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)!
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 9th December 2006 at 08:33.