It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Naval Typhoon

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 08:25 PM
Britain in battle with US over fighter plane

BRITAIN is threatening to pull out of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a co-operative combat-aircraft project with America that is one of the largest military programmes in the world.

The move, confirmed to The Sunday Times by senior defence officials, could have serious repercussions for BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, Britain’s two main contributors to the project.

BAE is part of the consortium developing the plane, and had expected revenues of about $24 billion (£13.8 billion) in development and production contracts.

Rolls-Royce is developing the lift fan for the vertical take-off version, and is working with its American rival, General Electric, on an alternative engine for the aircraft.

The JSF was to have equipped the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers. The “Plan B” being worked on is a version of the Eurofighter Typhoon adapted for the navy. The Typhoon recently entered service with the RAF after long delays and cost overruns.

Defence-industry sources say negotiations on the “Tranche 3” Eurofighter contract, under which Britain will take the last 88 of the 232 orders, now encompassed the issues needed to be addressed to make the aircraft fly from a carrier.


What do you guys make of this. Is it possible for britian to build a aircraft carrier for the Eurofighter. Or is the US going to share codes?.

Would this increases sales for the Eurofighter?

[edit on 4-12-2005 by chinawhite]

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 08:40 PM
possible confirguration?
external image

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 09:09 PM
I call their bluff.

It will cost the UK a lot more to make a naval typhoon and redo their carriers then it would to just stay with the JSF. Besides, the JSF offers something that the Typhoon does not, and that is a high level of stealthiness.

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 09:15 PM
What would be britians best choice for its requirement.

But if the US doesn't give them the codes to launch their own missiles or the Fly by wire codes. will it cost britian more in tactical capability to stay with the F-35 or have more flexibility to have their own system?

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:30 AM
The new carriers have been designed with through life flexability. This included that at some point in their 50 year life span they might need to launch a plane with cats. They have therefore been designed 'for but not with' cats and arrester gear (basically means the spaces they would normally take have been left empty). The decks are strong enough to take eurofighters if needed and the magazines can hold the eurofighter weapons fit. Changing the planes flying off the carriers is not going to cost much more than current estimates.

Also Bae and partners have always had the idea for a navalised version of the eurofighter on the back burner. early planning already exists for this so it would not be a major challenge either.

If they are going to do this then they really should do it sooner rather than later! before they start cutting steel.

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:20 AM

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I call their bluff.

It will cost the UK a lot more to make a naval typhoon and redo their carriers then it would to just stay with the JSF. Besides, the JSF offers something that the Typhoon does not, and that is a high level of stealthiness.

You forgot that this isnt just about the money.
With an Eurofighter solution they would have:

full control over the aircraft´s systems;

a common system (so large parts of training of aircrew and technical staff could be done within existing structures and cooperation with the Royal Airforce;

it would decrease the JSF attractiveness and thus increase export chances for the Typhoon (and eventual following aircraft by the Eurofighter GmbH) which would lead to more direct revenues out of their workshare in this aircraft;

a Eurofighter tranche 3 makes numerous very attractive upgrades possible and possibily lower the price while at the same time the STOVL JSF would get more expensive while having severe technical restrictions because of the lift fan;

it has a big influence on a joint european-based warplane industry which could lead to a good income source once established - the decision to go for a navalized Typhoon will have a good influence on the fighter market for decades to come.

The JSF´s level of "stealthiness" remains to be seen as there has not a pre-production model yet, only prototypes. One should keep in mind that many "stealthy" features were cut back so as not to increase the price too much, and the aircraft is labeled "low-observable" instead of "stealth" for a reason.

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:29 AM

They could go with the Rafale and reduce development costs dramatically!

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:32 AM
What I think should happen is that the Sea Typhoon goes ahead hand in hand with a BAE/EADS joint programme for a stealth UCAV based on previously developed technologies for its starting point, this will ensure continuation of the Anglo-German- Italian+ anyone else who wants to join partnership in top end defence technology and go some way to reducing Europes dependency on America for defence technologies. If the Sea Typhoon is built I cannot foresee the Royal Navy acquiring more than 80ish of them, therefore it would be essential for the Marineflieger to also join this programme, maybe buying 100-140 of them and thus restoring parity between Britan and Germany in the Eurofighter consortium. The other reasons have been posted by Lonestar and are correct.

What I think WILL happen is, however, quite different. I foresee a lot of bluster and noise from the UK who will, after several behind closed doors meetings, capitulate completely and not only affirm the UK position on F-35 but also sign up for the X-45 as well while they are about it

The trouble witht eh F-35 really, as far as I'm concerned, is that nobody outside the immediate programme really knows what it is like. Don't be kidded into thinking it is just an X-35 with weapons. There is every possibility that what could emerge is an awesome warplane that the UK will kick itself for abandoning. On the other hand it could turn out to be distinctly average and leave a lot of people in Britain saying "so, tell me again, why did we buy this instead of more Typhoons?"

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:56 AM
Although i do admire US planes, I still think we should have the Naval Typhoon, It is a real jet fighter not like these VTOL Harrier things. It uses two jet engines which are preferred by the Navy and would be a better move for the British/European defence aviation industry.

The Eurofighter programme has been going since the mid 1970s and has just entered service now so we may as well go for this Naval Typhoon after all these years.

I do like some yank stuff but i dont like the way they think they own everything but then again look what they have compared to the rest of the world!.

Wanna compare Aircraft? Get on this site!

Ere's another one!

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Browno]

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 05:58 AM
the most important question is:

What would they call it???!

Naval typhoon and sea typhoon don't sound good.

how about a Euofighter Tsunami???

I am sure you could do better

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:06 AM
Well if that a name which is nostalgic and a strong name then you can`t do any better than

Sea Fury.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 07:58 AM
I've always thought that Tsunami would be a brilliant name for a fighter in the British 'Weather' tradition. I used the name 'Sea Typhoon' because everytime the RN adopts an RAF type for service it just sticks 'Sea' in front of the name. Its not very original but its a sort of tradition, hence- Sea Hurricane, Sea Fury, Sea Vixen, Sea Harrier etc.

There have been exceptions such as when the 1930's Hawker Fury was named 'Hawker Nimrod' and there are the planes that were adopted purely by the Navy such as the Scimitar and Attacker.

It could be worse though, the naval Spitfire was called the Seafire, so they might call this one the 'Seaphoon'

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:17 AM
Seaphoon? This comes to my mind:

Anyway, Tsunami would be out of the question for obvious reasons (Thailand anyone?). "Hurricane" has often been used before. What about "Cyclone"?

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 10:03 AM
Waynos - i think its imptressive that a Sea Fury actually shot down a MiG-15!!

But yes , Sea Typhoon would probably be the name

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:25 PM
Grumman are mad on Cats, Republic are mad on Thunder, Panavia/Eurofighter are mad on storm conditions. For the next Eurofighter How about Heatwave, Shockwave, Tsunami, or somthing futuristic like Osiris, Paradox, Fusion, Anhilator, Obliterator, Devastator or some other sick mad codename for the next fighter.

Kind of like 'Cobra' for a codename but that has already been used for the prototype YF-17 that lead to the F/A-18 Hornet.

How about Pistol/Revolver names such as Magnum, Double Eagle, King Cobra, Python or Diamondback, you know stuff like that.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Anyway, Tsunami would be out of the question for obvious reasons (Thailand anyone?). "Hurricane" has often been used before. What about "Cyclone"?

Yes, the lilly livered PC brigade would be in uproar if Tsunami was used, shame though as it imparts exactly the image you would want for your new fighter - an overwhelming force wreaking devastation - perfect.

Harlequin - you know the bad thing about the Sea Fury shooting down a MiG 15?

It gave the UK Govt an excuse not to rush the re-equipment of the FAA with jets, not that they ever need much excuse to delay or scrap stuff over here.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 07:54 PM
when i was making this thread i actually called it the Tsunami becauses on the thread i got this information was actually thinking along the same lines as you guys are now.

Any future for the EF in india?.

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 01:16 AM

Originally posted by chinawhite
Any future for the EF in india?.

No. Its too expensive in the numbers they would need. And they already have the US and Russian lobbyists fighting to death over there, a serious european bidding would be flattened by them in no time.

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 04:36 PM
Personally, I believe that the UK is posturing, perhaps rightly so, in respect to their threat to pullout of the JSF program, or the JSF CV variant, and build a naval variant of the Typhoon. The issue here is that the UK wants full access and transfer of JSF technology and control, thus creating competition with Lockheed Martin, on their F-35's. The US is and has been basically hesitant in making the BAE any more competitive with Lockheed Martin and like companies than BAE already is.

The Typhoon, EF-2000, is a very nice aircraft, but the concern is that anytime you decide to make a carrier version/variant [CV] of a land based design it, one, it never seems to go as planned [ex: T-45A Goshawk, etc.], two, it will be expensive, and three, takes a considerable amount of time. A naval variant of the Typhoon would [based upon assumtion] arrive many years after the JSF/F-35 naval variant, the F-35C. Furthermore, as indicated above, the naval variant of the Typhoon would be much more expensive considering that there would be no shared R&D costs as with the JSF program, the naval variant of the Typhoon would have two motors vs one for the JSF, more added costs.

The UK's mere consideration of naval variant Typhoon is a message to the US, in that basically, if the US refuses to totally grant the UK total access and tech transfer of the JSF, it may well be in the best interests of the UK to pay the extra costs and time to go it alone, exit the JSF program in total or at least in the JSF CV variant, and build their own naval variant of the Typhoon. In doing so, the UK will lag behind in having a Gen. 5 naval variant aircraft, for as mentioned, I do believe that the naval variant may in service before the naval variant of the Typhoon.


[edit on 27-12-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 05:30 PM
All of the above makes good sense. Coincidentally, when you mention the T-45 and the problems that might be encountered when converting a land based aircraft to a carrier based one, when I first read of this idea (Sea Typhoon) I was immediately struck by the thought of how difficult De Havilland found it was to turn the DH.110 into the Sea Vixen. There too, the aircraft ended up entering service a generation too late, debuting in 1960 when the USN was introducing the F-4.

Regarding the point you made about the UK then lagging behind though, I wonder if it is really a choice of lagging behind or not, or rather just how far we lag behind. It might be argued that having total control of a slightly lesser aircraft (though not in all respects) might be prefereble to being spanner monkeys on the F-35, perhaps?

For what its worth I belive the MoD and Govt in general lack the conviction to see any 'Sea Typhoon' through to service when they can be spoon fed the F-35 instead. Also the point that the F-35C might well be in service first anyway is spot on.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in