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

Must be cheaper to modify the obsolescent trance 1 Typhoons than buying new F35's though...................................................... ....... possibly?

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.

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?)

Do read the article before posting kenparry

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.

That's the cheap stuff dealt with, now lets talk about the software modifications :hmm:

Mayhap those changes do constitute kenparry's stated requirements of:

-- so maybe he did read the article?

Sounds like one of those BAE dream sheets like Skyhook & SCADS

Let's look at the picture then...

http://www.asdnews.com/data_news/ID33692_600.jpg

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...

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/119...0A760B0D811297

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

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 ! :ok::ok:

If BAE were tasked with it, the carrier would be out of service !
And would it then be axed as too costly ? :confused:

how about this one instead, at least the navalised version development is already underway.

When a sword arm is worth it

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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?

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?