posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 06:15 AM
Originally posted by 74Templar
reply to post by justwokeup
I'd have to agree the Rafale M is the tried and true alternative, or even the better option than the F35B. Is there even a navalised version of the
Typhoon? I thought they were Air Force only at this stage. You're also right in saying it's not just a simple matter to navalise any aircraft. Most
naval aviators regard carrier landings as a controlled crash, so the airframe has to be up to the stress of carrier life if it is going to even
The funniest part would be to see French, or even US (the FA18E or even the F as an option) with Royal Navy markings though, considering the British
heritage of many of the past aircraft.
Despite all this, I don't think the Royal Navy will shy away from the F35s unless something goes completely awry, the UK has far too much money
invested to throw it away on alternative aircraft, even if the F35 winds up being way behind schedule.
Navalised Typhoon is a paper (or CATIA file these days) aeroplane. It only exists as a Bae concept. Last I heard they were touting it to the Indian
navy. It needs the new (never fielded) Eurofighter Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system to make it controllable in the slow approach to the deck. That
right there tells you its the wrong airframe.
I can see the F-35B being cancelled forcing the UK government to do another U turn and order catapults again (which they probably should have done in
the first place). Any of the options (F-35C, F-18, Rafale M) would give the UK a carrier strike aircraft it hasn't had in decades. To be honest i'd
be happy with either, given the capability the FAA wrung out of the Sea Harrier by the end they'll make any of those very effective indeed.
Catapults bring other advantages, it means we can use the E-2D for a proper persistent fleet AEW platform rather than another wheezing helicopter AEW.
If you are going to have a big carrier you should do it properly.