Converting a land base aircraft to naval use is not as easy as some (Bae SAAB) would have us believe.
Anybody in a position of authority who seriously advocates a Naval Typhoon should be shot at dawn and there head placed on a spike over traitors gate, because for the damage such a project would achieve to the defence budget that is what their actions would amount to.
regards
So the initial problem was the nose, right now, its the canard, the angle of aproach and marinisation… By the end of this talk we are going to end on the paint.
1º “I refer you to mine and others comments regarding A of A”
Because that particular problem was not adressed by industry far back has 2001, when two diferent designs were proposed by Eurofighter GMBH to the Marina Militare to use in the NUM. One of those designs ended up in the latest Eurofighter world with the Indian colors. Have a good look at that design, there are two engines with TVC on the back end of it.
2º “There is a proposed suggestion as i stated to blow air accross the deck to reduce the A of A so asto improve landing visibility because the Canards impair landing visibility, this soloution would not be proposed if it wasnt required and it wouldnt be required if there wasnt an issue QED typhoon has restrictions on forward visibility on landing”
There´s?!! That´s something i would love to see! Can you show it?
I might be wrong but i have the idea that this particular “proposal” was made by someone who completely misunderstooding the “Navalised Typhoon PDF”.
3º “Yes very good 2 rough field capable aircraft (so the gear is much tougher already) that dont catapult launch thus removing this stress.
It is probable the aft fuselage has been beefed up for the tail hook.
Arrested landings are very stressful on the airframe and the surrounding structure has to be very robust and thus equally heavy in the typhoon this would be dead weight so it has not got this structural strength.
See the f35 thread for the problems it would cause if they have to relocate the tailhook.”
Off course that it would weight more, and the aircraft would have to be beefed up but even if you had two entire tons to that particular airframe you would still end up with better statistics on TW and weight loading than that of a SU33.
And the woos with the F-35 C tailhook have nothing to do in here, unlike Dave there´s ample space in the Typhoon to maintain a decent distance between the landing gear and the tailhook.
4º “That should have stated if required, however again you are flat out wrong harrier had to be marinised to become Sea harrier (magnesium removed from exposed structure)
WAH 64 has been subject to an awfull lot of corrosion prevention and treatment to marinise it.”
I am flatly right. Marinisation has been done to an awfull lot of airframes, aircrafts and helicopters and there´s nothing to prevent that being done on the Typhoon. That was precisely my point.
5º “Anybody in a position of authority who seriously advocates a Naval Typhoon should be shot at dawn and there head placed on a spike over traitors gate, because for the damage such a project would achieve to the defence budget that is what their actions would amount to.”
Completely agree, after spending more than two billion pouns on “Dave” the British MOD would have to be run by someone wearing a tin hat to seriously consider that one…
Sign In
