Aircraft Carriers may use Typhoon
Thread Starter
Aircraft Carriers may use Typhoon
From Todays Financial Mail............
The Typhoon jet fighter may be converted to operate from two new aircraft carriers amid fears that the Joint Strike Fighter will not be ready when the ships launch.
The JSF is being built by Lockheed Martin but the project has been dogged by diputes over the use of American Technology.
The MOD is afraid that after spending £3.8 Billion on the vessels due to be built by 2012 there will be no aircraft fit to fly from them.
Faced by a potentially embarrassing lack of aircraft to operate from the carriers the MOD is considering using Typhoons or adapting the 40 year old Harrier jump jet.
An option to buy the French Rafale Marine jet is believed to have been rejected after complaints from the Royal Navy.
Financial Mail understands that BAE Systems has already begun work on converting the Typhoons.
The Typhoon jet fighter may be converted to operate from two new aircraft carriers amid fears that the Joint Strike Fighter will not be ready when the ships launch.
The JSF is being built by Lockheed Martin but the project has been dogged by diputes over the use of American Technology.
The MOD is afraid that after spending £3.8 Billion on the vessels due to be built by 2012 there will be no aircraft fit to fly from them.
Faced by a potentially embarrassing lack of aircraft to operate from the carriers the MOD is considering using Typhoons or adapting the 40 year old Harrier jump jet.
An option to buy the French Rafale Marine jet is believed to have been rejected after complaints from the Royal Navy.
Financial Mail understands that BAE Systems has already begun work on converting the Typhoons.
Surely someone at the Mail is having a laugh? A lot of work would have to be done to marinise (sp??) the airframe and I wouldn't have thought that you'd be able to deploy any of the current build - it would have to be a new build ac with a lot of mods?
Or have I just wasted time answering the biggest fishing exped for weeks?
Or have I just wasted time answering the biggest fishing exped for weeks?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I recall, the option of a Sea Typhoon was considered at the outset but rejected as 'it would not be needed'. Unfortunately marinising an airframe isn't like changing a set of spark plugs. It's more akin to forging it out of a new billet of alloy and dipping it in hammerite. Fatigue life of standard Typhoon airframes modded for the role would be measured in days!
The Typhoon jet fighter may be converted to operate from two new aircraft carriers amid fears that the Joint Strike Fighter will not be ready when the ships launch.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Absolutely correct Max, here is the USN just "marinising" something simple like the Hawk...
Changes from the standard export Hawk Mk 60 comprised a deeper profile forward fuselage to accommodate a new stronger twin-wheel nose landing gear, with catapult launch bar and improved nosewheel steering; new long-stroke main landing gear stressed to withstand carrier deck landings; main landing gear doors sequenced to close after wheels locked down; twin lateral perforated air brakes on the sides of the rear fuselage, in place of the single ventral air brake; a substantially strengthened airframe and intermediate engine casing; revised US Navy standard cockpit instruments and radios; On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) and Martin Baker Mk 14 NACES ejection seats. SMURFs (Side-Mounted Under Root Fins) - small curved surfaces mounted ahead of and below each tailplane - provided a beneficial aerodynamic tweak which was soon introduced on the Hawk Mk 100 and Mk 200.
Although the T-45 met the original VTX requirements, detailed operational flight testing and evaluation by NATC identified a number of performance and flying shortcomings which would adversely affect its ability to safely conduct day-to-day training operations. Accordingly a modification programme was put in place to rectify the perceived deficiencies. The F405-RR-400 turbofan originally fitted, (a derated version of the original 5,450 lb st (2472 kg) Adour 861 engine), was replaced by the 5,845 lb st F405-RR-401, based on the Adour 871 used in the Hawk 100 and 200. The -400 engine had been derated to meet Navy demands for fuel economy and longevity, but it was determined that more thrust was needed in the critical high drag carrier approach configuration. Full-span wing leading edge slats were added, (to improve stall characteristics), and the wing-tips squared off, while a 6-inch (0.152 m) extension to the tail fin was added, and an increased span tailplane with squared tips fitted. A single ventral fin was added in front of the arrestor hook hinge fairing. Control harmonisation was also improved, and airbrake/tailplane movement interconnected
Although the T-45 met the original VTX requirements, detailed operational flight testing and evaluation by NATC identified a number of performance and flying shortcomings which would adversely affect its ability to safely conduct day-to-day training operations. Accordingly a modification programme was put in place to rectify the perceived deficiencies. The F405-RR-400 turbofan originally fitted, (a derated version of the original 5,450 lb st (2472 kg) Adour 861 engine), was replaced by the 5,845 lb st F405-RR-401, based on the Adour 871 used in the Hawk 100 and 200. The -400 engine had been derated to meet Navy demands for fuel economy and longevity, but it was determined that more thrust was needed in the critical high drag carrier approach configuration. Full-span wing leading edge slats were added, (to improve stall characteristics), and the wing-tips squared off, while a 6-inch (0.152 m) extension to the tail fin was added, and an increased span tailplane with squared tips fitted. A single ventral fin was added in front of the arrestor hook hinge fairing. Control harmonisation was also improved, and airbrake/tailplane movement interconnected
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember Tarnished mentioned some time ago that some work had already been done on a maritime version, but how much is some I don't know.
It can supposedly be done.
The issue is whether there are any total show-stoppers in the design. The Phoon already has a moderate approach speed, so a carrier version does not need a completely different wing (see Dave C). How much bring-back you have at that point, I don't know (but it does not have to be much to beat the F-35B).
The Phoon allegedly has enough hot air coming out the back to dispense with a catapult, as the Russians do (and as the MiG-29 will do for India). This avoids structurally redesigning the entire nose gear and front end.
The Phoon does not have the over-the-nose view that the USN would want, but there's a lot you can do with cameras and synthetic vision these days.
Doable, but expensive... But if you get into a situation where Dave B won't do its thing without redesigning the engine, which A and C don't need, and the UK and Marines get faced with the bill...
The issue is whether there are any total show-stoppers in the design. The Phoon already has a moderate approach speed, so a carrier version does not need a completely different wing (see Dave C). How much bring-back you have at that point, I don't know (but it does not have to be much to beat the F-35B).
The Phoon allegedly has enough hot air coming out the back to dispense with a catapult, as the Russians do (and as the MiG-29 will do for India). This avoids structurally redesigning the entire nose gear and front end.
The Phoon does not have the over-the-nose view that the USN would want, but there's a lot you can do with cameras and synthetic vision these days.
Doable, but expensive... But if you get into a situation where Dave B won't do its thing without redesigning the engine, which A and C don't need, and the UK and Marines get faced with the bill...
And there is a certain tinbending operation not a million miles from St Louis that would be more than willing to help, especially if it meant lousing up the JSF - and there would be elements of the USN that might not be unhappy, either.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see the issue here. Once we've built and fitted these mahoosive flat-tops we won't be able to afford to run them. Do we really need to make Dave waterproof to fly it from a ship tethered along side? 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Emptying the litter bin
Age: 65
Posts: 409
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Dont those awfully nice foreign chappies offer a maritime version of Rafale
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: my own, private hell
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So votes please, ladies and gentlemen. Is this story:
a. A revealing insight into a major change of the equipment plan?
b. Lazy, sloppy, ignorant journalism digging out some of the JCA options from 3 or 4 years ago?
a. A revealing insight into a major change of the equipment plan?
b. Lazy, sloppy, ignorant journalism digging out some of the JCA options from 3 or 4 years ago?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Emptying the litter bin
Age: 65
Posts: 409
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
No, its the French.
So votes please, ladies and gentlemen. Is this story:
a. A revealing insight into a major change of the equipment plan?
b. Lazy, sloppy, ignorant journalism digging out some of the JCA options from 3 or 4 years ago?
a. A revealing insight into a major change of the equipment plan?
b. Lazy, sloppy, ignorant journalism digging out some of the JCA options from 3 or 4 years ago?
I'll place my vote on lazy, sloppy and ignorant journalism.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most definitely 'B' - the low standard of defence related reporting in this country is one of the reasons that our Armed Services get cut back - there is no really informed 'Fifth Estate' to embarrass and harry the Government.
Getting Typhoon to sea would be a massively expensive task and one would have to ask what sort of capability we might end up with - as I've offered in other threads, Typhoon is an out and out BVR/close in air combat aircraft (and a really good one), with a secondary strike capability (although possibly quite a good one).
I spent a few years on the T-45 programme (Hawk conversion for the USN) as well as JSF. The art and science of getting aircraft off and on a carrier deck using arresting wires and catapults with a usable load is complex, risky and expensive.
Getting Typhoon to sea would be a massively expensive task and one would have to ask what sort of capability we might end up with - as I've offered in other threads, Typhoon is an out and out BVR/close in air combat aircraft (and a really good one), with a secondary strike capability (although possibly quite a good one).
I spent a few years on the T-45 programme (Hawk conversion for the USN) as well as JSF. The art and science of getting aircraft off and on a carrier deck using arresting wires and catapults with a usable load is complex, risky and expensive.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
We are missing the point. This has nothing to do with sloppy journalism but all to do with our lords and masters strategy to take over all military flying. If we kill off the JSF, then there will be no a/c to fly off the flat tops, so we can kill those off (remember our success with CVA01 - a marinised typhoon would be far toooo expensive) and Oh yes we won't therefore need the Fleet Air Arm? So that can go too. Next we can work on the Pongos and once we have finished them off, our 100 year experiment will be safe!
We are missing the point. This has nothing to do with sloppy journalism but all to do with our lords and masters strategy to take over all military flying. If we kill off the JSF, then there will be no a/c to fly off the flat tops, so we can kill those off (remember our success with CVA01 - a marinised typhoon would be far toooo expensive) and Oh yes we won't therefore need the Fleet Air Arm? So that can go too. Next we can work on the Pongos and once we have finished them off, our 100 year experiment will be safe!
This may well be bollocks and sloppy journalism, though I understand that the Typhoon (N) “is not dead” and that the studies are still being looked at and kept under review.
The option of a ‘marinised’ Typhoon has been studied several times, first as the only STOBAR aircraft type to be considered by the original FCBA/JCA studies.
Early pre-feasibility studies of a Eurofighter Typhoon (N) (using the possible service name - Sea Typhoon) were undertaken in early 1996 by British Aerospace's Military Aircraft and Aerostructures. (BAE Systems initially suggested that costly airframe strengthening and a new undercarriage for Typhoon (N), as traditionally required for the ‘navalisation’ of a land based aircraft, could be avoided by using sophisticated computer controlled precise landing systems and other aids to reduce arrested landing stresses to within existing Typhoon limits. These ideas were not accepted by the MOD, however, and a fully navalised STOBAR Typhoon was drawn up).
A further 27 month contract was let in 1997 to study both catapult-launched (CTOL) and STOBAR variants in more detail.
Both variants would have required a large conventional aircraft carrier with an angled flight deck and arrester wires.
Both featured a strengthened undercarriage and an arrestor hook, and consideration was given to providing a larger thicker wing with power folding and more powerful vectored thrust EJ200 engines.
In May 2001 Sir Robert Walmsley, Head of the Defence Procurement Agency, dismissed the possibility of a navalised Eurofighter pointing out that Typhoon was "not currently designed so that it could use a carrier. We could change the design but we would be faced with a huge piece of work. The materials would probably have to be changed in order to avoid corrosion; the weight of the undercarriage would have to be doubled to support carrier landing which would eat into the payload margin; and the wing roots would have to be strengthened in order to take the full inertia forces on landing. That sounds to me like a very substantial redesign. It is always possible, but it would cost a huge amount of money and it would certainly add very considerably to the cost of the aircraft.”
There had also been fears that the flight deck clearance of external weapons would be dangerously low for the robust nature of carrier launch and landing events, and that the canards would dangerously restrict the pilots view during high angle of attack carrier landings. These fears were dismissed after studies.
Walmsley’s conclusions were not shared by those who’d undertaken the studies, and the possibility of a navalised Typhoon re-emerged in late 2005, as a "Plan B" in the event of a JSF cancellation.
BAE engineers had concluded that navalising Typhoon appeared to be "practical and relatively inexpensive", and that navalising later RAF tranches "might be of interest". The view over the nose was not necessarily inadequate and there were a number of options for reducing sink rate. Of these only the increased angle of attack option would would require the addition of a pilot periscope or a higher seat position and higher canopy roofline.
The studies indicated a 340 kg weight increase for the STOBAR version, and 460 kg for the CTOL catapult launched variant.
STOBAR was considered preferable to CTOL, flight control system changes would be necessary to guarantee "precision landings" but there would be little change to structural layout, and there would certainly be no need for a major rework for the aircraft to survive arrested landings.
The Typhoon’s advanced flight-control system could be programmed to reduce the stresses of landing, particularly if integrated with a carrier-landing datalink. This would have a number of advantages. For instance, sudden pitching of the carrier deck would be recognised by the system, which would feed in last-second control corrections, ensuring that the aircraft landed within set limits. This would permit the airframe to be strengthened only as required for operations within those parameters.
Thrust vectoring, already being planned for the Typhoon, coupled with a high-lift wing design, could provide near-optimal short-takeoff-and-landing capabilities for a ‘Sea Typhoon.’ The use of a ski ramp would only enhance STOL performance.
As an alternative to JSF, it was claimed that Typhoon (N) would offer higher speed, range and payload, although it would be less stealthy. A Typhoon (N) would also have the advantage of considerable commonality with the 232 Eurofighter Typhoon's already planned for the RAF – if, indeed, the third Tranche was not completed in a Typhoon (N) configuration.
The UK was not the only potential customer for a navalised Typhoon, Eurofighter GmbH briefed the Italian Navy during 2000 about a low-cost, reduced weight, arrestor landing/angled deck variant of the while the company offered ‘another customer’ (probably India) a “more radically modified naval version of the aircraft”, presumably the STOBAR variant studied for the UK.
The option of a ‘marinised’ Typhoon has been studied several times, first as the only STOBAR aircraft type to be considered by the original FCBA/JCA studies.
Early pre-feasibility studies of a Eurofighter Typhoon (N) (using the possible service name - Sea Typhoon) were undertaken in early 1996 by British Aerospace's Military Aircraft and Aerostructures. (BAE Systems initially suggested that costly airframe strengthening and a new undercarriage for Typhoon (N), as traditionally required for the ‘navalisation’ of a land based aircraft, could be avoided by using sophisticated computer controlled precise landing systems and other aids to reduce arrested landing stresses to within existing Typhoon limits. These ideas were not accepted by the MOD, however, and a fully navalised STOBAR Typhoon was drawn up).
A further 27 month contract was let in 1997 to study both catapult-launched (CTOL) and STOBAR variants in more detail.
Both variants would have required a large conventional aircraft carrier with an angled flight deck and arrester wires.
Both featured a strengthened undercarriage and an arrestor hook, and consideration was given to providing a larger thicker wing with power folding and more powerful vectored thrust EJ200 engines.
In May 2001 Sir Robert Walmsley, Head of the Defence Procurement Agency, dismissed the possibility of a navalised Eurofighter pointing out that Typhoon was "not currently designed so that it could use a carrier. We could change the design but we would be faced with a huge piece of work. The materials would probably have to be changed in order to avoid corrosion; the weight of the undercarriage would have to be doubled to support carrier landing which would eat into the payload margin; and the wing roots would have to be strengthened in order to take the full inertia forces on landing. That sounds to me like a very substantial redesign. It is always possible, but it would cost a huge amount of money and it would certainly add very considerably to the cost of the aircraft.”
There had also been fears that the flight deck clearance of external weapons would be dangerously low for the robust nature of carrier launch and landing events, and that the canards would dangerously restrict the pilots view during high angle of attack carrier landings. These fears were dismissed after studies.
Walmsley’s conclusions were not shared by those who’d undertaken the studies, and the possibility of a navalised Typhoon re-emerged in late 2005, as a "Plan B" in the event of a JSF cancellation.
BAE engineers had concluded that navalising Typhoon appeared to be "practical and relatively inexpensive", and that navalising later RAF tranches "might be of interest". The view over the nose was not necessarily inadequate and there were a number of options for reducing sink rate. Of these only the increased angle of attack option would would require the addition of a pilot periscope or a higher seat position and higher canopy roofline.
The studies indicated a 340 kg weight increase for the STOBAR version, and 460 kg for the CTOL catapult launched variant.
STOBAR was considered preferable to CTOL, flight control system changes would be necessary to guarantee "precision landings" but there would be little change to structural layout, and there would certainly be no need for a major rework for the aircraft to survive arrested landings.
The Typhoon’s advanced flight-control system could be programmed to reduce the stresses of landing, particularly if integrated with a carrier-landing datalink. This would have a number of advantages. For instance, sudden pitching of the carrier deck would be recognised by the system, which would feed in last-second control corrections, ensuring that the aircraft landed within set limits. This would permit the airframe to be strengthened only as required for operations within those parameters.
Thrust vectoring, already being planned for the Typhoon, coupled with a high-lift wing design, could provide near-optimal short-takeoff-and-landing capabilities for a ‘Sea Typhoon.’ The use of a ski ramp would only enhance STOL performance.
As an alternative to JSF, it was claimed that Typhoon (N) would offer higher speed, range and payload, although it would be less stealthy. A Typhoon (N) would also have the advantage of considerable commonality with the 232 Eurofighter Typhoon's already planned for the RAF – if, indeed, the third Tranche was not completed in a Typhoon (N) configuration.
The UK was not the only potential customer for a navalised Typhoon, Eurofighter GmbH briefed the Italian Navy during 2000 about a low-cost, reduced weight, arrestor landing/angled deck variant of the while the company offered ‘another customer’ (probably India) a “more radically modified naval version of the aircraft”, presumably the STOBAR variant studied for the UK.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This story is in the same paper that says women are now going to be doing pressups in the fitness tests for the first time ever (they didn't distinguish between incline and flat, just said they had never ever done them before) and that we are all going to be doing it on the bike.
Which Bike will that be then?
sorry, hat, coat etc