- Joined
- 3 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,202
- Reaction score
- 902
At the bottom of this .pdf page appears an internal profile drawing of a STOVL design study:
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1997/1997%20-%200676.pdf
It looks something like an enlarged Invincible class.
I can only suppose that this represented the 16 JSF/4 Merlin, or 30 aircraft maximum, STOVL design study that "Rebuilding the Royal Navy" cited in a table on page 199 as displacing 26,212 tons?
Flight International posted an additional article a week later, also featuring a depiction of a X-32B with wingtip AEW radar pods.
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1997/1997%20-%200800.pdf
It is worth noting that on the second page a 35,000 ton figure was quoted for a 20-30 aircraft STOVL carrier:
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1997/1997%20-%200801.pdf
So, does anyone have anything to add? I am curious about the profile drawing. Is this entirely speculative, or based on a genuine design study? Were any dimensions published? What about the 35,000 ton and 26,212ton displacement figures? Do they represent separate studies, or full load and standard displacements?
Keep in mind that all articles came from Flightglobal's own public archive.
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1997/1997%20-%200676.pdf
It looks something like an enlarged Invincible class.
I can only suppose that this represented the 16 JSF/4 Merlin, or 30 aircraft maximum, STOVL design study that "Rebuilding the Royal Navy" cited in a table on page 199 as displacing 26,212 tons?
Flight International posted an additional article a week later, also featuring a depiction of a X-32B with wingtip AEW radar pods.
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1997/1997%20-%200800.pdf
It is worth noting that on the second page a 35,000 ton figure was quoted for a 20-30 aircraft STOVL carrier:
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1997/1997%20-%200801.pdf
So, does anyone have anything to add? I am curious about the profile drawing. Is this entirely speculative, or based on a genuine design study? Were any dimensions published? What about the 35,000 ton and 26,212ton displacement figures? Do they represent separate studies, or full load and standard displacements?
Keep in mind that all articles came from Flightglobal's own public archive.