JSF - should we or shouldn't we?

[Tom.com]

how about: Naval version of the RAF's Typhoon?

[Saracenman]

Navoon?

[Tom.com]

that is quite good

joint effort

[Saracenman]

it's crap! Seaphoon is much better

[Stevieboy]

As long as we don't get the Lampoon.

[Tom.com]

how about: come near this carrier and you will diphoon?

[Saracenman]

take your pick...

aboon afternoon alsoon aswoon baboon balloon barracoon bassoon batoon bigaroon boon bradoon bridoon buffoon cacoon cardoon cartoon ceroon cocoon contrabassoon coon crampoon croon dahoon dessertspoon diplozoon doubloon dragoon ducatoon ectozoon eftsoon endozoon entozoon epiploon epizoon festoon foon forenoon frigatoon frontoon gaboon gadroon galloon gambroon gazoon godroon gombroon goon gorsoon gossoon harpoon hematozoon heroon honeymoon hoon hydrozoon jargoon kroon lagoon lampoon lardoon loon macaroon madzoon maroon matzoon melocotoon metazoon midafternoon midnoon monsoon moon musketoon musquetoon noon octaroon octoroon oversoon pantaloon parazoon patroon picaroon pickaroon platoon poltroon polyzoon pompoon pontoon poon prenoon protozoon puccoon puftaloon pultoon quadroon quarteroon quintroon raccoon racoon ratoon rattoon rigadoon rockoon roon saloon saskatoon seroon shagroon shalloon shoon simoon soon soupspoon spadroon spermatozoon spittoon spontoon spoon sporozoon swoon tablespoon teaspoon tenoroon testoon toon tycoon typhoon vinegarroon woon zoon

personally I'm plumping for the Eurofighter Soupspoon

[Tom.com]

SM is a buffoon

I mean Eurofighter navy so soon?!?

[Dan4th]

You left out "Brigadoon"....

Haggis would like THAT!

Danf.

Also, if they had designed Typhoon with an eye
towards a naval capability, don't you think it
would be common knowledge? In effect, you might
be talking about a TOTAL aircraft re-design.....

I just don't think it's as EASY as you make it sound.

Plus, we're talking Royal NAVY, here!!!!!!!!!!

Last Shot: GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dan4th

[Xplumberlives]

Come on Tom, wake up and realise that we need a NAVALISED typhoon! And stop looking so PENSIVE;

[Mackrick]

[Tom.com]

I didn't say we didn't you just wanted an excuse to post that!

[Xplumberlives]

No excuse needed!

[Saracenman]

well I've just had an interesting convo with my RN pilot mate - he also used to work for Lockheed Martin, so knows a lot about it and tries to keep up with the latest news re JSF

in short, he believes that the RN will definitely get JSF, as will the RAF. he also says that the variant that the RN want will ultimately out-perform Typhoon in terms of weapons' systems and versatility, resulting in the RN effectively 'end up with' a far more powerful strike force than the RAF!

this is based though on the fact that RN want the JSF variant without the lift fan, which has better performance than the one with - aka the variant that the RAF prefer, which is more of a Harrier replacement. the RN have already determined that they don't need the STOVL capability, and therefore their variant will be more of a conventional a/c operating from the new larger QE2-class carrier.

all this depends on however is whether Whitehall will actually allow the RN and RAF to effectively operate two completely different aircraft; the likelihood is that the RAF will 'win' and ALL British JSF's will be the variant with the lift fan, purely for commonality (and therefore cost) purposes - which the RN don't want!

as far as Typhoon goes, yes apparently an extremely capable a/c, but still with teething problems. whether those problems will be ironed-out to the extent that they would match what JSF promises, by the time the latter's in service, is another matter - but by that point, JSF will already be entering service anyway!

various other issues too - the capability of the carriers has yet to be determined for obvious reasons. as it stands, both the QE2 carrier itself, and the PoW will but have ski-jump decks (like the current Invincible class) predominantly for the benefit of operating the lift-fan-less JSF!

all very interesting - particularly in that my mate is not the world's biggest Typhoon fan!

sm

[Dan4th]

I am thinking. I am thinking.

Ready to receive deserved thwacks.

It seems to me that Typhoon, as much of a
thoroughbred as it is, has one foot in one era,
and the other in another. JSF is the leap to the
next. Potential for future development in all
areas might just nose-out the Phoon. Dunno....

RN knows what it wants, but RR involvement
with the STOL might get in the way......

Internal armament, much as some of you HATE
the way it makes an aircraft LOOK, does seem
to be the wave of the future, like it or not....

But there is STILL so MUCH we don't know yet.

Exciting times, no?

Dan4th

[Saracenman]

dislike of internal armament? the mighty Buccaneer had a rotating bomb-bay!

i agree about Typhoon's 'era' Danf - one of Typhoon's major problems is that it was initially designed to wage war in a completely different theatre of operations - aka communist Eastern Europe! that's about as far as you can get from carrier ops in the Gulf!

the RR involvement is vital - basically, RR are the only ones capable of producing the lift-fan and associated drive-train. the RN will probably end up with the STOVL variant by default, NOT by choice!

sm

[Bubbles]

Had this convo a few times with various people and one large problem with a navalised Typhoon is its high angle of thingy on landing, on a carrier the pilots view of the deck would be almost non existant, then the undercarrige would require a total redesign to strengthen it, this would be humungusly expensive. As for the arguement that Typhoon was designed for cold war etc well hats a little misleading as the design and systems etc has evolved as the program has trundled along, Typhoon is a far more capable aircraft then when the prototype was rolled out and if im not mistaken has already bagged a F-22 in tests or something.

And if i remember correctly BaE systems have explored the possibility of navalising the Typhoon.

[Saracenman]

spot on actually Bubbs- my RN mate said the same, although it's not so much the angle of attack that's the issue; Typhoon does has more of a nose-up attitude, when landing, than other aircraft, as a delta, but carrier landings are done at far higher speeds, which would mean that they approach at much the same attitude as any other aircraft.

what IS the issue with visibility i gather, is that both Typhoon's nose and the forward canards make the carrier all but invisible!

it IS being investigated though to see if there's a possible solution. irrespective of whether the RN go for a navalised Typhoon or not, the potential for RAF Typhoons to operate from carriers is something which could prove tactically useful in the future

it might sound like an impossible task to counter the Typhoon visibility issue, but then the same was said about carrier landings in general some decades ago. then, it was solved by the British, with our light and mirror alignment system (the Mirror Landing Aid invented by Lieutenant Commander H. C. N. Good hart RN.) - now called the OLS, Optical Landing System, and still used by all Nations' carriers today; a very simple and low-tech solution to an 'unsolvable' problem

the same might end up being true with Typhoon and carriers - i guess we'll just have to wait and see

sm

[Pujgnie]

Maybe Cannards can be made as 'see through' (like perspex) ... surely it is not technologically impossible ?

[Dan4th]

In defence (Murkin sp.) of Typhoon, when you guys
got the F4U Corsair way back when, you managed
to solve a similar problem LONG before USN would
allow carrier landings. It required a different way of
approaching the ship and possibly some of the gizmos
that SM mentions.

HOWEVER! Landing gear and foldable wings and other
changes would obviously cost a lot of time/money.
A noble IDEA, but is it even remotely PRACTICAL????

Somehow, I doubt it. Sorry........

Dan4th

[Saracenman]

Typhoon's external dimensions are within a couple of inches of JSF's - in Typhoon's favour actually. assuming that there are no plans for JSF's wings to fold, i see no reason why Typhoon's would require it either

good point re the Corsair D4th - I'm sure that they'll fathom it if and when they need to

sm

[Dan4th]

Well, regardless of all that, a carrier a/c
needs not just a stout undercarriage, it needs
a substantially stronger airframe all-round.
How much WEIGHT would this add? How would
this affect Performance?

I still think that despite the Emotional Support
for the Idea, what we'd be looking at is a total
and complete re-design of the Typhoon -- in
other words a completely new a/c ground-up!

Even given my lack of knowledge, I just don't
think it would be worth the time/effort/cost.

Dan4th

[Pujgnie]

Anyone got any specs on U/C differences between RAF Phantom and RN Phantom ?

Phantom had a long snout but admitedly no cannards. Also had foldy wings, not sure that Tiffie would need those as seemingly slimmer.

High Alpha approach .. then levelling out to land on deck without arrestor gear.

[Saracenman]

I'd be surprised if there were ANY differences between the two Pudgeyknees - the Phantom was originally designed for the USN after all, so the carrier aspect would've been included from day one. any that were used for land-based duties would surely have had the same u/c - i mean why DOWNGRADE it for use on land?

Buccaneer would probably have been the same to i imagine

as for the folding wings - well the Harrier doesn't have them and its wingspan (30' 4") is only about 5' less than Typhoon's 35' 11". compare that to Buccaneer's 44' wingspan, or an F/A-18 Hornet's at 40'

I'm really not convinced that 'Navoon' would need folding wings at all

sm

[Dan4th]

HA! Where's the esteemed FFM when
you Really Need Him, eh?????

SM: Call up 'yer RN friend and ask re:
folding wings, etc.

Dan4th