Yuku free message boards

Talking about a navalised Typhoon is like suggesting a waterproof bath sponge. There will never be such a beast. The Eurofighter has a number of design features which make even it's basic layout unsuitable for carrier operations, never mind even beginning to address the problems of making it rugged and strong enough to withstand controlled crashes at 130 knots. By the time you'd redesigned the Eurofighter to be carrier capable, you'd have a completely new design from the wingtips to the wheels, and for the same money as a brand new design would have cost you, if not a lot more!

If F-35B doesn't happen, Italian fixed wing naval aviation ceases to exist. Probably the same for Spain as well, as it is extremely unlikely that either country is going to acquire one (never mind two) CATOBAR carrier of 30,000 tonnes or more. There just isn't a perceived need for such a massive increase in blue water naval capability and the enormous investment in equipment, training and infrastructure that it would require.

Well, that's just my opinion ;-)

RN didn't consider a navalised Typhoon except as part of early feasibility studies when the requirements for CVF were still being defined. The MoD dreamt it up after smoking too much pot whilst desperately trying to come up with some sort of negotiating tactic to strengthen the UK's bargaining position with the US over technology transfer for the F-35B.

The first negotiating tactic was Project Replica which demonstrated to the Yanks that the UK could independently develop advanced stealth technology, which helped get the UK into the JSF project as the only Tier One partner instead of Tier Two.

Naval Typhoon (otherwise known as Plan B) was just another such effort, although arguably a much less believable one. It came about as a result of the arguments with certain political and industrial groups in the US over how much technology transfer the UK should get.

Actually, it's hard to know if the MoD suggested it first, or if BAE suggested it in an unsolicited proposal and the MoD used it. BAE's motivation for suggesting such a thing is purely economic. Strictly speaking, BAE would have no interest in whether or not a naval Typhoon is any good compared to alternative off-the-shelf aircraft so long as they could get someone to give them money for it. Typhoon is the most advanced combat aircraft BAE is building at present. Therefore, it makes business sense to try to expand the market for that aircraft as much as possible, and if the MoD had been stupid enough to pour billions of tax payers money into such a thing, BAE and it's shareholders would have been more than happy to spend the next 10 to 15 years redesigning the Typhoon into a sub-standard, second-rate carrier plane.

The only purpose Plan B ever had was to try and con the Yanks into thinking that the UK had a viable alternative to the JSF, which was supposed to make the Yanks less difficult to deal with. We'll probably have to wait several decades for the relevant documents to become declassified before we find out if it worked!


P.S. forgot to address STOBAR. That mode of operation has been found, through numerous design studies carried out at the beginning of the CVF project (and validated more than once since then) that STOBAR is inefficient and undesirable, both from the point of view of aircraft design and endurance (an aircraft uses more fuel getting off the deck than does it's CATOBAR equivalent because of the lack of a catapult assist) and most importantly from the point of view of flight deck efficiency. I recommend Richard Beedall's comprehensive website for a more detailed description of the factors that led to this conclusion:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/
See the section on deck layouts under the Carrier Strike menu option.