LO,
Thanks again for coming back, and always a pleasure to hear wise words from John Farley. As he so rightly points out, one has to look at the L/W ratio at launch - with a proper combat load. Modern fighters can do all sorts of ritzy stuff at low weights - it's a fully loaded combat launch that matters, though.
The Typhoon VT solution is one I'd guessed at, as there's no other way to balance out the pitching moment from the engine nozzles other than using the canards. But one has to wonder how much lift the canards are going to deliver at low landing speeds with an acceptable control margin. I'm sure the clever gents at BAE have worked it out, plus of course how having the engines vectored downwards is going to square with use of thrust control on the approach (this is a primary control for carrier traps). Don't forget that the carrier approach not only has to deliver a low landing speed, but also extremely precise handling qualities to give acceptable hook trap rates.
The air show slow pass is just that - an air show slow pass. Typhoon can't land using it as the pilot can't see over the nose, and the gear has to be up, as I understand it. Plus, of course, this sort of thing is done at low weights. As John so properly points out, controlling an aircraft at ramp exit speeds demands specially designed controls plus low launch weights so as to get to the speeds at which even these work.
Once again, my honest opinion, for the avoidance of doubt. If you want to have an effective carrier borne combat aircraft, you either go for cat and trap, and design the aircraft to do it, or use powered lift (STOVL). That allows the aircraft to stop and then land, and also to use powered lift to help it get off the deck without a catapult. I honestly don't think STOBAR is the way forward, and by the way, the clever guys at Dstl who can do the physics agree. I sincerely hope that the Indians don't do a 'Cameron', change tack and go for 'Seaphoon' - they would certainly regret it.
Hope this helps - interesting discussion...
Engines