Eurofighter Typhoon

[Shasper]

Yeah the dual-mode Paveways are in the EGBU-xx range, not sure if they're in use in the US or not.

Now you brits correct me if I'm wrong, but the T.3 has the IRST where the T.1s dont, correct?


Shas

[AeroplaneDriver]

I could almost swear I've seen a pic of a GR.9 in Afghanistan with US 500lb GBU12s, but then again I could be imagining it.  The RAF Reapers do use the GBU12.

Also, this page on the RAF site for the Paveway IV shows it on what appears to be a Mk82, similar to the GBU12. 

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/paveway4.cfm

[pyro-manic]

Having looked at it a bit more, the Paveway IV seems to use the Mk.82 warhead, whereas the heavy Paveway III looks like it's on the British GP casing. As the IV is a new weapon, perhaps they've decided to switch over to the Mk82? AFAIK the US is not using the Paveway IV, as they are focussing on the SDB instead.

Shasper: Yes, the T.3 and FGR.4 are to the new Block 5 standard, which includes the PIRATE IR turret and ground attack capability. All previous aircraft will be updated to this standard as they undergo maintenance.

[Spey_Phantom]

BUMP

i have found something very interesting.
this appears to be a plausibly feasable design for a carrier based version of the Typhoon 

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/285968-aircraft-carriers-may-use-typhoon.html#post3445721

and i quote

In May 2001 Sir Robert Walmsley, Head of the Defence Procurement Agency, dismissed the possibility of a navalised Eurofighter pointing out that Typhoon was "not currently designed so that it could use a carrier. We could change the design but we would be faced with a huge piece of work. The materials would probably have to be changed in order to avoid corrosion; the weight of the undercarriage would have to be doubled to support carrier landing which would eat into the payload margin; and the wing roots would have to be strengthened in order to take the full inertia forces on landing. That sounds to me like a very substantial redesign. It is always possible, but it would cost a huge amount of money and it would certainly add very considerably to the cost of the aircraft."

There had also been fears that the flight deck clearance of external weapons would be dangerously low for the robust nature of carrier launch and landing events, and that the canards would dangerously restrict the pilots view during high angle of attack carrier landings. These fears were dismissed after studies.

Walmsley's conclusions were not shared by those who'd undertaken the studies, and the possibility of a navalised Typhoon re-emerged in late 2005, as a "Plan B" in the event of a JSF cancellation.

BAE engineers had concluded that navalising Typhoon appeared to be "practical and relatively inexpensive", and that navalising later RAF tranches "might be of interest". The view over the nose was not necessarily inadequate and there were a number of options for reducing sink rate. Of these only the increased angle of attack option would would require the addition of a pilot periscope or a higher seat position and higher canopy roofline.

The studies indicated a 340 kg weight increase for the STOBAR version, and 460 kg for the CTOL catapult launched variant.

STOBAR was considered preferable to CTOL, flight control system changes would be necessary to guarantee "precision landings" but there would be little change to structural layout, and there would certainly be no need for a major rework for the aircraft to survive arrested landings.

The Typhoon's advanced flight-control system could be programmed to reduce the stresses of landing, particularly if integrated with a carrier-landing datalink. This would have a number of advantages. For instance, sudden pitching of the carrier deck would be recognised by the system, which would feed in last-second control corrections, ensuring that the aircraft landed within set limits. This would permit the airframe to be strengthened only as required for operations within those parameters.

Thrust vectoring, already being planned for the Typhoon, coupled with a high-lift wing design, could provide near-optimal short-takeoff-and-landing capabilities for a 'Sea Typhoon.' The use of a ski ramp would only enhance STOL performance.

As an alternative to JSF, it was claimed that Typhoon (N) would offer higher speed, range and payload, although it would be less stealthy. A Typhoon (N) would also have the advantage of considerable commonality with the 232 Eurofighter Typhoon's already planned for the RAF – if, indeed, the third Tranche was not completed in a Typhoon (N) configuration.

The UK was not the only potential customer for a navalised Typhoon, Eurofighter GmbH briefed the Italian Navy during 2000 about a low-cost, reduced weight, arrestor landing/angled deck variant of the while the company offered 'another customer' (probably India) a "more radically modified naval version of the aircraft", presumably the STOBAR variant studied for the UK.

[ysi_maniac]

Hi Tophe,
Did you get any result from this search?

Thanks anyway

[Weaver]

Has anyone made kits of the Eurofighter "precursor" projects, such as the EAP demonstrator of the German TKF-90 proposal? I don't recall one of the former, but I have a half-memory that RoG might have done a speculative TKF-90 kit at some point in the early '80s? 

The reason I ask is that a discussion on another forum reminded me that, when the EAP was being built and flown, Germany wanted nothing to do with it for political reasons and it was very much a British-led initiative. There was serious talk at the time of Britain going it alone with a productionised EAP if Germany continued to vacillate: now that would make an interesting whiff, wouldn't it?

[elmayerle]

Pegasus made a limited-run kit of the EAP.  I've got a few for various purposes (one stock, one raspberry ripple, one "operational") but haven't built any yet (as best I know, all are in the southern most of my Texas stashes).  ISTR that Revell did a very early Eurofighter in the early 1990's that might be better used for whiffing.

[pyro-manic]

Yes, Revell did an early kit.

[Weaver]

Is this the one you're thinking of?



Or is there an earlier one?

This one is still too "late" for what I had in mind. The earlier EAP had a cranked delta wing, Tornado tail, faired in canopy, rectangular intake, Tornado-style missile bays and different undercarriage. It might be possible to "de-evolve" a Eurofighter kit some way towards that, but it wouldn't be easy.

[pyro-manic]

That's the one, yes.

I'm sure you could bash an EAP together from a tornado kit, a Typhoon, and some scratchbuilt bits (wings mainly).

[Sauragnmon]

Random thought - VG Wings on a Tiffy?  Would look pretty weird/interesting I think.

[Mossie]

Regarding the EAP, Pegasus did a kit in 1/72 once upon a time.  Colin at Freightdog may get around to re-releasing it sometime?

[B777LR]

Yes, Revell did an early kit.

My second or third model ever was that kit. It wasn't a bad kit, rather good details.

[Weaver]

Regarding the EAP, Pegasus did a kit in 1/72 once upon a time.  Colin at Freightdog may get around to re-releasing it sometime?

Found a picture of one made up, and it looked pretty rough, to be honest.

[Mossie]

Yeah, that's the general impression I get from the web.  I vaguely remember some of the SIG guys saying that if Colin was to bring out the Pegasus EAP, it may be re-furbished or even re-done.  I blame the effect of beer killing brain cells when I was younger if my memories a bit off!