAVs. Brazil - they do not need STOVL AEW, and could not afford a new system anyway. They are now looking to adapt the S-2 Tracker to perform the AEW task, either using the Erieye, or possibly the Searchwater radar. Australia - they might want an AEW, but again, they are unlikely to want to spend much on it, and would probably instead go for a UAV-based system, possibly supplemented by a helicopter system. Thailand - they are very unlikely to be able to afford a new AEW system, since they struggle to put their carrier to sea more than a few weeks a year. They will probably just opt for a simple radar fitted to an Israeli UAV, to provide basic AEW coverage. US Marines - They are unlikely to get their own AEW aircraft, instead relying on a mixture of Navy Hawkeyes, operating off the conventional carriers, and maybe UAVs. They might possibly try to get a few Ospreys adapted to perform a combined air and ground surveillance role, perhaps as a modular fit. I doubt there is much of a real market, since most of the carrier operating Navies have already made their decisions, or cannot afford to get AEW aircraft anyway. The most likely scenario is that one of the UAV companies will adapt a design to fill the role - the Boeing A-160 Hummingbird would be a very good candidate.

I covered all of your points, Lawman, "Good luck on that one. As an alternative, you could try fielding your carriers under the cover of shore-based AEW aircraft, or use AEW helicopters, or try using an AEW aerostat from a sacrifice frigate." Thanks for sharing.:) Patroclus

Aerostats aren't all that visible, either to Mk1 eyeball or any form of radar. Still mystified as to why not having US catapults would be a problem.

>>Aerostats aren't all that visible, either to Mk1 eyeball or any form of radar.<< Quite true as ESM platforms, but the minute they radiate? Still mystified as to why not having US catapults would be a problem. George Bush and Jacques Chirac; clear that rubbish out of the way and you have a valid question. Why would it be a problem? Since it was the British who originally invented the steam catapult for carrier use; it might not be as difficult a proposition as thought, for the British to install one on their own CVF. On an aside; Lawman has a good point, though; the Hawkeye is a good fit for large carrier operations, if you have the catapults and arrestor gear to operate it. THe CDG despite its recent modifications to its flight deck, still has issues with launching and recovering E-2's. That plane pushes the French carrier to its very limits. Land based AWACs limits your carrier deployment options to within a thousand kilometers of a land base. Lawman gripes at this, but if you have that limitation you have to work with it, as any naval surface force without organic AEW has to do. Despite the polemic against my superficial market analysis, even Thailand if it was stupid enough to buy an unneeded aviation ship would fork over two hundred million for a STOVL AWACS->if you could build it at that price.>:] I think the next naval AEW platform will be a long endurance UAV-possibly an enlarged X-45/47 from a carrier or something like a Global Hawk on steroids from a shore base(which would have the range and endurance to support CTF from shore in a way that a manned AWACs might not). A robot helo doesn't have the lift or the service ceiling to make an effective radar platform for AEW in my admittedly amateur opinion. Aerostats have station keeping and weather vulnerability issues as do most tethered balloons. Patroclus

"A STOVL AEW aircraft is a formidable, and (very) expensive undertaking, but if it can be done...." An obvious candidate for a panEuropean project. Apart from Britain and France, Spain and Italy would probably have interest.