Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Naval Typhoon

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 10:05
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wessex
Posts: 485
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Naval Typhoon

So the idea isn't quite dead yet then

Eurofighter Naval Version Makes Debut - ASDNews

No catapaults required just a ski-jump - shame the UK still can't afford it
Rocket2 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 10:12
  #2 (permalink)  
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
Must be cheaper to modify the obsolescent trance 1 Typhoons than buying new F35's though...................................................... ....... possibly?
green granite is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 10:14
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brighton
Posts: 968
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Oh yes, just a few minor mods. Vectored thrust, beefed-up structure, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

How much then, BAe? Oh, not more than £xx billion.

That's OK, then.
kenparry is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 10:53
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Great yarmouth, Norfolk UK
Age: 72
Posts: 639
Received 14 Likes on 12 Posts
Here we go again....

High commonality, wasn't that what a certain Mr McNamara said when talking about a USAF and US Navy F111 a few years ago....



BAES here's your starter for 10 (billions?)
bobward is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 10:59
  #5 (permalink)  
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
Do read the article before posting kenparry

The modifications required are limited and include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and localised strengthening on some fuselage sections near the landing gear, as well as updates the EJ200 engines.
green granite is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 11:48
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alton Hants
Age: 89
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps BAe would offer these modifications on a fixed price contract.
We ,UK , could probably afford them if we were not giving 'ring-fenced' aid to India and China.
Goprdon is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 11:52
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
The modifications required are limited and include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and localised strengthening on some fuselage sections near the landing gear, as well as updates the EJ200 engines.
That's the cheap stuff dealt with, now lets talk about the software modifications
Sideshow Bob is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 13:10
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Wholigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The modifications required are limited and include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and localised strengthening on some fuselage sections near the landing gear
To reduce the aircraft's approach speed and the resulting landing loads the study envisages the introduction of a thrust-vectored variant of the Eurojet EJ200 engine.
Mayhap those changes do constitute kenparry's stated requirements of:

Vectored thrust, beefed-up structure
-- so maybe he did read the article?
Wholigan is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 13:44
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: E MIDLANDS
Posts: 291
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Sounds like one of those BAE dream sheets like Skyhook & SCADS
andyy is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 14:06
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,334
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
Let's look at the picture then...



and now compare the landing gear to this and you'll see why this will be a disaster or a very-very-very expensive retrofit modification...



Look at the difference in travel between the oleo types and also the ground clearance. The Typhoon will be leaving bits of external tank and landing gear door on the wires after every trap. Quite frankly the gear, and the mounting points, on Typhoon will not be up to the job if this "mock up" picture is anything to go by.

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 14:48
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Devon
Age: 71
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No mention of any wing-folding mods .If it could be done , I reckon it would be better than the F-35 , for a start it looks better !
grandfer is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 15:09
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lord only knows
Age: 63
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If BAE were tasked with it, the carrier would be out of service !
And would it then be axed as too costly ?
theloudone is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 15:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
how about this one instead, at least the navalised version development is already underway.

When a sword arm is worth it
oldgrubber is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 15:35
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Navalised Typhoon = Madness

it would take years, require zillions in R&D and testing and that's before Sailor Sam and the boys add all the extras (or more acurately "differents") that they would want to be able to operate on a carrier

Some nutcase wrote earlier this week that you'd have to move the canards so that the pilot would have a good view over his shoulder on a turn to approach.............

If we have to have carriers buy the F-18 and don't change anything- at least it works
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 15:45
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pretty sure Rafale M could be had for a great deal less than a 'Typhoon M'.

It would also be nice for us to be able to kick BAE Systems in their figurative ballocks for a change.

I'm guessing this deal isn't going to go ahead, unless the French are keeping very quiet about it:

26 Septemper News - Libya to order 13-18 French Rafale fighter jets in $3.24 b deal
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 15:57
  #16 (permalink)  
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
The point I was making, Mr Wholigan, was that the vectored thrust Eurojet EJ200 engine has already done some testing at Eurojet's facility so it's not an unknown leap into the future or very expensive since it already exists.

My apologies to kenparry if I misread his post's inferences

Interestingly it's the Indian Navy that appears to be interested, so maybe we should let them pay for the development work and then buy them as off the shelf items, although even then I suspect the MOD could manage to screw it up and treble the price.
green granite is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 16:12
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What a bonkers idea. How about we make sure it can do everything from the non-moving non-saline predictable environment of an airfield first and then move on to other stuff.

The foreplane comment shows how ill informed some of these posters are. The things sit forward of the seat. As for thrust vector to reduce landing speed? The leading edge slats motor themselves back up when the gear travels to increase landing speed at the moment, because with them out the nose is too high to safely see the runway. The slow speed capability is already there, the forward visibility is not and thrust vectoring would only increase the weight of the jet (which further increases the stresses on the airframe etc). Besides, add salt water to stuff that wasn't designed to operate in that environment from the start and it will break.

Buy a tried and tested platform rather than getting typhoon to do yet another job. Jack of all trades etc...
gashman is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 17:41
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Everybody knows that all good navy jets have a certain air of brutish menace about them. Typhoon is just too dainty and pretty looking, and therefore bound to be useless. Having seen how often they break in the gentle hands of the RAF I'm 100% sure that Jack, or Indian Jack, could reduce them to their constituent parts with a mere sideways glance.
LookingNorth is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 18:39
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It'll look bloody strange the first time the cat fires and the bottom of the airframe shoots off the front of the boat leaving everything from the central tank upwards still sitting there.

Maybe if they superglued one of Massey-Ferguson's best onto the bottom it'd do?
davejb is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 19:34
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Being very close to this in 1996, I know that the then required development was prohibitably expensive, if achievable at all. Good brains were put to the task (not mine). So I wonder what the spin is now?

Last edited by jindabyne; 24th Feb 2011 at 21:04.
jindabyne is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.