What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
Interesting that the more complex B is more reliable than the A and C.
Halmyre said:
All those naysayers wailing "oh no, navalised Typhoon, too expensive, tra-la-la", we could have navalised it and plated it in 22 carat f
king gold and it looks like it would still come in cheaper than the Dunderheed F35 Shightning.
Wouldn't be anywhere near as capable as the F35 is supposed to be though.king gold and it looks like it would still come in cheaper than the Dunderheed F35 Shightning.Mojocvh]Would just like to point out USMC IOC is July this year...what form that IOC actually takes may possibly [or possibly not said:
depend on how far the goalposts can be fudged... keywords are basic and initial..
They'll be the most infinitely variable set of goal posts ever 
Or more likely the IOC state will be written after the decalred IOC date to match whatever lame state the thing is at that time.
aeropilot said:
They'll be the most infinitely variable set of goal posts ever
Or more likely the IOC state will be written after the decalred IOC date to match whatever lame state the thing is at that time.
Presumably including "Cockpit can be opened, enabling pilot to throw loose change from their pocket at the enemy."Or more likely the IOC state will be written after the decalred IOC date to match whatever lame state the thing is at that time.
RizzoTheRat said:
Interesting that the more complex B is more reliable than the A and C.
As I understand it the Sea Typhoon would have had greater manoeuvrability and similar range. It also has a far larger weapons fit available. Plus it has two donkeys....Halmyre said:
All those naysayers wailing "oh no, navalised Typhoon, too expensive, tra-la-la", we could have navalised it and plated it in 22 carat fking gold and it looks like it would still come in cheaper than the Dunderheed F35 Shightning.
Wouldn't be anywhere near as capable as the F35 is supposed to be though.king gold and it looks like it would still come in cheaper than the Dunderheed F35 Shightning.The only thing it cannot do is be as stealthy as F35, and even then that's only under certain operational conditions. I've said before that I think stealth is a complete red herring for a naval combat aircraft for a number of reasons. We should have gone Sea Typhoon. Ironically if we had agreed to a Navalised Typhoon early enough maybe the French would have stayed in the program and there would be no Rafale..?
Elroy Blue said:
Sea Typhoon needed a new center section, a new undercarriage and the position of the intake would have led to some very interesting handling qualities as it came back to the carrier. In essence, you would have needed a whole new aircraft.
Let me see... reinforce the centre section, move the intakes to the side... basically you end up with a Rafale 
Elroy Blue said:
Sea Typhoon needed a new center section, a new undercarriage and the position of the intake would have led to some very interesting handling qualities as it came back to the carrier. In essence, you would have needed a whole new aircraft.
This article seems to suggest things aren't as bad as that:http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/p/eu...
Either way, a whole new Sea Typhoon re-using a lot of already proven components is surely a better bet than a whole new F35 which is barely limping out of the starting gate.
telecat said:
Rafale's a bit small and the Super Hornet is the very definition of a Bodge Job.
Rafale: Length 50.1 ft
Wingspan 35.4 ft
Height 17.5 ft
Max T/O weight for Naval version 22,200 Kg (24,500 Kg for land based version)
Typhoon:
Length 52.4 ft
Wingspan 35.9 ft
Height 17.3 ft
Max T/O weight 23,500 Kg
There doesn't seem to be a big difference in size and weight between the EF and the Rafale.
AlexIT said:
There doesn't seem to be a big difference in size and weight between the EF and the Rafale.
One of the reasons France left the European Collaborative Fighter (or whatever it was called by the time they left) was that they wanted a smaller aircraft so they could have a naval variant. With the introduction their new carrier they were able to make the aircraft larger.AlexIT said:
telecat said:
Rafale's a bit small and the Super Hornet is the very definition of a Bodge Job.
Rafale: Length 50.1 ft
Wingspan 35.4 ft
Height 17.5 ft
Max T/O weight for Naval version 22,200 Kg (24,500 Kg for land based version)
Typhoon:
Length 52.4 ft
Wingspan 35.9 ft
Height 17.3 ft
Max T/O weight 23,500 Kg
There doesn't seem to be a big difference in size and weight between the EF and the Rafale.
Your comparison also doesn't not take into account that the additional strengthening to the airframe and undercarriage of a Naval Typhoon would mean it would have to grow in weight reasonably significantly.
Makes me wonder why we were in such a hurry to flog all those Harriers to Merica for such a cheap price!
The F-35 project has been doomed from the start. Should have just put the money into making the already proven and capable Typhoon on these boats, creating more jobs at the same time.
The F-35 project has been doomed from the start. Should have just put the money into making the already proven and capable Typhoon on these boats, creating more jobs at the same time.
andymadmak said:
As I understand it the Sea Typhoon would have had greater manoeuvrability and similar range. It also has a far larger weapons fit available. Plus it has two donkeys....
The only thing it cannot do is be as stealthy as F35, and even then that's only under certain operational conditions. I've said before that I think stealth is a complete red herring for a naval combat aircraft for a number of reasons. We should have gone Sea Typhoon. Ironically if we had agreed to a Navalised Typhoon early enough maybe the French would have stayed in the program and there would be no Rafale..?
My understanding was that the main benefit of the F35 is supposed to be the very advanced sensor suite isn't it? Elements of that could have been incorporated in to a typhoon variant but the integration costs would be huge and quite a few of the delays/overruns on F35 have been due to the sensors and systems. The only thing it cannot do is be as stealthy as F35, and even then that's only under certain operational conditions. I've said before that I think stealth is a complete red herring for a naval combat aircraft for a number of reasons. We should have gone Sea Typhoon. Ironically if we had agreed to a Navalised Typhoon early enough maybe the French would have stayed in the program and there would be no Rafale..?
onyx39 said:
My understanding was that they were to be scrapped, and the ones sold to the Yanks were mainly for spare parts?
The ones sold to the US had been recently refurbished, and although they were sold for parts it has been said tha the US found the airframes were in better condition than their own No Naval Typhoon for the simple reason that the combined govts. didn't want to pay for its development. Pouring more money into the "Beaurofighter" was also absolutely politically toxic 10 yrs ago.
The irony of course is that unknown to most of you/public, is that development money has never stopped being poured into the plane. I meet up with colleagues I worked with in Rochester now in Munich after they transferred out to Manching. They are still doing the same jobs on the same project. Its a running joke - and it was 15, 10, 5 yrs ago - that you can retire on the Eurofighter project.
The irony of course is that unknown to most of you/public, is that development money has never stopped being poured into the plane. I meet up with colleagues I worked with in Rochester now in Munich after they transferred out to Manching. They are still doing the same jobs on the same project. Its a running joke - and it was 15, 10, 5 yrs ago - that you can retire on the Eurofighter project.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff