JSF - 6 Months on...

[ORAC]

We were discussing 6 months a go the problem of the USA not being willing to release the software codes and other data on the JSF to the UK.

The Commons Defence Committee opined that, if no agreement was reached, the aircraft should not be ordered. Government officials duly talked to the USA and Bush signed a nice letter saying it was a good idea. The DoD agreed to hold discussions to sort it out.

We are now at the end of the discussion period, the Memorandum of Understanding needs to be signed - and the Senate/DoD have not moved an inch except for vague assurances. There have been many US correspondents who have said we are bluffing, it is the only choice in town. The other partners, Australia, the Netherlands etc, are signing up, we will as well.

So, it is put up or shut up time. The Defence Committee have put their cards on the table. A decision is needed before the end of the year - just 3 weeks away, including the Xmas holidays. So, what do we do?

BBC: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6219122.stm) MPs warn over US fighter jet deal

The UK should not agree to a US deal to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter unless the US releases details allowing independent operation, MPs have warned. The defence committee said an assurance was needed from the US "by the end of the year" that all the technical information would be given to the UK.

The $276.5bn (£140bn) Anglo-US project will supply the armed forces of the US, Britain and several other countries. Earlier this year, the government expressed concerns about the deal.........It still remains unclear whether the US will agree to transfer the technology required to give the UK operational sovereignty of the aircraft. The committee said if there is no deal by the end of the year, the government should focus on developing a "plan B" to acquire alternative aircraft.......

ITV.com (http://www.itv.com/news/index_96f3f444bff2b915e550e74dee230605.html) .........Ministers have previously threatened that the UK could pull out of plans to buy up to 150 of the military planes for the RAF and Navy unless the US agreed to transfer secrets about its software that Britain argues are needed in order to operate and maintain them independently.

Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush had reportedly solved the impasse in May, when they announced an agreement in principle that the UK would be given access to the classified details on conditions of strict secrecy. However, the committee warned that it was still "uncertain" whether the US was prepared to supply the required information.

The MPs said: "If the required assurances are not obtained by the end of the year, we recommend that the Ministry of Defence switch the majority of its effort and funding on the programme into developing a fallback 'plan B', so that an alternative aircraft is available in case the UK has to withdraw from the Joint Strike Fighter programme. "We must not get into a situation where there are no aircraft to operate from the two new aircraft carriers when they enter service."

[VuctoredThrest]

Blow the cobwebs off the Sea Jets!

[airborne_artist]

I feel a fudge coming on....

[formertonkaplum]

Tranche 3..... Naval Variant.

And there may even be some spares floating around then too !!

So to speak..........

[L J R]

Buy anything, except a jet that hovers!

[Lazer-Hound]

Well this could give MoD all the excuse it needs to sh1t-can JCA/CVF and free up funds for the Trident upgrade. Incidentally, why is it so important we have access to JSF technology but not to Trident?

[ORAC]

Incidentally, why is it so important we have access to JSF technology but not to Trident? Read the Defence Industrial Strategy (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ReidUnveilsRadicalOverhaulOfUkDefenceIndustry.htm)

Basically, we want to retain the ability, where we have it, to mainain, update and operate our own assets. With JSF that means doing software updates and adding weapons and sensors of out own. We have no equivalent expertise in ICBMs, and it is unlikely to need any update other than that provided by the USA.

[Kitbag]

I see the Navy losing their flat tops, but only after we have gone through further expensive feasibility studies to navalise Dave. Got to agree with LJR- hovering is an unnecessary luxury.

[LateArmLive]

Hovering will only be an unnecessary luxury if we get boats that are big enough to operate from in a conventional fashion. I'm not convinced that has been confirmed yet. :(

[alex_holbrook]

Tranche 3..... Naval Variant.

And there may even be some spares floating around then too !!

So to speak..........

Agree entirely there chap: what with the imminent fall through of the Saudi deal, there will be Typhoons coming out our ears. Why not use them as naval aircraft. It's not as if the design of CVF has been finalised yet...:hmm:

[Not_a_boffin]

Other than the simple reason that no non-STOVL land-based design has EVER been developed into a successful (Seafire had some major flaws) carrier-based variant.

Oh and the various Heath-Robinson concepts already wheeled out to get typhoon to be CV-compatible (periscopes anyone????)

[Jackonicko]

"No non-STOVL land-based design has EVER been developed into a successful carrier-based variant."

Yeah, right. Look at failures like the Hawker Nimrod, the de Havilland Sea Hornet, the Sea Venom, the FJ-3 Fury, the Sea Vixen (DH110), the T-45, the F/A-18, the Su-33K, and the MiG-29K.

"Oh and the various Heath-Robinson concepts already wheeled out to get typhoon to be CV-compatible (periscopes anyone????)"

Yeah, right. Your second generalisation is almost as incisive as your first. Typhoon N will clearly be compromised (there's a 300-500 kg weight penalty, depending on the options exercised), but the commonality benefits are considerable, and it will be supportable, sustainable, operable and upgradeable without US say-so.

[wokawoka]

Other than the simple reason that no non-STOVL land-based design has EVER been developed into a successful (Seafire had some major flaws) carrier-based variant.

Oh and the various Heath-Robinson concepts already wheeled out to get typhoon to be CV-compatible (periscopes anyone????)

Take it the Rafale M now in full air to air variant and air to ground variant was not a success then. They ve managed not only to develop the multi role aspect of a land base aircraft, but also adapt it for carrier ops whilst we are still pi**ing about with our air to air typhoon?
:ugh:

Nevermind eh?

[Tim McLelland]

Well just as the start of this thread indicates, we've been here and said all this before. I stick with my original comments, in fact the notion of navalising the final batch of Typhoons looks even more attractive now than it did months ago!

:cool: We have more Typhoons ordered than we actually need (well, more than our stated needs)

:cool: We don't need a vstol aircraft

:cool: The new carriers have catapult retrofit capability built-in

:cool: BAe have already said that navalising the Typhoon isn't as difficult as imagined

And now it's looking like BAe might not even be able to slow Typhoon deliveries to the RAF - seen as the Saudis look like abandoning their order. Hmm, all those Typhoons looking for a good home... You can see the inevitability of this saga growing day by day! Still, never say die - the MoD might still pull defeat from the jaws of victory and insist on throwing vast sums of money at an aircraft we don't even need.

[GreenKnight121]

At this late date, I am amazed to find those who are unaware that the F-18 and Rafale were designed from the start as carrier aircraft!


Wokawoka:
Wasn't the whole reason France pulled out of the EFA/Typhoon project because they wanted a carrier capable version and the rest said "later, if we do it at all"... so they built the Rafale instead, specifically to get a carrier-capable aircraft? Wasn't it designed from the start as a carrier aircraft??



Jackonicko; (why am I not surprised)
F-18... maybe you are referring to its origins as the YF-17 for the USAF light fighter competition won by the F-16, but don't you remember the complete, nose-to-tail redesign (with the -17's builder, Northrop, becoming a sub-contracter of McDonnell-Douglas because N. had no carrier aircraft experience), with a totally new landing gear, fuselage, & wing structure specifically for the carrier environment?

Will the UK Treasury pay for a whole new airframe & wings for "Seaphoon"?

The F-18L, you ask? Oh yes, an attempt to de-navalize the Hornet to make it cheaper for non-carrier nations, wasn't it?


And from a US point of view, don't even mention the T-45 "navalization" of the Hawk... years late, well over-budget, a completely new wing, and restrictions on operating weight (due to structural concerns) when flown from a carrier as compared to land, and this from a trainer! What if we had been trying to navalize one of the combat-capable versions, eh? Would you still call that a "success"?


And as for Su-33K, and the MiG-29K, both designed for grass-strip operations, and still with payload restrictions when operating from a carrier, not really what you want from an aircraft that is supposed to do strike, like a Seaphoon would need to... that is why the Russians use the Su-25 Frogfoot from their carriers too... to get something that can carry attack payloads!

If you really want to claim one of the Russian birds as a "land-to-carrier" success, that is the real one... but it was a "dirt-field, rough-service" design from the start... not something that could be said about Typhoon, so I can see why you would leave that one out!

I suppose we could sell you some of our upgraded A-10Cs to give you a Carrier Strike Force if you go the Seaphoon route!


Which brings us to the other examples you use... de Havilland Sea Hornet, the Sea Venom, the FJ-3 Fury, the Sea Vixen (DH110)... all aircraft from a day when:
1. take-off & landing speeds were MUCH slower, and therefore MUCH less stressful...
2. aircraft were "over-engineered"... rather than subject to draconian weight-saving measures that leave little excess margin of strength
3. modification of existing aircraft & designs was MUCH cheaper as a portion of acquisition costs than it is now!

Note: This part was a misunderstanding of Jackonicko's post on my part... see my response post below. I am keeping this here so others will understand the following posts!
Nimrod??? Just when has Nimrod ever operated from a carrier?? Just like you, to try to distract from the issue at hand (modification of land-based aircraft to carrier-based ones) by trying to broaden the discussion to include something that merely operates over water while still flying from land bases!!!

Navalization (adapting to operate from shipboard) is a completely different subject from Marinization (adapting to operate over sea water)!

[BEagle]

"Nimrod??? Just when has Nimrod ever operated from a carrier??"

Try a Google search - or go to Duxford!

Hint: We're not talking about the Comet derivative full of doughnut scoffing teenage signallers!

[ORAC]

Errr, he said Hawker Nimrod. 1930s naval fighter, developed from the land based Fury.

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/NimrodMkII802sqdGlorious1937profile.gif

[olddog]

Greennight121, You really need to bone up on your aviation history! The BAE Nimrod is the second aircraft to bear that name. Part of the reason for it being so named was in recognition of the success of the successful Hawker Nimrod biplane which helped you chaps learn that carrier ops were a possibility! Having spent many hours at the controls of the later version I can say that only the prospect of a warm bed and a cold beer prevented me from making an approach to one of your pitching steel decks :-)!
Well done Beags - beat me by 4 Min

[ORAC]

ps. Shouldn't the Harrier be at the top of that list Jacko? :p :p

[Wipeout]

I thought there were discussions about possibly obtaining some Rafale-M's as part of a deal as the French Navy has ordered (I think) one of the carriers we're building. Whats happened to this option?

I also remember reading a quote from an senior RAAF bloke, saying that altho the F-35 was a great "bomb tuck", aside from its bvr capabilities, it wouldn't be good in air-to-air as "it would be aerodynamically unable to mix it in aerial combat with Migs or Sukhois....". I don't think he was a fan.

Any Seaharriers left over....? :}

[GreenKnight121]

OK, OK... my mistake--- and I apologise to Jackonicko for that part... and only that part... of my statement.

HOWEVER, that just goes even further in supporting my point... THAT Nimrod was from the days when a fighter type rarely even used a catapult to take off from a carrier... and had a landing speed of 50-70 MPH... rather than 120+MPH!!


See note added in my earlier post.

[GreenKnight121]

Olddog... "Part of the reason for it being so named was in recognition of the success of the successful Hawker Nimrod biplane which helped you chaps learn that carrier ops were a possibility!"


Wasn't that a lot of years after we backward Colonials had already modified one collier (see USS Langley) to a carrier, and had such success with it (and in operating aircraft from it) that we had modified 2 partially complete Battlecruiser hulls to full Carriers (see USS Lexington & USS Saratoga)? Which were, by the way, far better carriers than your own such conversions (see HMS Courageous, Glorious, Furious)! :E


All in the friendly spirit of "family fueds", of course... :ok:

[GreenKnight121]

Pass-A-Frozo

Unfortunately, this is an area in which I am in total agreement with you... as one with many programmer friends (and a brother who is the chief programmer for a multi-state electric power utility: Sierra-Pacific Power, which controls all electric power in Nevada, eastern Oregon & Washington, and parts of California), the state of programming in the US (as far as coherence, simplicity, and effectiveness) has deteriorated drastically in the last 25 years!

This is emphatically shown by the fact that virtually every major US Defense project (and many civilian ones) has experienced major software problems during its development phase... accounting for a majority of the cost and time overruns on almost every such program!

[ORAC]

Yeah, but you were still putting on wooden decks up to and including the Essex and Ticonderoga class carriers, which proved a bit of an embarassment when the kamikaze attacks started. :ouch: The Royal Navy switched to steel decks in 1936 with the Illustrious class..... :ok:

[Polikarpov]

I'd be astonished but pleasantly surprised if Trust-me-Tone and co. had the balls to pull the plug on Dave and re-assert some British self-determination. Paying such a colossal amount of money to not actually "own" ones jets, nor to be able to hang what one will from them, seems ridiculous and doing so will be yet another meek international surrender of sovereignty.

Would certainly be interesting, let the Saudis buy Rafale, navalise all their prospective Typhoons and still provide a potential boost for UK contractors.

Can't see it.

Of course, with Greedy Gordon effectively running the country now, cancelling Dave might just prove an excuse to shave another couple of billion from the defence budget rather than appropriate reinvestment in CVF.

[alex_holbrook]

Will the UK Treasury pay for a whole new airframe & wings for "Seaphoon"?

It will probably be a whole lot cheaper than ordering 140 new JSFs.

[GreenKnight121]

Even when added to the cost of building the ~75, I think it was, Seaphoons and the ~65 Typhoon F.3s for the RAF in order to replace those 140 JSFs? At the current price for Typhoon (more than Dave A, remember) plus the re-design costs?

Not bloody likely!!!

And yes, I do remember Dave B costs a bit more than Typhoon, but not that much more!

[Not_a_boffin]

Was going to give Jacko's post the savaging it deserves, but note it's already been done by GK121.

Would also add that to the best of my knowledge none of the Sea Hornet / Sea Venom / DH110 alleged land-based progenitors ever had an extensive service career. Funnily enough, the Fury didn't last long on ships either, although obviously a very succesful land-based fighter.

As for EF2000N - I don't think anyone who saw those studies believed what BAe were saying - it was a clear attempt to knock JSF off the options plot, as became clear when people started getting into the detail of what it would need to do aboard ship.IIRC the aircraft was not fitted with nose-tow and was STOBAR only, making it by far the worst for deck ops and sortie generation.

All that said, the OCA/DCA abilities of Dave do not engender confidence.....

[Archimedes]

Marion Carl (who knew a thing or two about air-to-air combat and aeroplanes) is on record somewhere as having said that given an Fury with an afterburning engine, he'd have happily have taken on any aircraft anyone chose to point in his direction, and would have been willing to have a crack without the burner...; he still thought the FJ-3/4 perhaps the finest naval aircraft he ever flew.

The point JN challenged was:

"No non-STOVL land-based design has EVER been developed into a successful carrier-based variant."

It doesn't matter about massive redesign for carrier use (which is a form of 'development', even if pushing the word to its very extreme); landing speeds; over-engineering, or anything else raised to attack JN. Also, note the assertion's use of the emphasised 'ever'. JN's rebuttal of that absolute was not imprecise. A post-facto application of historical conditions to undermine JN's point is rather unfair.

Had JN attacked a point phrased - 'only with rare exceptions has a land-based design been developed into a successful carrier-based variant and the chances of this being done today given the cost, increased structural stresses of carrier operations and current approaches to aircraft design where the over-engineering of the past doesn't take place', then 'savaging' the post would be reasonable.

He didn't. The generalised charge made about turning a land-based design into a successful carrier-based variant is inaccurate, whether or not one thinks JN is using the point to push the case for a navalised Typhoon. Trying to savage him for attacking an inaccurate generalisation is, if I may be so bold, unfair.

There is a useful and valid debate to be had about whether a Seaphoon could ever provide the sort of capability the RN requires at a reasonable cost and without serious redesign. I'm in the same camp as N_a_b and GK, i.e. unconvinced: but I don't think it's valid to imply that JN's rejoinder is little more than pro-Typhoon propaganda, since he actually has a point regarding the intial observation.

[brickhistory]

Yeah, but you were still putting on wooden decks up to and including the Essex and Ticonderoga class carriers, which proved a bit of an embarassment when the kamikaze attacks started. :ouch: The Royal Navy switched to steel decks in 1936 with the Illustrious class..... :ok:

True, up to a point. The armo(u)red RN decks were great at 'sweepers, man your brooms' for pushing the remnants of the Japanese a/c overboard, but the number of aircraft carried suffered as a result. Seems like it was around half (RN 45-ish v. 85-ish for a USN CV), so the trade between offensive and defensive is interesting.

But we did have air conditioning unlike the 'easy bake' ovens of the RN!

[ORAC]

All this is, of course, based on military capability instead of politics. There is is a political case, for the next few years, to demonstrate UK independence from the USA - hence the new UCAV being a UK only programme without US or EU participations.

An independent Typhoon variant rather than the JSF may be seen as just the right message to send....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Rafale would be a better bet than Sea Typhoon - after all its was designed for carrier operations.

Now then.....

1. :ugh:
2. Blair doesn't seem very good at fighting the UK's corner. Does he try?:rolleyes
3. See the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152) thread.
4. See the Future Carrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116) thread.

[wokawoka]

The Rafale started with the Rafale A demonstrator, which was a follow on to the Mirage 4000, demonstrating aircraft manoeuvrabiltiy VS instability using forward canards. Both were land based aircraft. The design for the Rafale M with reinforce landing gear and different intakes came after the first series of Rafale B/C. The rafale NEVER (do you like the underline?) started as a carrier based aircraft. Therefore I come back to my first comment. Quite successful for an aircraft firstly designed as land based :)
So I would drop the patronising tone Mr and like the other one said go and BOF on your aircraft recce and history. :ok:

[ORAC]

The rafale NEVER (do you like the underline?) started as a carrier based aircraft. The French left the Eurofighter programme because they could not persuade the other partners to limit the size/weight to a 10 ton limit. The limitiations that limit imposed on performance/payload/range etc were just too great.

Why, you will ask, were the French so insistent on a 10 ton limit?

That was the maximum weight foran aircraft capable of operating off the deck of the Foch......

[ErgoMonkey]

................lets not forget the 50% workshare requested by the French

[GreenKnight121]

I knew someone would bring up the Rafale A... which was just a technology demonstrator (materials/aerodynamic design/full fly-by-computer) like the EAP was... the actual Rafale B/C/M design was developed from that, yes... but they were quite different in their internals from R-A... and they were (ok, no underline) designed with the stronger structures needed by a production combat aircraft that would operate from a carrier.


One more thing. If the carrier design was mostly done before the first B/C model started building, then it counts as a "from the start/beginning" design! There was no modification of an in-production design needed... which is the problem with Typhoon at this late stage.

[alex_holbrook]

All this is, of course, based on military capability instead of politics. There is is a political case, for the next few years, to demonstrate UK independence from the USA - hence the new UCAV being a UK only programme without US or EU participations.

An independent Typhoon variant rather than the JSF may be seen as just the right message to send....

Which programme is that? The only UK U(C)AV programme has been the Phoenix, which has had many, many more takeoffs than landings and is being scrapped next year. There is then the Predator B ''''''''''''''''squadron''''''''''''''' (term used v. loosely) being stood up in the next couple of years, an American venture, and the UAV being leased/purchased from Thales, a French company, the 450. Neither of these are British. And (for now at least) this country definitely does not have independence from the septics, given that we are now completely unable to defend any of our foreign territories, namely ones 2,500 miles from the nearest friendly base. I'm all in favour of the seaphoon, no matter how much development it needs, however.

[Jackonicko]

Notaboffin,

“To the best of my knowledge none of the Sea Hornet / Sea Venom / DH110 alleged land-based progenitors ever had an extensive service career.”

Not a historian, either, clearly. The ‘best of your knowledge’ simply and demonstrably doesn’t cut it. While the DH110 RAF did not see service, both the Hornet and the Venom served with distinction, and had careers that were no shorter than their contemporaries.

“IIRC the aircraft was not fitted with nose-tow and was STOBAR only, making it by far the worst for deck ops and sortie generation.”

Every time you post, you demonstrate further ignorance. The Typhoon N studies examined STOBAR and non-STOBAR carrier versions, the non-STOBAR versions including nose-pull and fuselage pull catapault sub variants.


GK121,

I don’t know why you are or are not surprised. As a Johnny come lately septic with 49 posts you are proving yourself to be every bit as clueless as your postcount would suggest.

The F/A-18 was a productionised derivative of the YF-17, the latter plainly a “non-STOVL land-based design that was developed into a successful carrier-based variant.

And like the USN, and despite teething troubles, yes, I’d call the Goshawk a success. And so did my Boeing guide while we examined the latest one taking shape at St Louis.

Like Notahistorian, you need to polish up your knowledge of aviation. Russia’s carrierborne Su-25UTGs are used only for pilot conversion training and standardization, and not for strike or attack. And the Su-33 has proved a success in its intended role, and the MiG-29K would have done, had funding allowed.

Orac,

“Shouldn't the Harrier be at the top of that list Jacko?”

No, cos old ‘Notafknclue’ did say non-STOVL.

[Not_a_boffin]

Jacko

Was it something I said?

Or are you just a single issue obsessive, with a sense of humour removal? Maybe it's the scars from the 70s where many RAF stations were covered in naval aircraft imposed on the RAF?

If BAe have undertaken Typhoon N studies with a nose tow (no sane person would go for a fuselage tow these days) I hope it was of better quality than the EF2000 work.

I bow to superior knowledge on the Hornet / Venom question however.

Ho hum....

[ORAC]

Alex Holbrook: - Which programme is that? Do keep up - Taranis (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2493171,00.html)

"Lord Drayson said that Britain had decided to develop the new type of aircraft alone, and would not be involved in any collaborative programme, either with the US or with European partners".........

[brickhistory]

GK121,
I don’t know why you are or are not surprised. As a Johnny come lately septic with 49 posts you are proving yourself to be every bit as clueless as your postcount would suggest.
The F/A-18 was a productionised derivative of the YF-17, the latter plainly a “non-STOVL land-based design that was developed into a successful carrier-based variant.


Not like jacko to be so derogatory, but since he trotted himself out, plainly he's not the accurate historian all the time either:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f018.html

http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/fa18.htm


Seems the F/A-18 was just a wee bit different than its YF-17 ancestor. Several years and many billions of $ later and it became a fine carrier aircraft. Like, perhaps, a navalized Typhoon. But do be careful with chucking stones around........

[Jackonicko]

Yes, it was, but that was not just a function of adding carrier capability.

The original YF-17 was a lightweight air superiority fighter, while the F/A-18 was an all-weather, multi-role tactical fighter.

And in any case, I'd still call the F/A-18 a successful carrier-based derivative of a land-based design.

(You should bear in mind that Boeing, and McD/D before always had a vested interest in emphasising the difference between the YF-17 and the Hornet - as all the lawsuits demonstrated. As a result, the aircraft are often portrayed as being less inter-related than they really are.)

[endplay]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2497741.html

I can't figure out how do get this to link but I'm sure someone out there will be able to.

Edited because it seems the system does the linking all by itself. damned clever what?

[OFBSLF]

And in any case, I'd still call the F/A-18 a successful carrier-based derivative of a land-based design.I think that's kind of like calling a Chevrolet Monte Carlo NASCAR race car a "derivative" of the showroom model. The former is RWD, with a tube chassis, a V8 engine (with carburetor!), and a manual transmission. The later is FWD, with monocoque construction, a transverse V8 (fuel injected) and an automatic transmission. There is some visual resemblance, but that's about it.

wikipedia is certainly not a conclusive source, but it's the best I can find with limited effort. Full text is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet

The Navy fought for and won permission to develop an aircraft based on the YF-17. Since the LWF did not share the design requirements of the VFAX, the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to design a new aircraft around the configuration and design principles of the YF-17. The new aircraft, designated the F-18, shared not a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17.

The aircraft went from a gross weight of about 27,000 lbs to a gross weight of 37,000 lbs.

[LowObservable]

To weigh in, late...

If the Neddy Seaphoon were to be developed successfully it would be the first successful CV adaptation of a CTOL jet in the West.

A few data points:

Both the MiG-29 and Flanker have been adapted for CV use. Major mods (structure, folding, high-lift) but the basic outer mould lines are pretty close. What we don't know is exactly how well they work.

The Hornet was not a derivative of the YF-17, but a different aircraft with the same overall layout. Bigger wing, bigger engines, different landing gear.

The Rafale and JSF were both designed from the outset to have CV and CTOL versions. Off the top of my head I don't remember any others.

From the early days of the jet age, the key difference between CV and CTOL fighters has been speed and controllability on approach, which drives wing/tail size and configuration. That's one of the factors that nailed Boeing in JSF - they just could not get the delta on board the boat.

Argument pro-Seaphoon: the Rafale M looks very like a Rafale C - it gets away without a 50 per cent bigger wing unlike Dave C. Seems that a canard delta is easier to drive to high lift and low speed than a quad-tail (one basic problem is that the tail on a Dave C or an F-18 is pushing down with a short moment arm while the wing is trying to push up).

Argument con-Seaphoon: There are a lot of basic Rafale features that reflect the CV requirement including overall size, landing gear location (mains and nose) and radome size/cockpit location.

[Jackonicko]

There haven't been many recently, certainly, but then there haven't been many programmes, full stop.

But Typhoon would not be "be the first successful CV adaptation of a CTOL jet in the West."

We still have the Sea Venom, the FJ-3 Fury, the Sea Vixen (DH110), and the T-45 to count (forgetting the various Sea Vampires, T-33s and their ilk), even if we allow that the F/A-18 is more than an adaptation.

As to the Su-33K, it's a minimum change navalised 'Flanker-B' with astonishingly few changes (folding on exactly the same wing, a beefed up gear, folding tailplanes and a hook), while the MiG-29K designation has been applied to two different aircraft, one a minimum change adaptation of the land-based MiG-29M (with a new landing gear and new tailplanes and an all-new wing)and the other one now being built for India.

[LowObservable]

"We still have the Sea Venom, the FJ-3 Fury, the Sea Vixen (DH110), and the T-45 to count (forgetting the various Sea Vampires, T-33s and their ilk), even if we allow that the F/A-18 is more than an adaptation."

I'll just about let the Sea Venom pass (and to some extent other early straight wing jets, where landing speeds were less of an issue). The Sea Vixen was a nasty brute and more to the point was not really a derivative insofar as the land-based DH.110 never got very far in development. The FJ series diverged from the F-86 in the process of being made useful for carrier ops, and the FJ-3 bore only an outline resemblance to any F-86.

Historical experience is only a partial guide to the feasibility or advisability of the Seaphoon... but anyone who tells you that it's a low-risk, low-effort development is blowing smoke up your jetpipe. Look at the way that Dave C's wing has grown!

[Jackonicko]

It's going to be compromised, of course, and there will be issues, but looking at how other canard Deltas fare on carriers, perhaps a much bigger wing is unnecessary -- the Gripen boys have done some interesting sim work, Rafale manages well, and though the MiG-29M has more wing area, it's all added at the tips, the flaps, and via a new leading edge.....

The question isn't whether it will be easy, the question is whether it's a possible back up/alternative.

[NoHoverstop]

It's going to be compromised, of course, and there will be issues, but looking at how other canard Deltas fare on carriers, perhaps a much bigger wing is unnecessary -- the Gripen boys have done some interesting sim work, Rafale manages well, and though the MiG-29M has more wing area, it's all added at the tips, the flaps, and via a new leading edge.....
"Other canard Deltas" would seem to mean "Rafale". Gripen is not* an embarked aircraft and Mig-29 of any flavour is not a canard-delta. Other people have said it: Rafale was specifically designed for the CV job. So your argument is hardly compelling.
The question isn't whether it will be easy, the question is whether it's a possible back up/alternative.
The question *is* whether it will be easy, because attempting it is not compulsory. There are always alternatives to Dave, one of which is "don't bother". If we are bothered but there are concerns that we can't get Dave on the terms we want, we have the alternative of getting it on terms we don't want. Do you know how the latter option actually compares in pain/grief/cost/capability terms to Seaphoon? I don't think you do, but I submit to you that having an appreciation for the "ease" of doing JCA with Typhoo(N) is the sort of thing those charged with procuring JCA have pondered.


*sims are all very well, but sending our enemies a sternly-worded letter and a screenshot from a sim might not be quite as appreciated by our gallant troops on the ground under fire in dusty places as the well-timed accurate delivery of real ordnance from real aeroplanes.

[BEagle]

Cost and time issues would seem to be somewhat critical, if Trust-me-Tone's eagerness to involve British forces in dangerous situations without the right kit continues on its current track..

Which means, realistically, sticking with one or other type of F-35 (sorry, but 'Dave' is too spotterish) depending upon whether the RN's new carriers will be big enough to support the -C or will be limited to the -B with its complex STOVL system.

Could 't Bungling Baron really develop a carrier capable Typhoon within the same timescale as the F-35B? Would it really fit the new carriers?

[Exrigger]

Rumour has it ;) that the feasability and design changes required for a carrier Typhoon conversion have been 'considered', also a costing of the technical publication issues has also been looked at with regards any changes that may, or may not be possible. Wether this can be done within the timescales of the F35B I do not know if this was considered. Rumour also has it there was some talk of a requirement to modify the new carriers to allow the Typhoon version to use it. The only other rumour was about a rather complex nose door arrangement that someone designed to accomodate a new nose leg. Sorry if this is a bit vague but one does not know what one can or cannot say nowadays for fear of reprimand or worse. It is also possible that a carrier version of the Typhoon was mentioned to the odd person across the pond who has the occasional interest in new aircraft :E.

[Exrigger]

I could not see this elsewhere (did not look to hard I must admit), so as this is a JSF thread:

The first F-35 Lightning II aircraft - a Conventional Take Off and Landing variant – took to the skies above programme partner Lockheed Martin’s site in Fort Worth, Texas at 1845hrs UK time on Friday 15 december. The aircraft was in the air for around an hour, during which time it performed a variety of manoeuvres to test aircraft handling and the operation of the engine and subsystems, before landing back at its Fort Worth base.
Following first flight, Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley commented: “F-35 Lightning II performed beautifully. It was a great start for the flight test programme, and a testimony to all of the people who have worked so hard to make this happen.”

The F-35 Lightning II is a supersonic, stealth fighter designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom’s Harrier GR7s and Sea Harriers. The F-35 will be the most powerful single-engine fighter ever produced.

Three versions of the F-35 JSF are in development: a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL), a short take off/vertical landing (STOVL) and a carrier variant (CV). Each is derived from a common design, and will ensure that the F-35 Lightning II meets the performance needs of the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, the U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, and allied defence forces worldwide.