What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
It may be that I have fallen foul of the BAE publicity machine with regards to Sea Typhoon, but I have read in a number of places that a Sea Typhoon was indeed a possibility. The core structure of the aircraft is ( or I have read is) very strong and would require only minor mods to make it carrier compliant. The undercarriage would need beefing up.
The use of TVN was proposed so as to reduce the landing and take off speeds and improve the view over the nose during approach. Perhaps it was all nonsense but there are videos out there of the Typhoon engine being operated on a test rig with TVN fitted.
Typhoon is also quite a small aircraft compared to (say) that old beast the F4, so I would think that getting enough on board, even without installing folding wings.
Anyway, its all academic now cos it aint happening, but personally I think its a tragedy that in the 70 or so years since the war we have gone from being a leader in the global combat aircraft industry to hardly building very much at all.
The use of TVN was proposed so as to reduce the landing and take off speeds and improve the view over the nose during approach. Perhaps it was all nonsense but there are videos out there of the Typhoon engine being operated on a test rig with TVN fitted.
Typhoon is also quite a small aircraft compared to (say) that old beast the F4, so I would think that getting enough on board, even without installing folding wings.
Anyway, its all academic now cos it aint happening, but personally I think its a tragedy that in the 70 or so years since the war we have gone from being a leader in the global combat aircraft industry to hardly building very much at all.
andymadmak said:
The use of TVN was proposed so as to reduce the landing and take off speeds and improve the view over the nose during approach. Perhaps it was all nonsense but there are videos out there of the Typhoon engine being operated on a test rig with TVN fitted.
It has been run as a demo, but that's a long way from certifying it a safety critical bit of kitandymadmak said:
It may be that I have fallen foul of the BAE publicity machine with regards to Sea Typhoon, but I have read in a number of places that a Sea Typhoon was indeed a possibility. The core structure of the aircraft is ( or I have read is) very strong and would require only minor mods to make it carrier compliant. The undercarriage would need beefing up.
The use of TVN was proposed so as to reduce the landing and take off speeds and improve the view over the nose during approach. Perhaps it was all nonsense but there are videos out there of the Typhoon engine being operated on a test rig with TVN fitted.
Typhoon is also quite a small aircraft compared to (say) that old beast the F4, so I would think that getting enough on board, even without installing folding wings.
Anyway, its all academic now cos it aint happening, but personally I think its a tragedy that in the 70 or so years since the war we have gone from being a leader in the global combat aircraft industry to hardly building very much at all.
I remember a key aspect of the eurofighter blurb being a modular build that would encompass "updates" such as carrier and TVN models. The same way our carriers were designed to have a catapult retrofit option I guess?The use of TVN was proposed so as to reduce the landing and take off speeds and improve the view over the nose during approach. Perhaps it was all nonsense but there are videos out there of the Typhoon engine being operated on a test rig with TVN fitted.
Typhoon is also quite a small aircraft compared to (say) that old beast the F4, so I would think that getting enough on board, even without installing folding wings.
Anyway, its all academic now cos it aint happening, but personally I think its a tragedy that in the 70 or so years since the war we have gone from being a leader in the global combat aircraft industry to hardly building very much at all.
Given our industry cannot independantly service our war machine, we cannot take them to war without americas assent, I wonder that the carriers are good for more than posturing on the global stage? Could we fight the falklands with these carriers, given america wished to maintain public "disapproval" of it?
IanMorewood said:
The Rafale M would be an excellent choice if we had a carrier that was capable of supporting them.
if we had chosen to build the QE class as CATOBAR equipped ( or even fitted for rather than design option allows) not only could the french ( using rafale) and the Hornet / Super Hornet using nations operate with us we would have the option of Rafale or SuperBug instead of / as well as F35 ...mph1977 said:
if we had chosen to build the QE class as CATOBAR equipped ( or even fitted for rather than design option allows) not only could the french ( using rafale) and the Hornet / Super Hornet using nations operate with us we would have the option of Rafale or SuperBug instead of / as well as F35 ...
And if we HAD to still buy the F-35 we could have had the cheaper, longer ranged F-35C
MartG said:
mph1977 said:
if we had chosen to build the QE class as CATOBAR equipped ( or even fitted for rather than design option allows) not only could the french ( using rafale) and the Hornet / Super Hornet using nations operate with us we would have the option of Rafale or SuperBug instead of / as well as F35 ...
And if we HAD to still buy the F-35 we could have had the cheaper, longer ranged F-35Cash73 said:
F35 looks to have a lot more potential to me and it's a massive step up from the Harrier. I remember seeing a F/A-18 at Farnborough this year, it put on a good display as though making a point, but I read somewhere they had to cant the pylons at 5 deg which creates a load of unnecessary drag 
I was at Farnborough a few years back and the F18 Super Hornet was pretty impressive, and loud!But the Typhoon was even more impressive and louder
Well it sounds like we've boned ourselves by building modern new carriers that then don't use catapult launching systems. Systems which were more expensive but probably offered a whole load more options now, and in the future, and cross-compatibility.
By going I assume a flat-bed we're stuck with F35Bs.
So cheaper carrier, more expensive planes
Good logic.
maffski said:
Mr Whippy said:
So cheaper carrier, more expensive planes
Good logic.
Welcome to democracy. The government that has to find the money for the carries has no idea if it will be the government that has to find the money for the aircraft.Good logic.
IanMorewood said:
Lower staffing costs though for a VSTOL deck crew. Also less chance of hurting a member of deck crew.
Mind you counter that with the higher fuel costs of having a heavier aircraft that transmits into an inefficient flying machine for landings.
I bet the VSTOL systems on an F35B take more maintaining over the lifetime vs an F35C though Mind you counter that with the higher fuel costs of having a heavier aircraft that transmits into an inefficient flying machine for landings.
Dave
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff