Sea Typhoons and those front canards

No it wouldn’t. India isn’t going to buy SeaPhoon. Neither is anybody else. STOBAR aircraft will always be inferior to CATOBAR because despite what the salesmen claim, STOBAR means leaving either some fuel or payload behind on the deck. CATOBAR means taking everything including the kitchen sink with you!:diablo:

The ideal is the exact opposite of STOBAR; Catapult launch for max fuel and payload, followed by vertical landing. P1154 anyone?;):D

You’d only need cat attachments if you’re mixing with CATOBAR aircraft. It would provide no benefit to a large axial deck.

Re that computer graphic above: How much sense does it make to have an angled deck on a ski-jump carrier? Was wondering the same on the Russian carrier for a long time.

The What if it misses the wires? You’re sending the aircraft barreling towards aircraft ready for takeoff or parking on the bow. The Axial deck has nothing to do with catapults, it came into being because the Royal Navy and US Navy/Marines corps were losing planes when pilots boltered in jets. The Axial deck given them a place to power up and come back around or slide safely (for everyone else, the pilot not so much) into the sea.

BAE are really trying to make sure that the fact that the French offering is both land and Sea Based doesnt lose them the contract.

Otherwise there are no customers for this jet.

Basically, yes. India has been hinting that they would prefer to buy the same aircraft for their future carriers that they do for this Air Force contract. This puts the Eurofighter at a disadvantage. They basically had to come up with something, basically last minute, to stay in the running. They can always tell the Indians after the fact that it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually working.

Sea typhoon doesn’t make sense.

The Typhoon is already more expensive than a Rafale, and less maintenance friendly. Adding thrust vectoring will add complexity, cost and delay, when you’ve got the Rafale that’s available off the shelf.

I understand that the UK would go to great lenght to buy Typhoons instead of Rafales to favour local industry (then again why would they buy F35s and not Typhoons then?), but for an export customer it doesn’t make much sense to pay the extra development and maintenance costs to get Typhoons.

BTW this canard position probably has an impact on visibiliy for CAS and ground attack missions.

Nic

This has been discussed at length elsewhere. Eurofighter now says that with TVC, the angle of attack for approach to a carrier deck can be such that the canards would not be a visual obstruction. Without TVC, they are in the way.

Is that all that TVC adds to the feasibility/practicality of Sea Typhoon or does it contribute in other ways also?

and the part about basic design is strong so no need to modify the structure… that part pretty much is pure horse manure.

No it wouldn’t. India isn’t going to buy SeaPhoon. Neither is anybody else. STOBAR aircraft will always be inferior to CATOBAR because despite what the salesmen claim, STOBAR means leaving either some fuel or payload behind on the deck. CATOBAR means taking everything including the kitchen sink with you!:diablo:

The ideal is the exact opposite of STOBAR; Catapult launch for max fuel and payload, followed by vertical landing. P1154 anyone?;):D

no,
really it depends on what your stall speeds are for your aircraft and how big of a engine you have so can get to that speeds.

something like an crop duster would have no problem taking off the deck with or with out the help of the cat, with MTOW.

that being said. there is also a penalty to CATOBAR. your nose gear and fwd main structure needs to be redesigned – meaning weight increase – to make sure they don’t rip off when that cat is fired.

I give you another option:

a ski-ramp with an catapault. best of two worlds. :p

STOBAR typhoon that can take off with full fuel & weopons has surely got to be better than the f35c for the queen elisabeth class of carrier? maybe that would encourage india aswell saying that britain is 100% behind typhoon,

No it wouldn’t. India isn’t going to buy SeaPhoon. Neither is anybody else. STOBAR aircraft will always be inferior to CATOBAR because despite what the salesmen claim, STOBAR means leaving either some fuel or payload behind on the deck. CATOBAR means taking everything including the kitchen sink with you!:diablo:

The ideal is the exact opposite of STOBAR; Catapult launch for max fuel and payload, followed by vertical landing. P1154 anyone?;):D

STOBAR typhoon that can take off with full fuel & weopons has surely got to be better than the f35c for the queen elisabeth class of carrier? maybe that would encourage india aswell saying that britain is 100% behind typhoon,

Re that computer graphic above: How much sense does it make to have an angled deck on a ski-jump carrier? Was wondering the same on the Russian carrier for a long time.

A great deal of sense. The angled deck is for landing on non VL capable aircraft with a tailhook and allows those that miss the wire to ‘Bolt’ over the end of the angled deck and have another go, missing the aircraft parked forward and the Ski Jump. The latter ramp is for launching only.

Yes I can see where you were going, why not fit the arrestor wires axially in line with the ski jump so any Bolting aircraft just takes off again over the ramp?

Bad Idea. The Bolter would get airborne again, probably minus it’s undercarriage. Ski Jump Ramps have maximum entry speeds which are far below the avareage speed of a Bolter, because going up the ramp puts a great deal of stress on the nosewheel in particular. Typical ramp exit speed is only around 80 Knots, whereas landing speed on the angled deck is closer to 130+knots, and if the aircraft Bolts then it is accelerating as well. If it then had to go up the ramp the dynamic stress on the nosewheel would break it, if not the first time then soon after. Aircraft launching by ski jump have to adjust their ramp entry speed depending on how heavily loaded they are for their sortie.

Re that computer graphic above: How much sense does it make to have an angled deck on a ski-jump carrier? Was wondering the same on the Russian carrier for a long time.

As much of a fan of the Typhoon i am, its all very well saying an aircraft is carrier capable, with TVC added on, and CFT’S, but these are things, that if i am correct were originally slated for land based variants, along with the AESA radar, and they havn’t materialised yet. If they were produced like the original specifications then some of the models coming online would be able to highlight some of these points.

BAE are really trying to make sure that the fact that the French offering is both land and Sea Based doesnt lose them the contract.

Otherwise there are no customers for this jet.

(Apologies if this is a re-post)

Source: Eurofighter Typhoon press release
Eurofighter Naval Version makes debut at Aero India 2011
February 21, 2011 by Marcel van Leeuwen

At Aero India 2011 Eurofighter and partner company BAE Systems unveiled for the first time more details about the studies carried out for the initial definition of the navalised version of the Typhoon.

These studies have included the assessment of required design changes, piloted simulations to refine the aircraft’s handling qualities and discussions with key suppliers. The studies indicate that these changes are feasible, and would lead to the development of a world-beating, carrier-based fighter aircraft.

The most important element of the navalised Typhoon is that its exceptional thrust-to-weight ratio allows the aircraft to take off from a carrier without using a catapult but with a simple and much cheaper “ski-jump”. Detailed simulations have shown that the aircraft will be able to take off and land in this way with a full weapon and fuel load – providing a truly potent and flexible naval aviation capability.

The basic design of Typhoon helps to minimise the modifications needed to allow a Typhoon to conduct naval operations from a carrier. The aircraft’s structure is exceptionally strong, having been designed from the outset for the high dynamic loads associated with extreme air combat manoeuvring. The modifications required are limited and include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and localised strengthening on some fuselage sections near the landing gear, as well as updates the EJ200 engines.

To reduce the aircraft’s approach speed and the resulting landing loads the study envisages the introduction of a thrust-vectored variant of the Eurojet EJ200 engine. Thrust vectoring (Engines with TVN have already undergone factory testing in the Eurojet facility) could be fully integrated into Typhoon’s advanced Flight Control System (FCS), allowing the pilot to focus on flying the approach path while the FCS manages the engine nozzle position. The ability to change the angle of the engines’ thrust will allow for a further enhancement in Typhoon’s already outstanding manoeuvrability, supercruise performance, fuel consumption and the handling of asymmetric weapon configurations.

A key design driver for navalised Typhoon is the commonality at 95 per cent with the land variant. Design changes are minimised, allowing for most of the spare parts and test equipment to be shared across a customer’s air force and navy fleets. The sensors, systems and weapons available to both variants will be common, allowing for a reduction in the aircrew training requirements. And in addition, the two variants will benefit from a common upgrade path – new capabilities will be available to both the air force and navy in similar timescales. A navalised Typhoon can deliver this commonality, without compromising on capability.

This has been discussed at length elsewhere. Eurofighter now says that with TVC, the angle of attack for approach to a carrier deck can be such that the canards would not be a visual obstruction. Without TVC, they are in the way.