Should The Naval Typhoon Concept Be Taken More Seriously?

[Pingu]

Now, the QE class carriers debate is perhaps the most feircely debated defence subject of all so I am not here to argue about STOVL vs. CATOBAR mainly because it's all been done before and also because I geniunely don't know which side of the fence I sit on. The arguments are very compelling on both sides.

However, let's just assume for a second that the UK decides not to adopt the Catapults. It is always said that this then leaves us with the only option of the F-35B. However, the Naval Typhoon would be an excellent subsitute should anything go wrong with the F-35B and let's be honest, it's not out of the water yet.

While I am at it; why has a ski-ramp been adopted? Surely the flight deck is long enough for one not to be needed. Is it not about the length of existing US LHDs? Surely adding a ramp goes against the idea of a flexible design that can be reconfigured for catapults at a later stage and as it happens, removal of the ramp will constitute part of the conversion costs.

Part of me wonders whether the Naval Typhoon may actually be a better solution anyway. The F-35 is becoming very fat and very slow. The Naval Typhoon would offer better performance, commanality benefits with RAF typhoons and could even be a substitute for the UK tranche 3A commitment. While the F-35 already offers industrial benefits to the UK, a Naval Typhoon would do so even more and even if we did adopt the Typhoon, we would not be sacrificing the industrial benefits from the F-35 but rather, slightly reducing them.

There is also the benefit of exports although I am unsure of how likely to materialise this is and I think we missed a trick with Indian MMRCA whereby an Indian Naval Typhoon could have been explored in conjunction with MMRCA. Another thing that seems to escape critism so much when arguing about the carrier debacle is the ITAR restrictions of the F-35 that were fought over a few years ago but now it appears the UK has caved in. Naval Typhoon would of course have no such issues.

Now, the main reason the Naval Typhoon never came to light is because of risk. However, recently, BAE suggested that due to the inherent benefits of the existing deisgn, only a few modifications would be required to make it suitable for carrier operations. A remaining concern was that the canards would reduce visibility for carrier landings. This got me thinking; could the canards be removed if TVC were in place? I am not an aeronautical engineer and I imagine it's probable that it can't be done, but it's worth thinking about at least. Also, the reduced drag could improve the performance significantly.

A Naval Typhoon could see all the hoped for improvements in Tranche 3 come to fruition; TVC, AESA, CFTs etc. In terms of cost, I can imagine it would be more expensive that the F35B and F35C but I think it would be worth it.

 

[StobieWan]

Now, the QE class carriers debate is perhaps the most feircely debated defence subject of all so I am not here to argue about STOVL vs. CATOBAR mainly because it's all been done before and also because I geniunely don't know which side of the fence I sit on. The arguments are very compelling on both sides.

However, let's just assume for a second that the UK decides not to adopt the Catapults. It is always said that this then leaves us with the only option of the F-35B. However, the Naval Typhoon would be an excellent subsitute should anything go wrong with the F-35B and let's be honest, it's not out of the water yet.

While I am at it; why has a ski-ramp been adopted? Surely the flight deck is long enough for one not to be needed. Is it not about the length of existing US LHDs? Surely adding a ramp goes against the idea of a flexible design that can be reconfigured for catapults at a later stage and as it happens, removal of the ramp will constitute part of the conversion costs.

Part of me wonders whether the Naval Typhoon may actually be a better solution anyway. The F-35 is becoming very fat and very slow. The Naval Typhoon would offer better performance, commanality benefits with RAF typhoons and could even be a substitute for the UK tranche 3A commitment. While the F-35 already offers industrial benefits to the UK, a Naval Typhoon would do so even more and even if we did adopt the Typhoon, we would not be sacrificing the industrial benefits from the F-35 but rather, slightly reducing them.

There is also the benefit of exports although I am unsure of how likely to materialise this is and I think we missed a trick with Indian MMRCA whereby an Indian Naval Typhoon could have been explored in conjunction with MMRCA. Another thing that seems to escape critism so much when arguing about the carrier debacle is the ITAR restrictions of the F-35 that were fought over a few years ago but now it appears the UK has caved in. Naval Typhoon would of course have no such issues.

Now, the main reason the Naval Typhoon never came to light is because of risk. However, recently, BAE suggested that due to the inherent benefits of the existing deisgn, only a few modifications would be required to make it suitable for carrier operations. A remaining concern was that the canards would reduce visibility for carrier landings. This got me thinking; could the canards be removed if TVC were in place? I am not an aeronautical engineer and I imagine it's probable that it can't be done, but it's worth thinking about at least. Also, the reduced drag could improve the performance significantly.

A Naval Typhoon could see all the hoped for improvements in Tranche 3 come to fruition; TVC, AESA, CFTs etc. In terms of cost, I can imagine it would be more expensive that the F35B and F35C but I think it would be worth it.

There's no sensible way that TVC can compensate for the missing lift from the canards - you'd be into a total redesign of the aircraft. Canards aren't the kiss of death for carrier ops - Rafale manages fine so I can't see why anything would be worse off. Additionally all the Swede canard designs have used high sink rates on short strip approaches, which more or less approximate carrier approaches.

ITAR restrictions haven't been an issue for the UK - we paid a lot of money and got the access we wanted. We did not get access to source code for the FCS, and we do not need that. F35 has something called Universal Armaments Interface which allows for easy integration of weapons.

Sea Typhoon would take several years to get working, cost several billion and would therefore offer no advantage in terms of cost or delivery speed over F35 of any flavour. Given the sticker prices for Typhoon have been close to or exceeding F35 *anyway* the idea makes no commercial sense.


Sea Typhoon is not a sensible alternative to F35.

It would have been useful *if* we'd had flat deck carriers with CATOBAR back in the 80's and specified CATOBAR ops from the start, much as the French did with Rafale.

Ian

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

No money for development, and no potential customers to buy them. Name two customers, unless you think the UK should go it alone on such a development programme for at most 40 aircraft?
What is the point of a naval Typhoon?

 

[colay]

Better to spend the billions you would need,for,development of a Naval Typhoon to equip both CVFs with CATOBAR kit and buy F-35Cs.

 

[RobWilliams]

Should The Naval Typhoon Concept Be Taken More Seriously? No.

Who would buy the thing? Off the top of my head I can't think of any current EF operators that would be interested so that means the UK would shoulder the financial burden alone meaning billions of R&D and a unit cost which would be higher than the F-35C (i think)

Not to mention the RAFs take on the idea, IIRC the JSF is due to replace the Tornado too so how d'you see the RAF taking that the JSF being scrapped for a EF designed for the FAA and they get nada? Shouldn't think they'd be too happy about it.

As much as I like the Typhoon, i'd rather see F-18s fly off the deck before wasting money on such an enterprise (or maybe even the Rafale-M), it would be much better spent buying EMALS/AAG for the F-35C than designing an aircraft that nobody would want.

The only people I've seen really serious about the idea is a particular political party only using it to get support by waving the Union Jack to achieve their own ends, but lets not go there.

 

[swerve]

Original question? The short answer is "No", for all the reasons already given.

BTW, the ski-jump is there because it 1) increases take-off weight, even when taking off from a ship the size of CVF, & 2) by changing the take off angle, it allows take-offs in heavier seas, & makes them safer & easier in normal conditions. According to what they tell the press, USMC pilots love taking off from the Invincible class , because of those factors - and that's from ships with just over half the displacement of the USN LHDs & LHAs they're used to, & over 40 metres shorter.

Now consider that the F-35B is twice the weight of a Harrier, & CVF is only 30--35 metres longer than a USN LHA/LHD. That ski-jump is definitely worthwhile.

 

[StobieWan]

Original question? The short answer is "No", for all the reasons already given.

BTW, the ski-jump is there because it 1) increases take-off weight, even when taking off from a ship the size of CVF, & 2) by changing the take off angle, it allows take-offs in heavier seas, & makes them safer & easier in normal conditions. According to what they tell the press, USMC pilots love taking off from the Invincible class , because of those factors - and that's from ships with just over half the displacement of the USN LHDs & LHAs they're used to, & over 40 metres shorter.

Now consider that the F-35B is twice the weight of a Harrier, & CVF is only 30--35 metres longer than a USN LHA/LHD. That ski-jump is definitely worthwhile.

I never got why the US didn't pick up on the ski jump for their own LHA/LHD's - unless they just didn't want to give up the deck space to a ramp permanently?

 

[swerve]

That's the official reason.

It's been suggested that another reason is that the USN doesn't want the LHAs/LHDs to be too capable as carriers, to protect the big carrier fleet from cuts. I don't know if there's any truth in that.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I never got why the US didn't pick up on the ski jump for their own LHA/LHD's - unless they just didn't want to give up the deck space to a ramp permanently?

the LHA/LHD's were always expeditionary task force leaders - and the USN has just as many amphib groups as carrier battle groups - you could argue that the USN has close to 20 carrier groups - not 10-12

part of the expeditionary/amphib construct included the 2 disparate groups forming up as a fighting pair when conditions warranted it

I think that the main reason why they didn't ski ramp was due to inherent extant vessel design

 

[swerve]

I think that the main reason why they didn't ski ramp was due to inherent extant vessel design

Since ski-jumps have been added to a few vessels which were designed (& in some cases well into build) without them, & the current US LHD fleet has all been built since the first ski-jump equipped ship, this is unlikely.

It certainly doesn't apply to LHA-6, which is a new design.

The ski-jumps on the Invincible class are bolt-ons to ships designed without them. The first two of the class had theirs replaced in refits by steeper ones. They're not like the ski-jump on Principe de Asturias, or Juan Carlos 1 & the Aussie LHDs. Invincible-type ski-jumps could easily be fitted to the USN LHAs/LHDs - if wanted.

AFAIK the officially stated reason has always been that the performance advantage it gives to the Harriers isn't worth sacrificing a helicopter spot, efficient helicopter operations having priority on US amphibs.

 

[StobieWan]

Since ski-jumps have been added to a few vessels which were designed (& in some cases well into build) without them, & the current US LHD fleet has all been built since the first ski-jump equipped ship, this is unlikely.

It certainly doesn't apply to LHA-6, which is a new design.

The ski-jumps on the Invincible class are bolt-ons to ships designed without them. The first two of the class had theirs replaced in refits by steeper ones. They're not like the ski-jump on Principe de Asturias, or Juan Carlos 1 & the Aussie LHDs. Invincible-type ski-jumps could easily be fitted to the USN LHAs/LHDs - if wanted.

AFAIK the officially stated reason has always been that the performance advantage it gives to the Harriers isn't worth sacrificing a helicopter spot, efficient helicopter operations having priority on US amphibs.

Well, Hermes was converted to a ski-jump arrangement several decades after being built and of course, CVF's jump is a bolt on affair (at this rate, fitting it with velcro might be the best option so they can fit it according to which way the wind is blowing politically)

I'm guessing it's helicopter spots all round...

 

[gf0012-aust]

AFAIK the officially stated reason has always been that the performance advantage it gives to the Harriers isn't worth sacrificing a helicopter spot, efficient helicopter operations having priority on US amphibs.

which gets back to inherent vessel design - ie its driven by the conops

the bunkerage layout of the LHA's/LHD's is heavily influenced by experience - and thats informed by conops

on that basis it doesn't matter how new the physical build is - its about the conops

 

[swerve]

Yes, but you're missing the point. A ship is designed around a planned role & pattern of use, as you say. If that changes, the design of the ship may limit modifications for the new operational concept, e.g. turning a battleship into an aircraft carrier is difficult & expensive.

But in this case, it isn't the design which limits the modification, but the fact that the concept hasn't changed, so there's no desire for the modification. If conops changed, & better STOVL jet performance was given enough importance to merit it, fitting ski-jumps to the current LHDs & newly building LHAs should be relatively easy & cheap. The design should not prevent it, unlike the battleship to carrier example.

You've got the cart before the horse.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, but you're missing the point. A ship is designed around a planned role & pattern of use, as you say. If that changes, the design of the ship may limit modifications for the new operational concept, e.g. turning a battleship into an aircraft carrier is difficult & expensive.

But in this case, it isn't the design which limits the modification, but the fact that the concept hasn't changed, so there's no desire for the modification. If conops changed, & better STOVL jet performance was given enough importance to merit it, fitting ski-jumps to the current LHDs & newly building LHAs should be relatively easy & cheap. The design should not prevent it, unlike the battleship to carrier example.

You've got the cart before the horse.

the reason why it hasn't changed is because the US expeditionary flags are also based around the common combat operational philosophy - that is driven by design as well as operational behaviour. its a philosophy that exists around all major classes of vessels and vessel tasking (carriers, amphibs, subs, DDG and CG's). Its one of the selling points for subs where crews exchange. ie the common combat room philosophy reduces the training and interoperability burden, as well as fast tracking across fleet training and sustainment

its consistent with US tactical build philosophy - its not being prevented at all. the USN has elected to maintain a consistent expeditionary flag build philosophy as the whole is greater than the individual

unless you're suggesting that all 12 flag vessels get transitioned to ski jumps - which by rote would necessitate a change in conops as well

STOL air ops are vastly different to CTOL air ops - the tempo, logistics, support models are different

STOL might suit some navies - it doesn't translate to a good thing in any maritime power that invests in flat decks seeking to project fixed wing combat/tactical air

 

[ADMk2]

Part of me wonders whether the Naval Typhoon may actually be a better solution anyway. The F-35 is becoming very fat and very slow. The Naval Typhoon would offer better performance, commanality benefits with RAF typhoons and could even be a substitute for the UK tranche 3A commitment. While the F-35 already offers industrial benefits to the UK, a Naval Typhoon would do so even more and even if we did adopt the Typhoon, we would not be sacrificing the industrial benefits from the F-35 but rather, slightly reducing them.

No. For starters I don't agree in the slightest that the F-35 is becoming "fat and slow". Has it slowed at all? I saw a headline where the first Mach 1.6 flight was achieved only a matter of months ago. Seems like it's going as fast as it ever intended to me.

As to fat, I don't see that either. I've attached relevant overlays of the F-15 and F-35 to see their relevant cross-sections. Do you consider F-15 "fat"?

As to the Naval Typhoon, who besides Britain would buy it? Arguably no-one. The Indians would be the closest, except they've just bought a brand new fleet of MiG-29K's and are developing Naval Tejas LCA.

Britain is funding restricted to probably no more than about 48 new aircraft for it's carriers. A re-design of the Typhoon would be costly, lengthy and carrier modification would reduce much of the aircraft's current combat capability.

Then of course you have the cost of modifying the carriers themselves to accept a CATOBAR aircraft. A figure the UK Government cannot accept seemingly, rendering this whole concept moot.

 

[colay]

...it doesn't translate to a good thing in any maritime power that invests in flat decks seeking to project fixed wing combat/tactical air

I'm confused.. isn't that the USMC justification for the FCC-35B? Granted, they have the CVNs to back them up if needed but they do foresee scenarios where they would get the job done by themselves, right?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm confused.. isn't that the USMC justification for the FCC-35B? Granted, they have the CVNs to back them up if needed but they do foresee scenarios where they would get the job done by themselves, right?

by "it" I am referring to a ski jump solution for their expeditionary flatops

ie just because you have STOL doesn't necessarily mean that every STOL can use a ski jump

its more than just a philosophical debate about whether the USMC/USN suffers from NIH syndrome (which they don't)

 

[swerve]

...

unless you're suggesting that all 12 flag vessels get transitioned to ski jumps - which by rote would necessitate a change in conops as well...

I'm not suggesting anything, & I don't know why you've gone off on this tangent. Did I accidentally press a button?

It should be possible to discuss whether something can be done (what I was doing, in response to questions) without it being assumed that one is taking up a particular position on whether it should be done (which I most definitely was not!).

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not suggesting anything, & I don't know why you've gone off on this tangent. Did I accidentally press a button?

It should be possible to discuss whether something can be done (what I was doing, in response to questions) without it being assumed that one is taking up a particular position on whether it should be done (which I most definitely was not!).

?? I think there might be a comms disconnect here - I'm not pushing a barrow on your view, it was a rhetorical extension of the prev - suggesting using the US expeditionary battle groups as an extremis end state of what change could occur

I'm all for continued discussion, so am unsure as to why you might think I'm pursuing a path of CATOBAR fundamentalism...

You haven't pressed any of my buttons, but I'm wondering whether I've pressed yours inadvertently and unintentionally.

to whit - could the USN/USMC use ski jumps on their expeditionary assets? sure, but the cost to bring the entire expeditionary model into line with common logistics, common procedures, consistent conops, cost effective sustainment , raise, train issues across the fleet of function and type precludes it.

if they were a smaller fleet element - eg 3 rather than 11 or 12, then the tactical economics and RTS economics would have greater chance of supporting it.

I don't have a dog in the fight, I'm trying to be agnostic and am looking at it purely from the direct example of the extant fleet structure and the supporting mechanisms that would trigger the usual RTS types of hurt.

 

[swerve]

I think we've found ourselves at cross-purposes here. When you diverged into a discussion of the unsuitability of ski-jumps for the USN/USMC, & said "unless you're suggesting . . . ", I immediately (& I think, reasonably, in this case) assumed that you were doing so because you (wrongly) believed I was advocating that they switch to ski-jumps. Mistakes such as that are regrettably common in online discussion, & I find them exasperating when they're made about my posts

I was only (& I thought I'd made that clear, but perhaps I hadn't) discussing the physical feasibility of the modification of the ships, if there was a desire for it. I wasn't trying to start a discussion on the advisability of such a change.