@Sancho,
the 1 CRM+2 ETs won’t work either as the size of stores on the centreline is restricted by the MLG positions, that’s also the reason why the Typhoon can’t carry larger stores on the inner wing stations. There was a graphic in a document showing two Taurus being attached on the Typhoons fuselage, but not exactly the centreline station. This might be another solution, but I don’t know whether it is really feasible.

@EE Lightning
The odds for a navalised Typhoon are bad. I’m not sure whether the QE class carriers feature a ski ramp, but they are to be fitted with a CATOBAR system. The current proposal of a STOBAR Typhoon may not a feasible option for the RN. The possible production run is rather small and probably not worth the effort. The IN will operate only two comparably small STOBAR carriers and has 45 MiG-29K/KUB and 46 N-LCA on order. I see no merit for adopting a third type and the UAC 2 will be CATOBAR ruling out a STOBAR optimised naval Typhoon.

Wrt Japan I wouldn’t be to excited either. The Japanese claimed that they consider the Eurofighter as a serious alternative to the F-22 if congress wouldn’t approve it for export. That’s the case, but instead of starting negotiations with Eurofighter for example they are now negotiating with LM indicating a potential sale of F-35s. I subsequently doubt that the Typhoon has much of a chance in Japan, despite previous indications of a different behaviour. Eurofighter made the Japanese an offer for local production and comprehensive ToT allowing them to customize the Typhoon to their needs, similar as they have done it with the F-16 before (F-2).

@Spitfire9
I think that the “French demanded a navalized aircraft” is a mere. If you look at the time lines and info you’ll realize that the French did not decide on a naval variant of the Rafale before 1986, meaning at a time they had left the Eurofighter programme. Even the initial numbers (250) correspond with the AdA requirement only!

It’s not the first time you are around here, aren’t you?:rolleyes:

@mrmalaya,
good questions. Your guesses sound reasonable, but I don’t know.

@ H K shouldn’t there be around 100 Rafales in service right now?

Could someone clairfy exactly how the IAF inventory is going to evolve with the induction of LCA/2, MMRCA, AMCA, FGFA over the next decade?

Cheers.

I would think:
Su-30MKI -> FGFA
Mirage 2000 -> MMRCA/AMCA
Mig-29 -> MMRCA/AMCA
Mig-27 -> MMRCA/AMCA
Jaguar -> MMRCA/AMCA
Mig-21 -> LCA/MMRCA

Look, I agree with you on Bluewings´ inanely partisan posts.
But your comment above just doesn´t hold up. All reports say UAE wants 9t engine for aerodynamic performance reasons – enabling higher cruise speeds under normal load, but in their case more specifically, carrying more payload, e..g more Black Shaheens. Yes, if they didn´t ALSO plan to increase electrical generation, they could get MORE thrust out of the engine, but it is not an exclusive one or the other proposition, they can get both. Likewise, I don´t see any reason why a bigger electrical generator can´t be fitted to M88-EPE engines, they might just draw off more thrust if used fully used (but that can be tuned down if desired while maintaining commonality with new generator).

Oops I have quoted BW’s post and somehow missed to delete that passage I quoted from BW while wrapping some of his claims into separate quotes. 😮

It’s actually BW who said this;)

yep, here eurofighter partners are putting £350m over 6 years to dev Captor and “pretorian” this name is funny,

Oh dear, that’s a support service contract. That means in service support for the years to come! That has nothing to do with development of the systems, but in service support of fielded systems!:rolleyes: