Originally posted by stratsys-sws
I agree that a navalised Typhoon would pretty much need to be designed from the ground up.

And there in lies the issue

Why not just go for a JSF variant? And I think that's what they are ultimately doing.

Originally posted by stratsys-sws

1. High Alpha required at the slow speeds needed for carrier landings obscuring pilots view, potentially made worse by the canards

Never been an issue before - procedures have been in place for many years to minimise the effect of lower visibility on carrier approach.

2. Undercarriage Specification

As noted previously, the current Eurofighter is specced to rough field level, so it wouldn't require as much upgrading as expected.

3. Deck clearance of weapons

The center pylon has more clearance than the F/A-18 does, while the rest of the pylons are forward of the main gear.

4. Deck Mounting Points/access

All Eurofighters already have tie down points.

5. Anti-Corrosion coatings required in high moisture/salt environment

The Eurofighter is built to export standard, meaning all parts are already certificated to the standard required.

6. Re-certification of pretty much every component for carrier ops!

You wouldn't have to recert anywhere near 'pretty much every' component - uprate the landing gear, and all you really need to certify is the airframe, powerplant and avionics. Of which 90% of the standard would already have been achieved during export certing.

Can anyone explain how delaying the carriers by two years reduces costs? We will be paying for the programme for 2 more years and in that time prices will go up, they never go down.

Anyone else also see the irony in the fact that we can only afford to buy new equipment if we don't get involved in any situations where we might actually have to use it.

Originally posted by waynos
Can anyone explain how delaying the carriers by two years reduces costs?

It doesn't make it any cheaper at all, but what it does do is delay the cost of the carriers from appearing on the governments financial balance sheet until after the next election (if the carriers aren't canceled totally) meaning that the next government in power after this shambles is replaced will have to pick up the tab then.

Or just make the Typhoon with a different landing gear layout suitable for carrier landing, should have been made like that to start with.

The Navy these days are getting the 'second best' fighter aircraft. The USN with the Superhornet/F-35 and the USAF with the F-22.

Originally posted by Cutaway
Or just make the Typhoon with a different landing gear layout suitable for carrier landing, should have been made like that to start with.

The Navy these days are getting the 'second best' fighter aircraft. The USN with the Superhornet/F-35 and the USAF with the F-22.

How exactly is the F-22 "second best" Id sure like to see the beast flying around today that is better than the F-22

Its nto just a matter of simply putting heavy duty landing gear on the Typhoon and sending it on its way. The airframe must be strengthened as well. If you look at the JSF A and C models the differences in weight are noteowrthy.

Its hard to adapt a existing platform for carrier service unless these things are there from the beginning.

Since the US Navy hasn't got F22 I think he means Superhornet/F-35 is second best to F22

Originally posted by deckard83
Since the US Navy hasn't got F22 I think he means Superhornet/F-35 is second best to F22

Your right your right I clearly mis read that post

Working in the aviation industry I can tell you that if there was ever going to have been a carrier based Typhoon/EF2000 then the airframe would have been designed to require little or no modification for that change. Systems, LG and Propulsion might be affected but the airframe would be designed to cope with any future upgrade that was on the books. Furthermore, any alternate model of the plane would be the prerogative of the Design firms responsible for EF2000,any marketing for this would already have been done so this General will almost certainly not have been involved in any discussion of this as it would have occured some time ago.

It takes a staggering amount of work and time to design a plane from scratch, this isnt't like your car. Conceptualised design starts as far as 20 years ahead of the manufacturing.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by stratsys-sws

1. High Alpha required at the slow speeds needed for carrier landings obscuring pilots view, potentially made worse by the canards

Never been an issue before - procedures have been in place for many years to minimise the effect of lower visibility on carrier approach.

True.. The Rafale seems to do ok with canards on the carrier deck. Also the supposed J-10 would have the same hurdle to overcome; if it was a hurdle. The nose down, cockpit forward concept should compensate for any of this I think.

As noted previously, the current Eurofighter is specced to rough field level, so it wouldn't require as much upgrading as expected.

That might be a problem. The considerations for naval catapult launched and arrester recovery u/c are immense. Not to mention the High rate of descent + High AoA landings; but then again, nothing a normal a/c carrier conversion program wouldn't handle. Its been done to numerous a/c over the ages and the UK has more than enough experience + expertise to work this out.

3. Deck clearance of weapons
....
The center pylon has more clearance than the F/A-18 does, while the rest of the pylons are forward of the main gear.

Interesting point.. I have heard of technical complications when IN Harriers would fly with Sea Eagle AS missiles on wing pylons (center pylon not an option). Conducting a vertical landing with only one missile on either wing was apparently a nightmare. I can't recollect where I heard this. Any similar experiences in the RN etc?

5. Anti-Corrosion coatings required in high moisture/salt environment
....
The Eurofighter is built to export standard, meaning all parts are already certificated to the standard required.

Standard conversion process. Like I said, done to many an a/c, so its not rocket science.
Carrier conversion is not a big deal. Definitely cheaper in teh longer run when compared to setting up logistics and infra for a completely new a/c.

Regarding only the visibility issue mention in the above post, the big difference between the Rafale and Typhoon is that the Rafale has its canards mounted behind the pilot, Typhoons are ahead of him. This gives a greater moment arm and greater agility on the Typhoon, but I can see how it might present a visibility issue for deck landings by comparison with the French aircraft. I don't actaully think it does cause a problem, but I can see the logic of how it might.