Aircraft Carriers may use Typhoon

[zfw]

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.

[toddbabe]

You can guarantee that the JSF will be ready long before the new carriers!!!!

[whowhenwhy]

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?

[Fg Off Max Stout]

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!

[Chugalug2]

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.

But this is wonderful news. When may we expect to see Sir Glenn Torpy climbing down nonchalantly, yet at the same time heroically, from the first deck landing of the Sea Typhoon? A bit of tweaking of the jointery arrangements in place now will surely allow of the advantages of scale to be enjoyed by BAeS, or the RAF, or Air Command,...or Sir Glenn?

[Two's in]

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

[green granite]

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.

[LowObservable]

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...

[LowObservable]

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.

[Mr C Hinecap]

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? :E

[PICKS135]

Dont those awfully nice foreign chappies offer a maritime version of Rafale;);)

[BluntedAtBirth]

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?

[Gainesy]

those awfully nice foreign chappies


No, its the French.:E

[PICKS135]

No, its the French.
Sorry there isnt a spitting smillie so I didnt want to mention them by name:E:E:E

[Stuff]

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?

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.

I'll place my vote on lazy, sloppy and ignorant journalism.

[Engines]

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.

[wetdreamdriver]

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!

[Jackonicko]

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.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Jackonicko/1IncreasedAoA-Periscope.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Jackonicko/3PoddedMainucside.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Jackonicko/4Lengthenedoleo.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Jackonicko/5Noselegpullcatapault.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Jackonicko/6Fuselagepullcatapault2.jpg

[Wader2]

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.

Do rebounds count at one or two? :)

Which Bike will that be then? :}

sorry, hat, coat etc

[Wyler]

Aircraft Carriers may use Typhoon.........as Anchors.

[Wrathmonk]

The Typhoons will be out of service long before the first carrier is built:E

[Storm_Shadow]

Do the RAF or RN have any pilots capable of flying from a carrier deck using arresting wires and catapult?

[XV277]

I do recall an interview with on (or going on) a USN/MC F/A-18 exchange (ex-Jag pilot?)

[Al R]

Does anyone subscribe to the 'They work for you' alert service?

Being the saddo that I am, I get notified whenever 'Royal/Air/Force' is mentioned in The House. I got an e-mail earlier with this as one of the links;

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-07-25a.865.0&s=speaker%3A10160#g879.3

It seems that my turncoat MP has been sucking up to the Frogs. His constituents at Cottesmore will be especially pleased. Broone doesn't rule out the possibility though.

[Archimedes]

But probably only because 'Buy an aircraft from those French :mad:s?Have you gone completely :mad:ing mad?' would constitute unparliamentary language...

What sort of tech transfer does Quentin Turncoat think Dassault would provide?

[Pureteenlard]

Personally I'd look at those awfully nice foreign chappies from up north.

Bae own Saab, I believe, so why not navalise Gripen? It's already stressed for no-flare landings and, according to some sources, has carried out deck landings - iff only in the Gripen simulator . . .

"The canard foreplanes can be tilted almost 90 degrees to act as airbrakes on landing. There are carbon brakes on all the wheels of the tricycle landing gear to reduce landing roll. Interestingly, pilots using the Gripen flight simulators have performed simulated carrier landings, without an arresting hook; it seems a bit unlikely that this will ever be done in practice, though no doubt some Gripen pilots would give it a shot if they got the chance. The landing gear has an antiskid system. The two-wheel nose gear retracts backward, while the single-wheel main gear retract at a forward angle"

http://www.vectorsite.net/avgripen.html

[Archimedes]

Given that George and Gordon have turned out to be bestest chums (quelle surprise!), perhaps we shouldn't rule the Super Hornet out of the equation either...

[whowhenwhy]

Jacko did you write the article in the mail then?:E

[Jackonicko]

I don't even read shi.te like that, let alone write it.

[Navy_Adversary]

Archimedes
Great minds think alike, that is exactly what I was thinking:D

[SARREMF]

Chaps, and chappessses, I think your missing the point. They said a naval variant of the Typhoon to go on the carrier. Who said it had to fly? Why not just line them up along the deck and get tractors to tow them to those stenna aircraft lift things. You could even sail around and move them around on deck a bit. Perhaps hide some below decks, nautical term for you, during satellite passes to make sure other countries think they actually fly.

In fact, this has merit! We could put heaters in them to make them show up on IR - I think it might actually work. The Navy get their carriers, it looks like a common type throughout the forces - savings - wow we could save billions. Yes indeed they promised a carrier and have delivered. They promised it would have aircraft - and delivered. Ticks every box me thinks.

And anyway, if you really wanted to fly surely you'd just put a few of those model airplanes on board - sorry UAVs I think is the term?

[Headstone]

Bit old now but got this from that well known US publication Avionics Magazine (Jacko prob knows it)

Tuesday, July 3, 2007
F-35C Hits Milestone

<H2 class=subhead>

</H2>The U.S. Navy's F-35C Lightning II carrier variant completed its Air System Critical Design Review (CDR). The review was conducted in June at lead contractor Lockheed Martin (http://www.aviationtoday.com/search/?query=Lockheed Martin)’s Forth Worth, Texas, facility, and involved officials from Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office, the F-35 international-participant nations and the F-35 contractor team. Completion of the CDR is a prerequisite for the F-35C to move into Low Rate Initial Production. "We met our objectives for detailed design and performance while removing more than 200 pounds from the aircraft in the past seven months –– a major accomplishment,” said Terry Harrell, Lockheed Martin (http://www.aviationtoday.com/search/?query=Lockheed Martin) director of F-35 carrier variant development. The F-35C is designed to replace the F/A-18 Hornet and complement the newer F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. While it shares the fundamental design of the F-35A (conventional takeoff and landing) and F-35B (short takeoff/vertical landing), the F-35C is specialized for catapult launches and arrested recoveries on large aircraft carriers. It features 30 percent more wing area than the other two variants, larger tail and control surfaces, and wingtip ailerons. The U.S. Air Force requires 1,763 F-35As, scheduled for delivery beginning in 2010. The U.S. Marine Corps and Navy together are planning to operate 680 F-35Bs and F-35Cs. The United Kingdom plans to place 138 F-35Bs into service with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. The remaining F-35 participant countries plan to acquire more than 700 aircraft.

[GreenKnight121]

Note the article mentions " Thrust vectoring, already being planned for the Typhoon, coupled with a high-lift wing design,".


OK, last I had heard, TVC has been dropped... and do you really want to make an entire new wing design?

[TMor]

I think it might interest you :
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm (very interesting link) :
EDIT : I deleted the quote, as Jackonicko had already written the same things.
Jack ? Were you the author ? :)
Interesting pics, though.
Regards,
TMor

[Not_a_boffin]

Trouble with STOBAR is that it's the worst of both worlds in terms of deck management. You have a massive take off run (like STOVL), but also a large recovery area (like CTOL), so while you may save money on cats and nose-tow strengthening, your sortie gen goes down, because your post recovery parking becomes a nightmare for any decent sized package. You also lose a considerable amount of deck park with the ramp.

As for using canards as airbrakes, non-starter - what's the first thing you do on touching the deck in a conventional recovery?

[JagRigger]

Bear in mind batch 3 Typhoon isn't yet finalised / ordered......

[OCCWMF]

Typhoon: The name for a tropical cyclone with sustained winds of 74 miles per hour (65 knots) or greater in the western North Pacific Ocean. This same tropical cyclone is known as a hurricane in the eastern North Pacific and North Atlantic Ocean, and as a cyclone in the Indian Ocean.

Since a Typhoon is already a maritime phenomenon surely we should rename the current Typhoon the Land Typhoon....:p