Ran Skyhawk Alternatives

[GTX]

Hi folks,

A question that has pestered me for while now is whether or not any alternatives to the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk were considered by the RAN FAA back in 1965 when the de Havilland Venom fighters were replaced.  Some possibilities I can imagine are:

Ling-Temco-Vought A-7 Corsair II;
Dassault Étendard IV.

What else?

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Nice aircraft, but remember the HMAS Melbourne was only a very small carrier - these may not be able to operate from it!

Regards,

Greg

[Archibald]

I think only the USA offer more stuff. France has nothing to offer aside the Etendard IV (too early for Jaguar M alas).

Mirage F2, G, F1 are all too late and none exist as naval aircraft. On the other hand RAAF pilots tested the G prototypes circa 1969...  


Hmm a strike variant of Sea Vixen would be nice. Btw there's also Scimitar, not very good handling caracteristics, but huge power. Don't know if it would fit onto the Melbourne...

So Uncle Sam propose to you

Corsair II and Skyhawk, modern attack types, already mentioned.

Or second-hand machines.

F-11 Tiger (already mentioned)
F-6 Skyray

FJ-4 Fury
This one is interesting in the sense it is rather close from the RAAF Sabres. Maybe a pilot transfer ?

The Cutlass was load of crap, better to forget it.

what else ? (as would say George)

[Thorvic]

P1154    

[fallenphoenix]

The SR.177 would have been in with a shout had it went ahead* other than that the A-4 is about as good as it was going to get due to the limited power of the cats. Maybey if they had went looking earlier the Fury or Banshee from the US or Hawker Seahawk from the UK.

I think Mossie said something about doing some export profiles a while ago of which I saume the RAN would be one, think it was around November, anywho he did post some of Royal Navy machines  

[dy031101]

I was once told that ex-RN CVLs are not fast enough to to help catapulting the likes of F-8, so that probably can narrow down the choices available.

[fallenphoenix]

the more I think about it the less sence the Sea Hawk makes... the SeaHawk wasnt really as advanced as the Sea Venom, could have maybey went with the Sea Hawk directly from the Sea Fury but in that case there would likely be no RAN Sea Venoms  :zzz:  

[MAD]

-I have to disagree with the Dassault Étendard IV and Sea Hawk
These designs have too much performance, payload and development restrictions!

-The Sea Vixen and F-4 Phantom II are way too large and heavy for the Royal Australian carriers like HMAS Sydney and Melbourne.

-The SR.177 design aboard a carrier has always worried me – primarily because of the volatility of its rocket-fuel mix!!!!!! (I would like to think that the Royal Navy learned something of the vulnerability and volatility of carrier during WWII!)




I like the idea of the A-4 Skyhawk (it's just a pity in reality that the RAN took so long to get away from its obsession of British aircraft!)
The RAN could have continued with the more advanced developments of the Skyhawk, with the likes of the USMC`s A-4M etc, and who knows even the Singaporean foresight to re-engine with General Electric F404 (as used by the RAAF`s Hornets) and fitting of APG-66 radar would have kept the Skyhawk of the RAN effective aircraft  

I have always like the size/performance/capability ratio of the Vought F-8 Crusader for the RAN (although I was not aware of the issue of 'ex-RN CVLs are not fast enough to help catapulting the likes of F-8' – until know!)
But if it was possible to get HMAS Sydney & Melbourne to operate the Crusader – I would opt for either a more multi-roled variant or a split between a dedicated all-weather fighter/interceptor variant and a dedicated Strike/Attack variant (featuring perhaps another weapons pylon/hard point under each wing, 2 x 30mm cannons in place of the 4 x 20mm cannons and ammo)


I also like the idea of the FJ-4 Fury as a replacement for the Sea Fury, instead of the Sea Venom, for its better air-to-air capability (and yes as mentioned, this could have lead to an Avon-powered FJ-4 Fury variant. This would have utilized the efforts and resources of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) in developing the best variant of the Sabre family for the RAAF.  

I have always thought that the size-to-capability of the Grumman F-11 Tiger would have been resourceful for the RAN. Added to this the potential that the follow-on Super Tiger would have given!  





M.A.D

[Lawman]

The best bet is almost certainly the A-4 Skyhawk, upgraded with suitable radar etc... One possibility might be to make it a joint service aircraft, with the RAAF modifying all the Mirages to fighter spec, and then getting Skyhawks for the strike role. The Melbourne and Sydney might both be able to be updated, operating a mix of a dozen Skyhawks, four Trackers (for AEW) and four Sea Kings.

The RAN would have two Skyhawk air defence/stike squadrons, and a training unit. The RAAF would then operate four Skyhawk strike squadrons, plus a training squadron, and four Mirage fighter squadrons and their training squadron. There would also be a pair of RAAF heavy strike squadrons, initially with heavily updated Canberras, with them being replaced by A-6 Intruders, with a short squadron of EA-6As as well!

Melbourne and Sydney both continue in service, being overhauled using American funding (partly as a thank you for Vietnam assistance), not needing replacement until the late '80s or early '90s. Their replacement becomes more than a little contentious, with some advocating Invincible class STOVL carriers, with Sea Harriers; and some advocating new CTOL carriers, along the lines of a bigger Clemenceau (hence Hornet capable). It is decided to build, in conjunction with the UK, a new 45,000 ton carrier, slightly bigger than the French CdG, but using six uprated LM2500 engines (30,000hp each, for 180,000hp total), driving three shafts. The new ships are to operate two 16-aircraft fighter squadrons, plus four Hawkeyes and four SH-60 Sea Hawks (or Merlins in the UK ones). The UK decides to make the new Eurofighter carrier capable, right from the start, to operate from the new carriers, instead of the Sea Harrier update. As such, the UK pushes the Typhoon into service much earlier, entering regular squadron service in the late '90s, in time to make its operational debut over Kosovo in Allied Force.

The Aussies are able to get no less than two of these carriers - they are expensive, but considered necessary to support expeditionary operations. The first of the two carriers is even in service in time for East Timor operations, supporting INTERFET and Op Warden. The UK is able to get no fewer than four of these ships, with ordered with the two Aussie ones, over a twelve year period, for one carrier every two years. The first is laid down in '94, completing two years later, and entering service in '97, with the last of the carriers being laid down in 2006, for completion in 2008, and entry into service scheduled for 2009. The Invincibles are to continue on until finally replaced, mostly supporting amphibious operations, slowly being retired, until just Ark Royal remains, operating alongside Ocean.  

[bluntie]

Hiya Greg,
The SLUF was definatley on the top of the list,so much so that the RNZAF was kept abrest of developments ,as there was the line of thought that commonality of aircraft and training would see RNZAF pilots flying off the  HMAS Melbourne,as far as i know funding for RAN pilots and ground crew training in the U.S. was in the process of being alocated when the U.S. Government offered the A-4's at a bargain basement price , and the rest is , as they say ,history.
However the idea of SLUF's in RAN markings is nearly as attractive as a KAHU SLUF!!......MAV?.....Richard?.....  

[Thorvic]

There is one thing your missing, if the RAN were looking at Skyhawk Alternatives then its quite possible that they may have gone for one of the Brit Carriers being eramarked for decomissioning becuase of the cuts. Victorious was scrapped early after a small fire, but had only seen less than 10 yrs service since her rebuild. Hermes was offered according to GTX, but i think the refit of Melbourne offered jobs to Aussie Workers meant more than capability to the RAN .

She would have been a wiser option to purchase and repair than the rebuild of Melbourne and would have provided a much better platform for slightly larger aircraft types


AFVG, A-7 Corsair, S-3 Viking, AEW Viking, Sea Kings etc.

G

[Thorvic]

Theres also the home grown aspect, with the US no longer doing small carrier aircraft i think i recall mention possibly on Secret Projects of the CAC Ca-31 being adapted as a Skyhawk replacement, the AA107 might also have been propossed along the same route.

If the RN had been allowed to stay in the conventional carrier role then i expect the AFVG/Type 583 type would have been adopted by the RN, MN and certainly considered by the RAN, maybe with the Jaguar M undertaking the strike role. Even more so if they got Hermes or Victorious off the RN.

G

[Archibald]

Theres also the home grown aspect, with the US no longer doing small carrier aircraft i think i recall mention possibly on Secret Projects of the CAC Ca-31 being adapted as a Skyhawk replacement, the AA107 might also have been propossed along the same route.

If the RN had been allowed to stay in the conventional carrier role then i expect the AFVG/Type 583 type would have been adopted by the RN, MN and certainly considered by the RAN, maybe with the Jaguar M undertaking the strike role. Even more so if they got Hermes or Victorious off the RN.

G

Naval CA-31, what a fantastic idea...  the RAAF buy the type as an step between MB-326 and Mirage, while RAN buy it as lightweight fighter and / or Skyhawk replacement.

Why didn't we thought about that before ??!!!!    

au fait, is Uncle Lee's resin kit still  available ?

[Zen]

Hmmm....weight limit is 24,000lb for Melbourne if memory serves.

Saro P177 as a jet only machine is a possible option.

Navalised Swift or Lansen is another, of the two the Lansen has real potential for both Fighter and attack roles.

Etendard with a more powerful engine has some potential.

Navalised Gnat, Gnat mkII or a restricted (to low weights) Gnat mkV have potential.

BAC
Type 593 item B.
P61 PANNAP series F3.
P66/3 fixed wing variant of the PANNAP series.

HSA
Brough P153, P159 and at low weights the P146.
HS1173

[dy031101]

Are we still talking about upgraded Melbourne and Sydney or decommissioned ex-RN CVA?

Some said that the failure of RN CVA modernization lies in mismanagement and failure to select proper candidates...... although whether a "properly-managed" ex-RN CVA aquisition would have been economically viable to Australia or not is beyond me.

On the other hand...... would there be a way to enable the CVLs to operate supersonic aircraft (you know, the likes of F-8) through extensive refit (catapult?  Steam plant?)?