The French requirement was for an aircraft sized so it could operate of their current carrier - Foch - which gave a maximum aircraft size which didn't meet the range/payload requirements of the other members of the consortium.

70s design perhaps, but already more capable than where the Typhoon is aiming and no work required for carrier capability

I had to scratch my head about that too, but I'm pretty sure it was a separate pressurised oil system - its own hyd system, if you like. It used fuel to cool the oil.

France pulled out of the Eurofighter programme for a number of reasons. Indeed, lack of carrier capability is one.
Others were:
- as said above, wanted a lighter aircraft (carrier was an issue for wanting a lighter aircraft, but not the only one) ;
- more emphasis on the AtoG role (Fighter/Bomber) than on the AtoA (Fighter) role that was prevalent for UK ;
- Dassault's & SNECMA's weight ;)

Ah, must be that i got mixed up with!

-RP

And I bet it used oil to warm the fuel...


Heat exchangers, a beautiful thing

Perhaps they only joined Eurofighter to **** things up enough to ensure Rafale got a head start.

WW,

You're not the first person to consider that idea. Some did say at the time that they joined the programme, imposed almost intollerable restrictions on it (most notably size and mass) and then left. Only to produce their excellent aircraft well ahead of ours. Of course they weren't in a consortium then to slow things down.

But that's all just a flight of fancy. What a lovely jet they made too.

As John Farley eloquently pointed out I am sure that EF could take off from QEC given the right conditions. However, having seen the BAES pitch to sell marinised Typhoon to the Indians, the back end of the fuselage structure needed alot of work to beef it up enough to regularly take a wire.

BAES have some excellent people and technically they could make it work I am sure. But for how much...? Balance that against loss of income from the UK pulling out of F-35 and I'm not sure BAES would advise the D of T&I and MOD that it's a good idea. Of course if the programme gets axed by the US then there is no choice but I truly believe that will not happen.

Courtney :ok:
The Rafale is a very pretty, and apparently very useful, aeroplane.
The fact it is so AtoG capable unfortunately makes theTyphoon look a bit Johnny-come-lately to the party.

WhiteOvies,

Surely the choice then becomes F-18?

I'm not an unashamed F-18 advocate but I'd suggest that it (or perhaps Rafale) is a much more likely choice than a navalised Typhoon.

I think after Bosnia the french realized AtoG was a more urgent requirement then intercepting russian bombers. So they changed the requirements and created a complete two seater that has become the main variant for the French airforce.

The German also saw the requirements changing but felt the pressure not to change the Typhoon contract. They tried to sneak out but couldn't..

The insight that air to ground, range and a two man cockpit was needed grew slow, very slow in the UK. Tranche III, if accepted, on this interceptor would make it a very expensive, large RCS, agile, short range, single cockpit attack aircraft..

Maybe keep the Tornado's some longer and work on something more suitable for the next 20 yrs?

The requirements weren't changed "after Bosnia". The Rafale was from the start thought as a multirole (or omnirole, as Dassault sells it).
The first aircrafts to replace were:
- the Jaguar for the AdlA (pure striker, hence the AtoG importance from the start)
- the Crusader for the MN (pure fighter, navalised)
... and then, all the fighters/bombers in the French inventory.

BTW, the 2 seater doesn't seem that much needed. Indeed, after several years of use, France choosed to have "only" 1 pilot for most missions (even in 2 seaters aircrafts) be it AtoA or AtoG. The exception being the nuclear strike (pilot+WSO), and the conversion course (student+FI). Perhaps also some "high profile" raids, with long-range weapons (SCALP), but it's not a "requirement", more a consequence of the specialist squadron for that kind of weapons being the nuclear-able 1/91 Gascogne with its WSOs.

The French wanted carrier capability, which restricted both size in general (note that the Raf has no folding wings) and radar antenna size in particular because of over-the-nose visibility.

The French were also more keen on the ability to carry a big external payload (eg, two effin big tanks and a nuclear missile) than on supersonic maneuver, which was a big part of the UK-German requirement.

Finally, the Frogs intimated later that they did not like the very high degree of pitch instability in the Anglo-German concept, which is how the Phoon does supersonic maneuver without being F-22-sized and which did indeed cause some trouble. But the Frogs did say that after the Typhoon had hit trouble, so they may have just wanted to sound smart.

What about Sea Gripen, anyway? Not sure of STOBAR range-payload - but I bet it can do 450 nm HMMH with 2 x 1000 lb + 2 x AAM...

Would Sea Gripen, in these straitened times, not fit the same buffers as Sea Typhoon - in that it's not available in the flesh yet?

(Not saying it's not a lovely option, mind...)

The Great British CEPP Handicap Stakes
 

Lowe Flieger wins 2 free Internetz.

Norfolk and Chance is an attractive bet ..

Let's Parler Franglais
 

No. 7 reminds me of Miles Kington's great motto for the French Navy...

'To the water. It is the hour!'

(A l'eau. C'est l'heure!)

Courtney,
Your memory is correct, the Phantom Spey reheat nozzle had its own dedicated oil system. In fact there were four separate oil systems, engine, reheat, constant speed drive and the starter. I had a look in my cupboard full of things I was supposed to throw away and my Phantom and Buccaneer aircrew manuals are still there. I think the Avon in the Lightning had a fueldraulic driven nozzle which may have contributed to its propensity to catch fire at the back end. I guess the dynamic seals on a set of fueldraulic actuators next to a very hot jet pipe would be a pretty challenging design requirement.
Walbut