nocutstoRAFIf it happened we would be talking about something like CN-235MP/MPA.
How easy would it be for the FAA to crew the CN-235MPA (or any other LRMPA)? I can see them finding it fairly easy to crew S-3’s, and even to integrate sensor systems similar to those used on the Merlin’s but surely the CN-235MPA would need a much larger crew, I searched but could find any reference to it crewing requirements?
Also I cannot find any mention that the CN-235MPA can launch sonar buoy’s does anyone have a reference to it ability to deploy sonar buoy’s?
nocutstoRAFI think it can be said with 99.99% certainty that a naval Typhoon will never happen! None of the Eurofighter partner nations want it… The Eurofighter consortium might suggest they have solutions to the problems of a carrier capable Typhoon but there are just two many what if’s!
The talk of a navalised Typhoon is purely a spoiler by the Eurofighter partners to persuade the Indian gov that they have the best technology offset. Frankly I see it as a bit of an own goal.
Eurofighter GmbH knows that production ends in 2015. With that also manned tactical aircraft manufacturing in Germany and Britain. They’ll try almost anything to keep it alive.
Earlier I said the Naval Typhoon concept was a game changer – the key point I failed to say (let alone make clear) is that if you can make it work for a Typhoon who are claiming that if you build a fighter capable of handling high g’s and angles of attack that you can modify them for STOBAR operation with TVN and they can they operate with a decent payload, then in theory this extends to any similar sort of fighter aircraft. IMO this means STOBAR stops being a poor choice for carrier operations and becomes the default mode of operation for those countries who cannot afford EMALS/EMCAT.
To be honest I think that selling the carriers off is more likely that Naval Typhoon or Gripen given the current circumstances, but I also think that given the troubles that the MoD are having with 2011/12 budget that the must be very tempted to go with a STOBAR carrier, minimal up-front costs to modify QE, and lower operational costs as they do not need any shooters for the catapults and both LM and Boeing have claimed the F-35 and F/A-18 International can operate off STOBAR carriers.
nocutstoRAFNAVAL TYPHOON a Game changer
This is a (worst of all worlds) STOBAR design so the forward gear doesn’t have to be strengthened for cat launches.
Personally, I think it is a game changer, before Eurofighter wheeled out the Sea Typhoon at Aero India, the last we heard about Sea Typhoon was that it simply was not possible due to the canards blocking the pilots view in landings. Now Eurofighter are claiming that vectored thrust will not only solve this problem but that the Sea Typhoon can launch with full fuel load, and an impressive weapon load and bring back the weapons. If all true then it changes STOBAR from being a poor choice due to the need to launch fighters with minimal fuel, without any drop tanks and top them off using tankers, to a pretty decent choice.
I think you are right to question is it realistic, but I have to think that Eurofighter at least is convinced otherwise why pitch a STOBAR fighter to what is now likely the most experienced operator of STOBAR carriers in the world and who have just developed LCA (N) for operation off STOBAR carriers and therefore intimately familiar with the design issues unless you think it could work.
nocutstoRAFGiven the Naval Typhoon mostly includes features that Eurofighter want to develop for Tranche 3B (TVN and conformal tanks) then Eurofighter must be aiming to persuade India to develop and bring in the Naval Typhoon around 2017 after complete delivery of Tranche 3A? Any later and the production line would likely close as I cannot see any evidence that anyone will order Tranche 3B.
nocutstoRAFSnippet of more info on the Naval Typhoon from Aero India, apparently BAE’s simulations show that a Naval Typhoon fitted with TVN and spoiler at the leading edge wing roots can take off and land from a ski jump equipped carrier carrying a full mission payload of 2 Storm Shadow, 4 BVR missiles, 2 IR missiles, 1 centreline fuel tank and 2 conformal tanks.
Not clear what the bring back weight would be, I am betting that you would need to dump most of your fuel, and most of your munitions to actually land!
nocutstoRAFi have been on holiday, can someone please tell me why the UK is “going to dump the F35C”?
As well as the marketing material pitched at India, Eurofighter put out a general puff piece on Defence Talk about how Eurofighter countries had been further developing a Sea Typhoon for STOBAR operations and it could take off with a full fuel and weapon load.
Reading between the lines it sounds like that following the BAE design study from a few years ago (was it around 2006?) they have worked out how to solve the problem of the canards blocking the view in high angle of attack landings by using TVN. I think this is what has sparked some speculation, and personally I am interested to work out what would happen to global Typhoon sales if India did buy the Typhoon and produce a naval version.
With regard to Naval Typhoon, the Eurofighter article says they don’t envisage a big redesign on the fuselage because its already strong enough and the take off won’t require a catapult (with all the attendant weight increase this requires).
Does anyone know if there is two different designs floating about one for STOBAR and one for CATOBAR, as the articles I read were talking about STOBAR configured aircraft.
Well ski-jump launched typhoons from CVF would sound appealing although I’m unsure what type of payload it could carry compared to a Rafale or Super hornet.
The article on defence talk says a full payload of fuel and weapons, it is hard to know if this means they envisage the same MTOW as its land based cousin, which if true would be truly revolutionary, of if it is code to mean it take off with the weapons and fuel payload it is designed for, which happens to be less than the Typhoon. In the unlikely event that it is developed then maybe we will get some real details.
nocutstoRAFI suspect I am being a bit to pro-Typhoon, but I cannot help feel that if I was Japan I would be buying the Typhoon in large numbers as an air superiority fighter. Of course I would only do this if the upgrade path is guaranteed, which IMO is only going to happen if India buys them, as left to themselves the Eurofighter consortium members seem to be happy to stick with pretty much what they got rather than spend money on further developing the Typhoon.
I wait to be flamed, especially by those who think every problem is solved by the F-35 (as the old saying goes “if all you have is a hammer then every problem looks like nail”)
nocutstoRAFErr – what 20000 ton carrier? Is that a typo? India’s building a 40000 ton STOBAR carrier, & would like bigger carriers in the future.
My bad, I meant 20,000 kg fighter (or 20 tonne) – that is what you get when you type to fast, you end up saying a load of nonsense.
Based on this link: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/11/353034/aero-india-roadmap-revealed-for-medium-combat-aircraft.html which says “A naval variant is not envisaged, but Subramanyam foresees a requirement for a 20t aircraft for India’s future indigenous aircraft carriers.”
Hopefully this quote is sufficiently short not to get me in trouble!
nocutstoRAFIt’s being proposed for India, not the UK. I’ve not seen any suggestion by Eurofighter that it expects us to fund it.
Out of interest, and building on Swerve’s point, if India chooses the Typhoon, how likely is it that they would put strings on any such choice, like requiring the Eurofighter countries fund AESA radar integration more robustly, or require that Eurojet’s plans for TVN is carried out with joint funding? If India decided to purchase Typhoon’s would it increase the chances of countries like Japan buying it? Finally, if India did fund a Sea Typhoon, to fill it requirement for future 20 tonne naval fighter, would this change the UK’s decision over going with the F-35C?
nocutstoRAFA319/A320 wings are made in Wales, with sub-assemblies from Bristol, IIRC – apart from those A320s made in China, which I think have locally-assembled wings.
The Falcon is a rather limited MPA, & is supplemental to the Atlantique in France.
We’ll have 5 spare Bombardier Global Express in 2015, which could be converted if we want fast, high-flying but limited load MPAs.
Thank’s Swerve.
I did not know about the A319/20’s, so if we want an MPA with UK input it sounds like we should be considering either a A319 MPA or a Bombardier product.
I have seen it suggested before we should convert our Sentinel’s into an MPA, but would it actually be cost effective?
nocutstoRAF… as I understood it the UK wants a strike fighter for the CVF(s) not an air superiority fighter, some would say designed to fight above the Central German plain. …At least the F35C should be able with block 3 software to do bombs etc and air to air.
By the time any mythical Sea Typhoon was manufactured it would be fitted with AESA radar and cleared for a full range of A2A and A2G weapons, not just the austere capabilities currently available.
BTW did anyone else see the story at Air India that the Typhoon is now cleared to operate RBS-15 anti-shipping missiles.
..the RAF will be the first to dismiss the idea as they would never accept a proposal that would effect their own Typhoon procurement, especially when the Tranche 3 aircraft would be the likely candiates to be remade into Sea Typhoons, just when the RAF are counting on the Tranche 3 full capabilities.
What happens if the RAF is given the option of owning the Sea Typhoon’s and flying them, with the FAA cut out of the picture, and in return all they need to do is detach a number of them for training to a carrier, supported by dedicated RN ground crew, and rotate the pilots in and out of the carrier as need be. I am sure as long as the pilots only had to go to sea for 6 weeks every couple of years they would be happy!
I think a good bit of the point of going to CTOL carrier(s) is that it allows options.
Naval Typhoon is not an off-the-shelf option, but a risky development project that would cost loads before knowing the results.
Naval Typhoon is not a CATOBAR paper design but a STOBAR design, though one that apparently removes one of the main issues of STOBAR carriers.
You are right it is risky however, according to the article I posted early, the success of the project hinges on a) turning the paper design for TVN into a real product, b) being able to structurally reinforce the plane without compromising to far the performance, and critically c) being able to do these things without reducing the MTOW of the aircraft, and presumably without adding a massive amount of additional weight so that it can meet the promise of being the first STOBAR aircraft that I am aware of that can take of with same fuel and weapon payload as it’s land based cousin. At least that is how I interpret the meaning of taking of with a full fuel and weapon load.
This is also important as the stupid PFI deal we have signed with FuelTankers prohibits buddy refuelling which is traditionally a requirement of STOBAR carriers.
Saying all this I think the choices are in order of likelihoods of occurring:
1) F-35C
2) F/A-18 International
3) Cancel the carriers in the 2015 SDSR
4) Sea Gripen
5) Sea Typhoon
6) Rafale – simply because of the political ramifications of such a deal make it more palatable to invest money in two unproven paper designs which would help the UK aviation industry over the Rafale.
If Britain did buy Rafale I imagine it would be in return for something else, i.e. France buying a carrier or something.
To be honest, if France did buy a carrier they would still be getting the better deal as 40 Rafale would cost hell a lot more than one carrier.
It might be a different situation if in return for 40 Rafale, France and UK agreed to a BAE lead aviation project with a good UK work-share, but I cannot think of anything other than a new MPA that would qualify, and even then I think we lack a suitable UK built hull while Dassault produces the Falcon 7X which would make a good MPA. The best we could get is to buy a Bombardier jet as our base platform for a future MPA, as Bombardier manufacture some of their components in Belfast at the former Short’s factory.
nocutstoRAFWith regard to Sea Typhoon, it occurs to me that as the Treasury seems to be in charge not the MoD of defence procurement, that should Eurofighter manage to persuade the Treasury that it is indeed a piece of p*ss to make a naval Typhoon, and they will save a bucket of money in the long run, then we will end up going for Sea Typhoon, even it if it some PR guy’s wet dream at Eurofighter.
nocutstoRAFI have draw the same conclusion as you Fedaykin, and I am not entirely sure why they are pushing it. India is unlikely to need another carrier type and it is not even in the running for Brazil.
nocutstoRAFCurrently Eurofighter are making sound easy to make a Naval Typhoon, see here:
http://www.defencetalk.com/naval-eurofighter-an-aircraft-carrier-version-under-development-31926/
According to this Eurofighter marketing piece, picked up by Defence Talk, a Naval Typhoon can operate with a full weapon and fuel load off a STOBAR carrier, with it only requiring “minor” structural changes, TVN and a rewrite of the FCS software.
If this was really true, and given that the US is looking at a new bomber in the near future, then this “easy” changes to the Typhoon makes sense for the UK, as if it really costs peanut’s we can recoup the development costs in the savings in operating costs (no need for EMALS, for extra crew to service EMALS and 95% commonality with the rest of our Typhoons), and we can invest in the new US bomber programme. Strangely we seem to be sticking to the F-35C currently!
The only thing of real interest in the whole story is that they have looked at navalising the Typhoon beyond the BAe study which as far as I can remember concluded that in high angle of attack landings the pilot’s view was obscured by the canards, and it make the Typhoon unsuitable for carrier conversion. If they have solved this with regard to TVN, then this shows they have been working on it further, using their own money
Please not the use of sarcasm above before replying.
nocutstoRAFI suspect I am being naive, but could we not simply re-use the night hunter turret from the MRA4, and replace the C-130’s current radar’s with Search Water’s from MRA4 in a new fairing, update the cockpit and buy new mission systems for the SAR role? I guess we might also have to re-engine and re-wing them at some point as well to keep them going until 2030ish.
Sign In
