It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Q281 ROBERT KEY: Is a marinised Typhoon still an option?
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: That is not being looked at, no.
Q282 ROBERT KEY: What discussions have you been having with the French about the possibility of purchasing a French aircraft that could fly on the French aircraft carriers and the British aircraft carriers?
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: I have not been having any.
Originally posted by FredT
Its a shame that they are not considering a naval variant of the EF-2000 :shk: and seems shortsided to me.
Q290 CHAIRMAN: And the aircraft carriers that we are building would be big enough, would they, to take the carrier version?
Dr Tyler: Yes, absolutely. One of the assumptions on the carrier design was that the carrier's flight deck needed to be of a sufficient length that, should you wish to, you could convert. In fact, the space underneath the flight deck has actually been left in order so that should you wish to in the future fit the catapults and the traps, which sit immediately under the flight deck, you would be able to do that. In fact, there are designs which actually show how that would be fitted in the event that you wanted to change the carrier over to a conventional take-off on the carrier. You might want to do that for any number of reasons; it was not just uncertainty around the JSF programme per se, it was in order to keep that option open
Originally posted by waynos
In the report it is made pretty clear that the Rafale is not even being considered as an option, neither is the Super Hornet (ohh, shame ) which is what I was referring to with my last post. You might think that alternatives were at least being looked at.
Originally posted by Now_Then
IMO the EF2000 is to, well, 'flimsy' is not he right word, light weight maybe? to be a good carrier aircraft - it's more of a thoroughbred, treat it nice and you get rewarded.
Carrier based craft have to take punishing landings - the JSF airframe looks like a better option - it's beefier, will take the punishment of carrier landings.
Originally posted by Now_Then
reply to post by RichardPrice
Well traditionally the air frames that withstand carrier landings are heavier and the landing gear very substantial. It's easier to explain if I get some pics..
*snip*
See the way the rear landing gear seems quite light weight. And how it mounts in the wing, quite far out from the body? That IMO would not make for good repeated 'hard' landings such as you get on an aircraft carrier.