Erm, isn't one of the foundations of a military service to be able to handle the next fight no matter who it might be?

And how many times have you gone into any such fight?

Should the balloon go up anywhere with an air-to-air threat, will you be leading the squadron in your jet?


I'll also be pleased to pass on your sentiments to the US services' Public Affairs offices if you'd like.

Jacko,

Your estimate of 19-20Billion that you quote is now nearly 5 years old!

NAO won't even list the currently forecast cost of Typhoon in its reports, instead saying it's "Commercially Sensitive", i.e. well fookin' over-budget and embarrassing so don't come over all 'holier than thou' when it comes to the numbers dear boy, please. Lets just agree to disagree on this and move on.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n...08/070898i.pdf

Erm, isn't one of the foundations of a military service to be able to handle the next fight no matter who it might be?

Hmm, well I suppose so. I take it from your comment that you imagine that the FAA or RAF would somehow be incapable of handling any fight, equipped with an F-35 armed only with a mere pair of air dominance weapons then? I'd advise you to refer to the lessons of history;)

Seriously though, you're illustrating precisely the attitude that I was referring to in my last post - this fatally flawed American-inspired notion that in order to prevail, there must be a constant battle to create yet another over-priced warplane that is somehow even more technically brilliant than the last one. We've reached a stage where we can afford to get out of this expensive game and accept that, given the available resources of our government and the outstanding abilities of our service personnel, the Typhoon would be a much more practical choice for our carriers.

It's fine to conjure-up this "we must be prepared to defend ourselves against anything" notion but when it comes down to the practicalities of what is realistically likely rather than hypothetically possible, you get a different answer.

Tim,

I'm sorry to disagree openly, but the Typhoon is not a viable choice for the CVF. The studies BAE Systems did were thorough, but the solutions offered for getting to the deck were risky in the extreme.

CVF is designed to be adaptable - it can take a STOVL doing VLs, or be converted to take a CV aircraft doing cat and trap. (UK is doing additional work on SRVLs, as threaded elsewhere). What it can't do is take a Typhoon, because the sort of recovery envisaged needs a completely new landing aids system and deck layout, plus new arresting systems. But the biggest obstacle is the aircraft.

Designing combat aircraft for conventional carrier operations HAS to be done from the start. (T-45 is the only example I know of a move from land to sea and that was a 90% redesign - and it has no weapons payload to carry). Coming to the deck at around 135 kts with full controllability is hard, taking the wire is hard, and taking a cat launch is super hard.

Typhoon can't get there. Period. If a redesign were to be attempted, I'd bet that the only bit left unchanged would be the name.

JSF STOVL is in flight test and is doing ground tests on the hover pit at Fort Worth. It's a real programme, with real challenges and real firm backing from the USMC. If you want a hypothetical solution to aircraft for CVF, go Typhoon.

Happy to swap PMs with you on this if you want.

Best regards as ever,

Engines

Oh, I hadn't thought of history. Thanks for that.

So it's to be .303s all around then?

A. You don't have those carriers yet. I hope you do get them, but until they are bobbing at anchor, I'd be wary.
B. Far more learned and informed people are telling you that a navalized Typhoon is just not a viable solution without spending more money.
C. Are you seriously arguing that technological innovation and progress is not a vital part of the military air business? Using your oh-so-welcome historical vector from above, the outstanding service personnel in the Fairey Battle expended a whole lot of blood because the RAF 'had gotten out of this expensive game.' There are countless other examples as well.

You are awfully generous with the lives of those who actually will do the fighting.

Is that the same USMC caught 'sexing up' the performance data from the Osprey V22 trials?
This may compromise their impartiality somewhat.

(No axe to grind either way, just couldnt let that one pass)

B. Far more learned and informed people are telling you that a navalized Typhoon is just not a viable solution without spending more money.

You think so? Personally, I'm inclined to go with BAe's view and that which seems to be gradually emerging within our government - at long last.

Hi,

Is there a genuine naval aviator on this forum who believes that the Typhoon is suitable for carrier operations?
I don't think so.

Best regards, Transall.

Transall.

Don't be ridiculous

There are almost no aviators left on Pprune, let alone ones on drugs...

Thankfully, the final choice between JSF and Typhoon will not be made by naval aviators or the Navy ;)

Tim,

Respectfully, I can assure you that there is no choice between them, and no decision of one vs other to be made.

BAe's view will always be that their prodigal aircraft programme is the one the Govt should be fully supporting - oh, and BTW they're certainly running out of money and need another "commercially sensitive" cash inject to prevent a loss of UK jobs......always the same - British Waste-of-space. Your inclinations are your own, but your dreams of a CVF full of Typhoons is nothing more than that.....a dream!

Being proud of our Country's past aviation achievements is commendable but don't let it make you ignorant by believing the propaganda coming out of Warton right now.

So what IF we do pull out of the JSF project......Maybe we'll go for a navalised Typhoon, Rafale or maybe the F/A-18.....And lets just say, for example, we decide to navalise a few Typhoon's for Royal Navy & it works out fine & cost-effective etc etc. All well & good, that's the Harrier's replaced in the FAA/Royal Navy service, lovely jubbly for them. So, what about the Harrier's in RAF service? What are we going to replace them with then? The Swedish JAS 39 Gripen C/D or Gripen NG? Good choice? Curious.

Hope things go well for the A400M....

JSF is taking a battering at the moment - as the reliance of small numbers of stealth fighters.

Flight has an article this week entitled, "Rand Analysis Sparks off F-35 crisis".

The basis of the article is that Rand did a war game based on F-22s in the Taiwan Straits against the PAF. The F-22s lived but their tankers got shot down so the F-22s were lost anyway.

Cue much shouting in Australia, again, about how the F-35 is inadequate for their needs and they need F-22s. Though how they got there from the above I am not sure. Lots of articles in Oz papers and magazines, much support of F-35 from the government. e.g. Govt Should be defending JSF: Opposition JSF "Clubbed Like Baby Seals"

I am sure Oz mates can provide links to the more informed of the articles.

Most unfortunate result is the F-35 program chief blaming a conspiracy to do the F-35 down but unable to explain how or why. Comes across as paranoid.

At the same time Congress has approved a defense spending billing encouraging the USN to budget for a third mutli-year purchase of F/A-18E/Fs for a buy of about 150 aircraft through 2016. But that will overlap with and eat into F-35 production/procurement. They also reduced F-35 production next year by two aircraft, to 17.

Not a good month for the F-35 program.....

Thou speaketh in riddles BD - why would BAe be any more inclined to push the (relatively minor) modification of just a part of the Typhoon fleet when they already have a significant stake in JSF? Actually, please don't bother even answering that as we're going round in circles here! You obviously have your view and I have mine. As I've said, I tend to agree with the growing (and welcome) view that JSF is a complete waste of money. Contrary to your comments, the choice will be made (there are no other viable options) and hopefully sooner rather than later.

There was of course a great deal of speculation that the option of using the Typhoons that we will already have was merely a bluff to give America a nudge in the right direction, but anyone can see (unless you choose to stick your head in the proverbial sand) that the JSF saga simply continues to become less encouraging and even more expensive. You can argue the merits of both JSF and Typhoon but ultimately it comes down to the cost, and given our financial situation, I don't think the Government will have the stomach to spend that much money for so long, on an aircraft which we can comfortably do without. We're talking about huge sums of money. Argue as much as you like but really it's that simple.

It seems that the only reason BAE are participating in JSF at such a high level, is because the UK JSF buy justifies continuing with the JSF-B version.

Should the UK JSF order go, JSF-B will not have much going for it. And the BAE participation won't have much justification either.

But remember, the BAE share of JSF-(A,B&C) manufacturing could quite easily be performed at a BAE plant in the USA, rather than Warton. Anybody telling themselves that although JSF-B may not be technically the best, but at least its making jobs in the UK, is deluding themselves as well.

If the bin F35, then I'd guess the carriers are called into question. Binning the carriers will save a bag full of money (and I personally tend to agree with Jacko that perhaps we should just get out of the Carrier game as the money is needed elsewhere - helicopters, transport, armoured vehicles, maybe more T45 and the rest of the Navy, etc etc.) however I can't see that happening frankly - too many jobs in important constituencies are at stake.

So lets say hypothetically that we do bin Dave, but still get the carriers. What should we put on them if not a navalised Typhoon (and I'm not for that or against it, but suspect its not as simple as some are suggesting)? Rafale, F18E/F, AN Other? How much less would we be paying for an existing aircraft, how effective are they (particularly Rafale?) and how much more may we end up spending on conventional carrier ops? Would it even be cost effective?

EDIT: Additionally, is there any particular driver for theUSMC buying Dave B over any other version? What will they be operating the aircraft from, and would they not be as well to operate from conventional carrier aircrft from conventional carriers for commonality and interoperability with the USN as they once did?
(Edit cos I got my B and C versions the wrong way round, doh!)

Tim,
I don't know how you get the impression that the Typhoon only requires "relatively minor" mods to be a carrier aircraft. It would need a massively uprated (and preferably functional.....) undercarriage, a substantially beefed up fuselage with arrestor gear, a marinisation programme to replace/upgrade potentially corrosive systems as well as a probable re-write of some fairly meaty flight control software. Apart from the latter (which is just very expensive and time consuming...) all of the others have a substantial impact upon weight and thus performance. If you were to marinize the Typhoon you would cause a significant reduction in the platforms capabilities, eroding any margin it has over F18E/F or Rafale. Therefore, t'baron's coffers aside, there is no point in going down that route. Better to keep F-35B, migrate to F-35C (though it's not without issues itself...) or dumb-down to the super-bug. Sell T1/T2 Typhoons to pay for them if required. Remember, History is prologue. As Engines tells you there have been very few cases of a land combat aircraft sucessfully becoming a carrier one. BAES may well have some glossy brochures, snazzy powerpoints and Jedi mind tricks to seduce weak-minded lobbyists, journos and politicians - listen to the coal face, it is not worth adapting Typhoon.

USMC need F-35B for their LPH/LPDs - they cannot operate Cat n Trap F-35Cs off them. In USMC doctrine the F-35 is there to support the RW/V-22 community, therefore they co-locate. If F-35B goes, the USMC will be reliant on F-35Cs on USN CVNs -and that is not a place they want to be (think Guadalcanal....).

You think that pissed off the Marines, look at what happened at Wake Island. There was quite a bit of animosity between the Marines and the Navy after the Navy washed their hands of Wake allowing a successful Japanese invasion.

Well like I said earlier, I really don't think BAe is still able to be in the business of making wild claims which turn-out to be costly mistakes, and then assume that the Government is going to pick-up the bill. We all know that those days are gone, so I merely base my comments on the statements from BAe (made at least twice to my knowledge) that equipping a batch of Typhoons for naval operations wouldn't be a particulary complex affair. I accept that there may be a bit of over-optimism on their part but in all honsetly I can't imagine BAe would claim that such a conversion programme is both possible and financially worthwhile if it isn't. Why would they?

Anyway 'nuff said - let's wait and see what happens - should be fun, in a dark sort of way.

Because some at BAE imagine that they can get away with it. Again.

They know that a strategy that proclaims a project at first trivial can, over time, become, "Well its taken so long and you've spent so much, -- how can you possibly cancel now?"

Maybe F18s would be best?

oh dear...

Well, perhaps you might like to review the status of the MRA4.

I say,(In my opinion) let BAE work on a navalised Typhoon & lets see if their claims will be, as what they say they'll be. Let them work on, one, two, three or whatever number of Typhoon's they'll need, and if it all works out well, seriously consider that option.

I'm not "Anti-F35" and I'm certainly not "Pro-F35", never thought it's a good deal for us for a, "Watered down", (The Yanks not wanting, so it seems, to share tech/codes with their "Closest-Ally", so much for trusting your friends) "Stealth" aircraft. Stinks to me!

F/A-18? Nice, but, cancelling an aircraft in favour for another it (F-35 A/B/C) was designed to replace........Well, that's a bit like going to buy an Aston Martin DB9 & thinking; 'Naaaaah, I'll buy the old Aston Martin DB7, the one the DB9 was designed to replace, instead'. Still a nice buy though....

Rafale? A tempting buy....But what about the workshare? Weapons fit, avionics etc, most of it would have to be changed?....

Gripen NG? A good replacement for the Harrier's in RAF service.

As I said, this is just my opinion(s), so... =)

Regards

Let BAE work on the navalised Typhoon as a true 'Private Venture' - you know, the thing that aeroplane companies used to do when they took commercial risks.................

Arc:oh:

If it's any good then maybe we would buy it....................... if not then 'no thanks', What about Rafale as an alternative ??

Tee hee, you can always rely on pprune for a laugh.

Jetex, my point was that I'd already mentioned that BAe were unlikely to be able to embark on a "navalisation" programme which the Government would pour endless amounts of money into. As I've said, those days are gone, it just wouldn't happen, so if BAe think the concept is viable, they must be pretty confident that it can be done affordably, as they must be aware that the Government is unlikely to pick-up the bill if it turns-out to be the complicated and expensive saga that some people fear.

I guess we will just have to wait and see. If the Government is inclined to carry-on pouring billions into the JSF programme then I will be genuinely surprised - I think that on the basis of everything that's been said over the past months and years, it's pretty clear that the project is unaffordable. I accept that given limitless money and time, JSF might produce an excellent aircraft, but that rather misses the point. We really don't have the finances to buy whatever aircraft is judged to be technically superior when we will already have aircraft which is "good enough" for our requirements. Naturally, you can imagine all kinds of scenarios where the JSF might be judged to be superior to the Typhoon but that's the kind of argument that you find in the pages of aeroplane enthusiast magazines - it's not the kind of judgement that a government makes.

Ultimately, it's a choice based on available funds, potential requirements and a wider view of what roles the carrier force is likely to perform. We've already reached a stage where the Government has to ask the MoD what we can comfortably do before deciding whether to do it rather than making knee-jerk decisions on the assumption that the armed forces can handle any challenge. The truth is that we obviously can't - we just don't have the resources.

Consequently, I think the Government will ultimately decide the JSF's fate in this way. It's not about purchasing a technically-brilliant aircraft which is capable of handling even the worst-case scenario. It's about money, and just how much overseas military/political clout the Government can afford to maintain with the finances that are available. Consequently, it seems clear to me (for all the reasons I've mentioned in previous posts) that the less-ambitious Typhoon option must look like the most attractive choice to the Government now. I'm sure they would - in an ideal world - proceed with JSF regardless, but we're not in an ideal world.

Tim.

1. Are you a Navy Pilot?
2. If No, are you a Pilot?
3. If No, are you aircrew?
4. If No, are you an aircraft engineer?
5. If No, are you another type of engineer?
6. If No, are you Navy?
7. If No, are you Military?
8. If No, have you ever been Military?
9. If No, where the hell in your deluded mind do you think you know better than all the people who you are arguing with who do tick all those boxes?

Arrogant much?

Minor Mod!
 

2 things:

Do anyone really believe that Navalising a Typhoon is a 'relatively minor mod'. Adding a new radio system is a major modification.

IF Typhoon is such good value, why is it excluded from the NAO Major Projects Report. Is it because:

a) If people saw the real cost of Typhoon against the budgeted profile many would have a heart attack/choke on their breakfast.

b) Some high level Politics (probably coupled with the threat of massive job losses or a(nother) government bailout)

c) Because it BAE are so completely transparent and without fault that there is no need....

May be wrong

:ok:

Well if they are so sure, maybe they could offer a firm fixed price contract.

Very unlikely, when was the last time BAE, or anyone else in military manufacturing commited to such a thing?

Came across this.....
 

Came across this a short time ago...

Eurofighter Typhoon -

"He highlighted the unique selling points of our product – carefree handling, highly integrated man/machine interface – and even gave a “provisions are in place” nod to recent media speculation on aircraft carrier operations for Eurofighter Typhoon"......

Interesting?...

navalised typhoon
 

i thought the french pulled out of the euro fighter because they said it could not be navalised and thats why the rafale came about and it was to do with the position of the engine air intakes i beleive

I am only a simple helicopter chappy but this talk of Navalising the Typhooon has got me a little confused.
Capability aside the most important thing I can think of is the structural integrity for any Naval FW aircraft. Having watched from the stbd D as F-14, A-6 and F 18 thump into the deck of assorted CVN I find it hard to believe we have built a fighter tough (heavy) enough to take that type of treatment just in case we need a Naval version?
Not seen a Typhoon undercarriage close up but I have just been looking at snaps on google of a Typhoon and Buccaneer and I know which one I would rather fly in to the deck with.
Oh, and lets not start on wet build...... :)

You thought wrong.

The French had a requirement that the aircraft had to be able to operate off the Foch, which limited it in size/range etc. Nobody else was willing to accept the consequent limitations, so they had to go off on their own. That was well before the design was finalised and, only subsequently, was it optimised without having to take into account carrier capability.

Naval Typhoon must've been shot down so many times on this forum, Adolf Galland is looking down from the heavenly mess bar and starting to get jealous of the kill tally!

As for what our options are if no F-35?

Umm.... errr..... Bombed up Goshawk, anyone? :ooh:

Tim,

The idea of forums like this is to exchange ideas and also to exchange information that can change our ideas. I've certainly learnt plenty on this site. You might like to consider these points....

When I say that Typhoon won't get to a deck without VERY significant modification (to the point of being a new aircraft), it's not because I think so - it's because I've spent a fair bit of my working life on carrier based aircraft projects, including T-45 and JSF, and also studying aircraft design. Typhoon is a beautifully designed and engineered land based air dominance fighter, optimized for BVR combat at all altitudes. The designers made a number of well judged design trade offs to get that performance - nearly all of those decisions make the Typhoon basically unsuited to carrier operations. I could go into detail, but I won't here.

So what about the BAES studies? The MoD had to show the Treasury that they had looked at all options, and navalised Typhoon was one. So studies had to be done. They showed what was theoretically possible, but identified very serious risks and a number of unresolved (and quite possibly unresolvable) issues. In the end, it comes down to physics and maths. Both were against Typhoon.

Some BAES people may have a view of the results of the studies - they are entitled to them. My opinion (considered) is that Typhoon won't go to a deck. That fact (and it is a fact, Tim) supports the Uk MoD decision.

Interestingly, studies showing how land based fighters can easily go to a carrier deck aren't new. I recall seeing a swing wing Lightning proposal, and Lockheed produced a beautifully crafted brochure for a navalised F-22. There have been proposals covering F-16s, Mirages, Hunters.....and on. What all of them had in common was that they didn't stand a chance of working.

Best regards as ever,

Engines

having followed this debate with interest for the past couple of days a thorght comes to mind, at least f35 is flying and testing is gathering pace as we speak.
unfortunately the same cannot be said for a400m, what will we replace THAT with if chopped, c17s seem to cost way too much and c130j isn't enough, is it??

Agree F-35 is the way forward in the perfect world. If the aircraft is as exportable as they claim then we may well get alot of money back in the long term based on out Tier 1 involvement.

However, if we were not in a perfect world, here's a wild idea (based on nothing but a 3 cans of stout):

The UK MOD is committed to 100 Typhoons it doesn't want but can't cancel. (100 x £42M = £4.2Bn)

The French Air Force has an aircraft in it's arsenal that is a compromise between a naval and a ground based fighter and is therefore (based on the fact that the other Air Forces wouldn't accept its performance compromises and it therefore left the Typhoon Team) sub-optimal in the latter category. No evidence here, not connected with fighters atall but it's a reasonable bet.

The French are also desperate for an export order to make their R&D costs worthwhile and keep their factories busy.

Unit price of Rafale equals about $50M, equals about £30M. (100 x £30M equals £3Bn)

How about we do a swap? Our spare 100 Typhoons for 100 Carrier version Rafales. They would get a worthwhile ground based fighter and we would get a carrier aircraft for the cost of the Typhoons that we already have to pay for (and would continue to have to pay for even if we cancelled them) We could build their Typhoons and service them and enjoy economies of scale and keep BAE happy. They could build and Service our Rafales and keep Dasault happy. I think that's called 'Comparative Advantage' in economic terms.

Ah, I hear you say. 'Why would we swap 100 aircraft worth £4.2Bn for 100 aircraft worth £3Bn?' Well, how about if they made up the order with another 100 aircraft worth £1.2Bn? With what? What do the Frenchies make for £12M unit cost? Well how about 100 EC725s ( cougar helicopter, AS 725, military helicopters – Eurocopter ) A seriously good aircraft that we desperately need (and, in many ways, much much better than the NH90 - which is actually causing EC a big export problem!). Massive range, good cargo carrying capability and all the toys. (and we would also save ourselves having to convert our remaining Pumas to Puma 2 standard)

So there we go. It's amazing what a few pints of Guiness will create. We get a Carrier aircraft, a bunch of very much needed helicopters (which are coming off the production line now in Marseille and maybe Westlands could actually assemble) and out of a sticky situation with BAE. They get a worthwhile ground based fighter. All at no additional cost to either party and a hole in the defence budget filled. Massive synergies too if the French also go ahead with our Carrier design (which they may be encouraged to do if we share the cost of the catapult R&D with them). Eurofighter partners also happy because its better than the UK pulling out of Tranche 3 completely and them losing the work out of their factories when they really need the jobs (and spares provision for the next 30 years).

I do like the F-35 though!

Sale of Nuclear Fuels
 

Bradford & Bingley?

I take your point Engines, and you may well prove to be correct. As you know, my view is different but I'm quite happy to acknowledge that BAe's proclamations might not live-up to practical development! We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

Tourist, you make yourself sound incredibly stupid when the only reasoned argument you can offer is to whine about whether someone happens to be a member of the Navy, the military, an engineering trade or whatever. The point that an awful lot of people never seem to grasp is that the JSF saga has to be looked at in a much wider sense. It's completely pointless to dwell upon what a Navy pundit might think appropriate or what a particular engineer might think is the best solution. The Government is obliged to look at a much wider picture, not least in terms of the political fallout and the amount of money being spent. Surely you must be able to grasp that it's really not about technical performance figures?