Quote: "I think it is a bit late for any cost savings on a CTOL F-35." Yes, the R&D money are largely spent by now, but huge sums could still be saved by PRODUCING only one variant, simplyfying the production programme. There's also lots of money to save and operational flexibility to gain by pooling the ressources of each branch into one single programme. The Brits have realized this with their joint Airforce and Navy force of Harriers (to become F-35/STOVL). Quote: "Besides, buy a more expensive, less capable version of the aircraft, just to save a few bucks on catapults?" The STOVL and the CV variants will AFAIK cost roughly the same, while only the CTOL(Airforce) variant will be markedly cheaper; but notice not even the Airforce is to keen on that model these days. Yes, the STOVL variant is slightly less capable when it comes to range/payload combinations, but A2A refuelling is an established routine even for current navy aircraft, so it is not as important as many is trying to make it. Either way, the STOVL variants more than make up for the "shorter legs" with its ability to operate from virtually everywhere including USMC platforms and forward airstrips. Lastly, catapults cost a lot more than "a few bucks" to operate.

>>>I've read the US Army is considering a number of the STOVL version too. <<< The Army by policy agreement with Air Force can not buy fixed wing combat aircraft unless they call them excutive jets or SIGINT aircraft.

"Nimitz is about as large as can be accomodated in existing yards" I laughed out loud when I read this. Here I was thinking about the limited payoff of larger runways and a multitude of other considerations and the reason turns out to be this simple. It does, however, make perfect sense - though I wonder whether it is still the case now. After all the newest supertankers can easily displace 300,000 tons and some even go as large as 500,000 tons. In comparison a Nimitz class is only about a 100,000 tons, so unlike when the Nimitz was designed, it does not appear to be the limit any more.

Yes, of course...my mistake, should have written Air Force not Army.

To my knowledge, no Supertankers are built in this country. I think South Korea and Japan have that market.

You make a good point that most supertankers are built in South Korea, Japan and increasingly China. I was not aware, however, that the US lacks the capability to build them altogether.

Nimitz beam was capped at 134 feet because that is the limit of the building docks in the only yard that builds supercarriers.

Ignoring cost/capability issues of the F-35 for a moment, how do you plan to accomodate other types of aircraft other than the STOVL F-35 on a catapult-less ship? The F-35 is not intended to be the sole aircraft type of the future USN.

"- though I wonder whether it is still the case now. After all the newest supertankers can easily displace 300,000 tons and some even go as large as 500,000 tons. In comparison a Nimitz class is only about a 100,000 tons, so unlike when the Nimitz was designed, it does not appear to be the limit any more." Yeah, but all those 500,000 ton tankers are built in Asian shipyards. Except for a handful of yards building USN and CG vessels, some specialist yards buiding tugs and various small boats, and a few making yachts, there is no US shipbuilding industry left. Somehow, I don't think you'll see the USN ordering a 300,000 ton super-duper carrier from a Chinese, or even a Korean, yard. Now, would it make sense for the US to have the capacity to build supertankers? Of course it would, but you could never build them as cheaply here as in Asia (or Norway for that matter) and as such no one would buy them. --Len

Supertankers don't need to transit the canal. I don't think it would be a particularly good idea to tie the main power projection force of the US to either the AO or PO. Now, we don't use the canal that much these days, but that's mainly because we're always sending our carriers to the same damned place, the Persian Gulf which is about equidistant from San Diego or Norfolk. There's the Suez issue also, but as I recall the Suez's locks are a bit wider and could probably accomodate wider, larger carriers. At any rate, it is likely still a priority to have something that fits through Panama. --Len