Even if we sort technology transfer, is JSF still the right aircraft?
Thread Starter
Lordarpad,
You can point me wherever you like, but I'd far sooner believe the engineers directly associated with the programme than a bunch of naval enthusiasts.
And BAE concluded that:
Navalising Typhoon appeared 'practical and relatively inexpensive'
Navalising later RAF batches 'might be of interest'
STOBAR was preferable to CTOL
FCS changes would be necessary to guarantee 'precision landings'
there would be 'little change to structural layout'
They gave a +340 kg weight increase for the STOBAR version, and 460 kg for the catapault launched variant.
There would certainly be no need for a "major rework for the aircraft to survive the arrested landing."
Nor is the view over the nose inadequate. There are a number of options for reducing sink rate, and only increased AoA would require the addition of a pilot periscope, or a higher seat position and higher canopy roofline.
There may be all sorts of reasons why navalising Typhoon would be a bad idea, but unqualified scare stories about the structural and design difficulties do little to inform the debate.
You can point me wherever you like, but I'd far sooner believe the engineers directly associated with the programme than a bunch of naval enthusiasts.
And BAE concluded that:
Navalising Typhoon appeared 'practical and relatively inexpensive'
Navalising later RAF batches 'might be of interest'
STOBAR was preferable to CTOL
FCS changes would be necessary to guarantee 'precision landings'
there would be 'little change to structural layout'
They gave a +340 kg weight increase for the STOBAR version, and 460 kg for the catapault launched variant.
There would certainly be no need for a "major rework for the aircraft to survive the arrested landing."
Nor is the view over the nose inadequate. There are a number of options for reducing sink rate, and only increased AoA would require the addition of a pilot periscope, or a higher seat position and higher canopy roofline.
There may be all sorts of reasons why navalising Typhoon would be a bad idea, but unqualified scare stories about the structural and design difficulties do little to inform the debate.
Thread Starter
It's from a BAE report, 'Navalising Eurofighter' from 1998. It seems to have the 'stamp of approval' of the Eurofighter Joint Structures Team and the then Chief of the Air Staff.
My understanding is that more recent studies have reached the same conclusion.
I suspect there may be an article about it soon, with the line drawings of the various undercarriage and other options.
My understanding is that more recent studies have reached the same conclusion.
I suspect there may be an article about it soon, with the line drawings of the various undercarriage and other options.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: brizzle
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
naval Typhoon
Jaconicko & Lordarpad
Could it be that the groups you are quoting have their own agendas for their rationale. The politician overstates his case to kill off the project whilst the manufacturer understates the effort required to win the biz.
I seem to remember that when the YF-17 got re-engineered into the F-18 it proved to be a mammoth task. Even the navalisation of the Har GR3 into the SHAR took a good deal of effort and time. Can we develop the Sea Typhoon in the time scale required?
bj
Could it be that the groups you are quoting have their own agendas for their rationale. The politician overstates his case to kill off the project whilst the manufacturer understates the effort required to win the biz.
I seem to remember that when the YF-17 got re-engineered into the F-18 it proved to be a mammoth task. Even the navalisation of the Har GR3 into the SHAR took a good deal of effort and time. Can we develop the Sea Typhoon in the time scale required?
bj
