Naval variant of Eurofighter Typhoon

[D Simcock]

Interesting.

 

Naval Typhoon: An Aircraft Carrier Version Under Development

 

 

(Source: Eurofighter GmbH; issued Feb. 9, 2011)

 

 

 

The development of carrier aviation during the 20th century led to a dramatic paradigm shift in military capability. For the first time, navies had the ability to exert their influence far over the horizon – supporting land campaigns and allowing hostile fleets to be engaged from beyond the range of a battleship’s guns. From Pearl Harbour to more recent conflicts in the Falklands and the Middle East, the carrier and its aircraft provide commanders with an unrivalled ability to project military and political influence; several acres of sovereign territory which can be moved close to potential trouble spots at short notice.

 

Historically, carrier aircraft have been highly specialised and designed specifically for the role. In the majority of cases, there is little or no commonality between the aircraft operated by a nation’s air force, and the different aircraft performing the same role in the Navy. Design decisions taken in order to optimise an aircraft for carrier operations can lead to trade-offs elsewhere – such as additional weight and low-speed handling characteristics that compromise performance in other areas of the envelope.

A classic example today is the F-18 in all its versions, heavy, slow and not capable of facing the most advanced threats emerging around the world.

 

For a number of years, Eurofighter GmbH and its industrial partners have been studying the feasibility of adapting Eurofighter Typhoon for the naval role. These studies have included the assessment of required design changes, piloted simulations to refine the aircraft’s handling qualities and discussions with key suppliers. The studies indicate that these changes are feasible, and would lead to the development of a world-beating, carrier-based fighter aircraft.

 

READY FOR LAUNCH

 

Modern carrier aircraft typically take off with the use of a catapult that attaches to the nose gear. These catapults are expensive to procure, maintain and operate. Catapult launch also leads to a heavier aircraft as a result of the additional weight on the aircraft’s structure.

 

Typhoon is well known for its exceptional thrust-to-weight ratio which has been regularly demonstrated at air shows and in customer flight trials. It also allows the aircraft to take off from a carrier using a “ski-jump”. Detailed simulations have shown that the aircraft will be able to take off in this way with a full weapon and fuel load – providing a nation with a truly potent naval aviation capability.

 

LANDINGS

 

Clearly one of the major challenges for any carrier-based aircraft is the arrested landing. Carrier aircraft fly a steep approach path and are brought to a halt rapidly by the arrestor gear. This leads to much higher loads being generated than would be the case for a land-based aircraft. Navalised Typhoon tackles this problem in two ways.

 

1. The introduction of a thrust-vectored variant of the Eurojet EJ200 engine would allow for a reduction in the aircraft’s approach speed and the resulting landing loads. Thrust vectoring (Engines with TVN are already tested on bench) could be fully integrated into the Typhoon’s advanced Flight Control System (FCS), allowing the pilot to focus on flying the approach path while the FCS manages the engine nozzle position.

 

2. The basic design of Typhoon also works in its favour during an arrested landing. The aircraft’s structure is exceptionally strong, having been designed from the outset for the high dynamic loads associated with extreme air combat manoeuvring. This helps to minimise the structural changes required to enable carrier operations – usually seen as the biggest obstacle to developing a carrier-based variant of the aircraft.

 

SIMILARITIES

 

In any discussion of a navalised Typhoon, the differences from the land-based aircraft are the natural focus. However, one should also focus on the similarities. A key design driver for a navalised Typhoon has been to maximise commonality between the two variants. Design changes are minimised, allowing for many spare parts and test equipment to be shared across a customer’s air force and navy fleets. The sensors, systems and weapons available to both variants will be common, allowing for a reduction in the aircrew training requirements. And in addition, the two variants will benefit from a common upgrade path – new capabilities will be available to both the air force and navy in similar timescales.

 

The introduction of Thrust Vectoring potentially provides an additional boost to Typhoon’s capability. The ability to change the angle of the engines’ thrust will allow for a further enhancement in Typhoon’s already outstanding manoeuvrability, supercruise performances, fuel consumption and the handling of asymmetric weapon configuration.

 

When this is added to capabilities such as the Helmet Mounted Symbology System (HMSS), AESA radar and advanced air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, the result is a truly world-beating multi-role aircraft. One that could also operate from an aircraft carrier.

 

NO COMPROMISE

 

Eurofighter has already discussed a navalised Typhoon with a number of potential customers and is keen to pursue this exciting new phase in Typhoon’s development. Naval aviation will undoubtedly continue to provide nations with a flexible option for projecting power over the coming years.

 

In an increasingly affordability-conscious world, commonality between a nation’s air force and naval aviation fleets will be of increasing importance. A navalised Typhoon can deliver this commonality, without compromising on capability.

 

-ends-

[Guest JamesG123]

Uh... ok.

 

Trying to muscle in on the Superbug for the last few "budget" Gen-3-is-good-enough-for-us procurements?

[TRYTRY]

Uh... ok.

 

Trying to muscle in on the Superbug for the last few "budget" Gen-3-is-good-enough-for-us procurements?

I think it is a backup of F35B for euro sky-jump carriers.

[Tony Williams]

I can see it being used on a big ski-jump carrier but suspect it would have problems on the smaller ones currently used by Harriers, even if they were fitted with arrestor cables.

 

If I were a betting man I'd put some money on a forecast that, if it were ever to go ahead, it would take a lot longer and cost a lot more to develop than the company suggests...

Edited February 11, 2011 by Tony Williams

[ramontxo]

Would a navalised typhoon have such a superiority over the carrier Rafale as to merit the developtment costs?. Would not in any case be better to fit the typhoon avionics and/or motors on the Rafale?. Anyway as i understand it the Rafale has a lower front area while carryng a bigger internal fuel load. As always thanks in advance to the far more learned, and remenber english is not my first language.

Edited February 11, 2011 by ramontxo

[DanielStarseer]

.....

Vapourware to put pressure on the Americans for a larger workshare on F35?

 

Or possibly a reality check for Lockheed Martin that it's time they get their collective sh*t together and make the F-35s start working as advertised (no more dragging their feet; time to put a boot or two in their engineers' @sses)...?

 

All the Eurofighter Consortium would have to do is have maybe half a dozen combat-ready carrier-capable Typhoons flying before LM gets a similar number of F-35C's (combat ready, not testbeds/prototypes) to the USN and RN, and at a much cheaper price.

EC would definitely open up more production ops in the UK long before LM would piece out more F-35 work to 'em.

Also, show us the growth potential of the EJ200s, so potential customers know the jet won't be a no-growth one-trick pony (not that I trust the F-35 will gain much additional engine power over its service...).

 

 

That TVC ability could actually shorten the TyphooN's take off run (kick the nose up in the air faster), depending on its configured weight (in such a case, payload will still be limited so as not to come too close to the aircraft's thrust-weight ratio...).

 

Surprising that LM never offered the AVEN/LOAN-type vectoring nozzle (as developed under the various F-16 expirements) for the A and C model F-35s...it would certainly have increased the aircrafts' agility.

 

What might be a closer contender to killing (or severely limiting) the F-35C program would be if Boeing can convince the DoN/DoD/Congress to procure future F/A-18 blocks based around the Super Hornet demo'ed at AeroIndia this week: those zero-drag conformal fuel tanks on the "shoulders" add 3000 pounds more fuel (1500 each), a nice range enhancement.

Plus, those improved-performance F414s with the ~20% greater thrust over the typical F414s in the current fleet, could enhance short take off performance.

[Guest JamesG123]

Or possibly a reality check for Lockheed Martin that it's time they get their collective sh*t together and make the F-35s start working as advertised (no more dragging their feet; time to put a boot or two in their engineers' @sses)...?

 

That would be a good thing, but its a hollow threat. Typhoon, even with all the bells and whistles you can think of is not and never will be a low observable Gen 4. So if you bought it, you would be stuck with "more of the same" previous gen A/C for a very high percentage of the cost of the F-35.

[swerve]

The French pulled out of the Eurofighter program partially because they knew that it was going to be too heavyweight to fly off a carrier. So that we are latterly exploring doing so to me looks a little bizarre.

 

Vapourware to put pressure on the Americans for a larger workshare on F35?

Not too heavyweight (except, perhaps, for their old small carriers), but they wanted the design to take into account the needs of carrier operations, & the others were rather less keen to make compromises just for the French. Also, the French wanted design leadership & considerably more workshare than their 30% of the total planned order merited, & the others wouldn't agree.

 

But that split did lead to a Eurofighter which is not well suited to carrier operations. If you were designing a carrier fighter from scratch, you wouldn't build a Eurofighter.

[Tony Williams]

It's certainly much easier to start with a carrier plane then use it on land than the reverse.

 

I have a distant memory that when the F/A-18A was all shiny and new, the makers offered a land-based variant (F-18L) which saved a lot of weight through omitting the folding wings, arrester hook and the strengthening required for carrier ops, thereby offering significant performance advantages. No-one bought it though.

[Mistral]

It's certainly much easier to start with a carrier plane then use it on land than the reverse.

 

I have a distant memory that when the F/A-18A was all shiny and new, the makers offered a land-based variant (F-18L) which saved a lot of weight through omitting the folding wings, arrester hook and the strengthening required for carrier ops, thereby offering significant performance advantages. No-one bought it though.

 

Yes it was a contenstant for the Greek buy in the 80s, but lost to the F-16 and the Mirage 2000.

[Yama]

Eurofighter has already discussed a navalised Typhoon with a number of potential customers and is keen to pursue this exciting new phase in Typhoon’s development.

 

That's just lovely part of weaseling. They have "discussed" with a "number" (well, one is a number too) of "potential" customers.

 

Let me get this whole thing straight: market for naval fighter aircraft outside of US and Russian navies is a very small niche, lets say it is something like 200 planes over next 15-20 years. There are already two existing designs in service, and at least one forthcoming (and that's not including MiG-29K or any Chinese or Indian projects). Hey, I've got a great idea! Why don't we develope, at great expense, yet another plane for that horribly crowded niche market? It's even better as our plane, even if delivered on time and budget, offers no meaningful advantages over its competitors, including those which already are in service.

 

Sheer genius. Where can I buy stock?

[Van Owen]

What will happen with the smaller navies like Italy, and Spain with Harrier Carriers if F-35B doesn't make it? Harrier is getting old, so it looks like you either come up with a new option, somehow build new Harriers (unlikely) or live with the fact your carriers are limited to Helos. Somewhere I heard about Gripen being bandied about as a possible naval fighter, that it was a more suitable canidate than Eurofighter for the role.

[sunday]

I think it was in the flyoff in the lightweight fighter contest vs the F16. Back then it was called YF17.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-17

 

God I feel old. I remember building a model of this when I was 6.

 

No, it was a "landized" F-18. Even had it own moniker - "Cobra".

[Colin]

No, it was a "landized" F-18. Even had it own moniker - "Cobra".

I thought our CF-18's had dispenesed with this stuff as well?

[Lampshade111]

I thought our CF-18's had dispenesed with this stuff as well?

 

I believe they actually kept the tailhook and carrier gear. At least I think that stuff was there last time the Canadians brought their air force to a local airshow. No offense intended but the Canadians don't keep their Hornets very clean. The USN ones have some wear and tear to them but are cleaner for sure.

 

The original YF-17 Cobra was the competitor to the F-16 in the LWF competition. It was further developed into the F/A-18 for the Navy. Northrop developed the F-18L which was basically a "de-navalized" Hornet which trimmed off a few thousand pounds of weight. Yet customers opted for the navalized F/A-18 for some reason. Less risk involved I guess.

[Tony Williams]

What will happen with the smaller navies like Italy, and Spain with Harrier Carriers if F-35B doesn't make it? Harrier is getting old, so it looks like you either come up with a new option, somehow build new Harriers (unlikely) or live with the fact your carriers are limited to Helos. Somewhere I heard about Gripen being bandied about as a possible naval fighter, that it was a more suitable canidate than Eurofighter for the role.

Gripen was designed for short/rough field use (like all Swedish fighters, it was intended to be dispersed to makeshift airfields in time of war) so is basically better suited for conversion to carrier ops. It's also smaller and lighter, a plus point in operating from small carriers.

[swerve]

Yes. It would still need significant changes, but far less than Eurofighter. Approach speed is lower, airframe & undercarriage are designed for hard landings (though more beefing-up would be needed), the pilot would be able to see the carrier deck better, etc.

 

It would need much the same modifications for catapult launch, though.

 

What will happen with the smaller navies like Italy, and Spain with Harrier Carriers if F-35B doesn't make it?

Both run on their Harriers as long as possible, then scrap them togethern with their old carriers (Principe de Asturias & Giuseppe Garibaldi). By a happy chance, both ships should be ready for retirement about the same time as the Harriers run out of life.

 

Spain is left with an LHD (Juan Carlos 1) with a useless ski-jump, but it's still a decent LHD. Italy is left with an over-specced LPH/command ship (Cavour) with a useless ski-jump. Italy has the option of modifying Cavour into a light CTOL carrier for something like Sea Gripen, but it's probably not worthwhile. The necessary changes would be extensive & expensive & she's a bit small. Both countries have the option of building new CTOL carriers to replace the old STOVL carriers.

Edited February 12, 2011 by swerve

[Yama]

Gripen was designed for short/rough field use (like all Swedish fighters, it was intended to be dispersed to makeshift airfields in time of war) so is basically better suited for conversion to carrier ops. It's also smaller and lighter, a plus point in operating from small carriers.

 

Fundamental problem here is that Gripen represents 1980's technology. It will take a considerable redesign to make it competive with F-35.

 

Of course, India is planning a naval variant of Tejas, aka. LCA.

[Tony Williams]

Fundamental problem here is that Gripen represents 1980's technology. It will take a considerable redesign to make it competive with F-35.

Exactly the same could be said of the Typhoon, Rafale and Super Hornet.

 

I don't think that anyone suggests that any of these would be competitive with the F-35, but they would be a fraction of the price (a small fraction in the case of Gripen - especially including running costs) and might be considered good enough.

 

Of course, India is planning a naval variant of Tejas, aka. LCA.

 

Which seems to come somewhat closer to representing 1960s technology.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Tony Williams

[D Simcock]

Well it's certainly a curious concept and seems to me to have been born from the possibility that F35B might not make it.

 

If the navalisation concept were built into Tranche 3B, it might be a very good way of sweetening the development and production costs for some of the Eurofighter partners, especially Italy and Spain (and the UK). If India joins Eurofighter as a full partner they might like it too, having rejected JSF. Coming up with the concept now may get the UK involved, when their feasibability studies will likely show they can't afford to make their new carriers CTOL. If they opt for navalised Typhoon, the UK's involvement in JSF will be over.

 

The big issues I'd have thought is just how good the thrust vectoring will be on Tranche 3b, and whether thrust vectoring and the current airframe really can do arrestor hook landings. Folding wings would be nice for smaller carriers too, but I'd have doubts whether they could be folded much more inboard than the outer wing AAM pylons. This might be enough, as you'd only have to shave 2m off the wingspan to take it down to Harrier's span.

 

The niggling worry I have with low radar observables and JSF is if somebody comes up with a way of defeating low observable technology, JSF will be stuffed. The F22 is somewhat immune from this as its a fantastic aircraft even without its low observable profile. JSF isn't.

[shep854]

The land-based F-18s retained the heavy naval landing gear since it worked, and presumably allowed better short/rough field landing characteristics. Also, commonality with the main purchaser helped keep prices down.

----

Besides the weight/performance issues (which will be way bigger than they realize/admit), there's also modifications to permit the plane to operate and endure in the wet, corrosive environment of a carrier deck.

----

This topic also reminded me of the TFX fiasco.

[BansheeOne]

Italy has the option of modifying Cavour into a light CTOL carrier for something like Sea Gripen, but it's probably not worthwhile. The necessary changes would be extensive & expensive & she's a bit small.

 

I maintain my idea of developing a Goshawk 200 to populate the current "toddler carriers" as a CATOBAR Harrier replacement if the F-35 falls through. That would definitely need less conversion work than either Gripen or Eurofighter (though it would also be nowhere near their class) and be better suited to ca. 240 meter decks.

[DanielStarseer]

Its also been known for many years that it has a surprisingly low radar cross section. That would rapidly disappear as you hung weapons on it though, but there may be ways round it, such as pods to carry weapons in.

 

I dont think there is any doubt it would suck for fleet defence in anything other than short range dogfighting.

 

Not necessarily: this new generation of smallform retrofit AESAs could easily give this thing AMRAAM capability.

Consider how far evolved Singapore's Super Skyhawks were from the original US carrier requirement for the A-4 from way back in the, what, 1950s?

Also consider some of the planned-but-never-matured upgrades suggested for the A-4, in addition to the capabilities of late-model AMRAAM-capable Harriers as compared to the first ones: a considerable capability leap (also compare USMC AV-8A to the later AV-8B).

 

Run with it: how exactly would you kit out these Hawks?

(guns, ideal missile armament, preferred radar, preferred engine, etc...)

[BansheeOne]

Not sure whether the current APG-66H of the Hawk 200 has the capability to guide AMRAAMs. I wonder if you could fit it with a similiar small-antenna APG-68. Detection range would probably be nothing to write home about, but better than to be stuck with Sidewinder (or ASRAAM, or IRIS-T) and guns.

[Tomas Hoting]

Not sure whether the current APG-66H of the Hawk 200 has the capability to guide AMRAAMs. I wonder if you could fit it with a similiar small-antenna APG-68. Detection range would probably be nothing to write home about, but better than to be stuck with Sidewinder (or ASRAAM, or IRIS-T) and guns.

 

The Selex Grifo-F radar (like in the Singaporean F-5S/T or the Brazilian F-5EM) is also available with a smaller-sized antenna. The Brazlian F-5EMs use the Rafael Derby, and there are also claims that the Singaporean F-5S/Ts can use the AMRAAM.