A-4 Skyhawk

[Davey B]

I've been on a real Scooter kick lately, and in addition to the British, Irish and Canuck ones I posted in the main forum, here's two others:

A-4F, Royal Australian Navy



This started when I came up with the idea of Canada and Australia using Centaur-class carriers and flying reworked Grumman F-11s in the fighter role.  After a little research I theorised that the Sea Kangaroos wouldn't need the A-4G's air defence mods and would go with a standard A-4F straight off the line.


A-4G, RAAF



So where the hell does the A-4G come in then?  Simple, during Vietnam the RAAF found that its Canberras, Avon-Sabres and Mirage IIIO's couldn't handle the close-support mission.  They decided to follow the Navy's example and went with Skyhawks.  The A-4G was a hybrid, fitting US Navy A-4Es with the engine and wing refinements of the F model but keeping the original avionics fit.


and the Whole Horrible History...

As per reality, with the following exeptions...

A-4F: more power than E, added avionics bulge on spine and more square fintip.  Also to Australian and Canadian navies.
A-4G: RAAF version, surplus E's mated to engine and wing of F.
A-4I: Irish F, with carrier approach and IFR gear deleted and Sidewinder capability added.
A-4K: C's reworked for RAF and RN auxiliary squadrons (New Zealand went for the F-5A )

Dave    

[Damian2]

These colour plates are from a book Aidy has on the A-4 they profile some potential customers for the plane including Greece, India, the Netherlands, Lebanon and Switzerland.

But enough talk on to the pics (3)...

First up Greece:



Now this plane bears a remarkable resembalnce to an Argentine A-4 although I can't see a sun disc in the tail markings and the roundles and flag are consistent with HAF markis circa the 1960's and 70's

Next the Netherlands:



Pretty cool scheme, and one I'd invision being worn by a SAAF PR-4

Fianlly one for Switzerland:




I hope you'll enjoy these pics as much as me as I feel we can NEVER have enough love for the A-4!!!

[GTX]

John & Co.,

Here are some pics of the A4D-2N (A-4C) (there were actually 2 aircraft - BuNos 148490 & 148483)that was trialed by the US Army.  Note the twin main wheels (and crude fairing)and the drag chute (from a A3D Skywarrior):




Another picture giving a better front view may be seen here.

Also, here is a picture of the floding wing (and tail fin) A4D-1:



Note that this wasn't an airworthy mod, but rather a modification made to redundant A-4As to allow there easy transport and use as recruiting tools.

Regards,

Greg

[Jeffry Fontaine]

A-4 with radar nose from smaller scale F-18 to upgrade the airframe to an all-weather capable attack aircraft.  Other refinements and modifications to provide more powerful engine have already been done by others so I won’t get into details on that one.  The only other thing I would consider for the A-4 would be to lengthen the fuselage to give it more internal volume for fuel and electronics.  This stretch would be applied to the forward fuselage in front of the air intakes and behind the cockpit.  The modification would have to be minimal in keeping with the small size of the A-4.  The cockpit would be upgraded to something from the F-18 or F-16 with several very large MFD and minimal guages.  Maybe some modified wingtips for missile launch rails, still undecided on that one.   

Here are some A-4 related links that may be of interest:

Skyhawk Association, A-4 Modeling Page devoted to modeling all things A-4 and it has a nice data base for all known models of the Skyhawk as well as a gallery of built models.

This page is part of theThe Skyhawk Association. 

The Skyhawk Study Group is also another site that should be checked out and saved to your favorites folder.

[Archangel]

Two seat OA-4M streched just enough to add one more hard point on each wing and the fuseleage to add room for more fuel. Turn it into a Navy Marine Wild Weasle. Armed with a centerline 20mm hipeg gun pod. Cluster bombs, 2.75in/5 in. rocket pods and AIM-9G Sidwinders. Add ECM anntenna and chaff and flare units.

[Archibald]

Heck, that's a superb idea! A Hornet / Scooter kitbash... always loved the streamlined nose of the Hornet, just try to imagine this grafted onto one of these late Skyhawk with dorsal spine, and F-404 engine... wunderbar, cool idea!

Result would be something like that   

[AeroplaneDriver]

Hows this for an A-4 idea...

Harrier is a flop.  V/STOL is abandoned.  The USMC operate upgraded/new build A-4s with new engines, avionics, aerodynamic improvements, etc from small amphibious assault ships well into the 21st century.  

I'm seeing about 10 splinter camo USMC A-4Ts operating from the Iwo Jima (with steam cats) in the Persian Gulf...

[Archangel]

Hows this for an A-4 idea...

Harrier is a flop.  V/STOL is abandoned.  The USMC operate upgraded/new build A-4s with new engines, avionics, aerodynamic improvements, etc from small amphibious assault ships well into the 21st century.  

I'm seeing about 10 splinter camo USMC A-4Ts operating from the Iwo Jima (with steam cats) in the Persian Gulf...

Sounds like a great idea. All it would need would be easy enough for them to do like you mention and the Skyhawk might have gotten another 10 years in service till the F/A-18s came on or another "Bantam Bomber" came out.

[Jschmus]

I originally posted this question in the Question thread in the General section, and no one replied.  Now that there's an active Skyhawk discussion, maybe someone will answer.

Would various Russian/Soviet stores be compatible with the A-4?  I'm not talking about anything fancy, just FAB bombs and rocket pods.  If it helps any with conceptuallizing, I envision the captured examples of the A-4E/F being reverse-engineered by the Russians and put into service as an export fighter/attack plane for Vietnam and various client states in the 1970s.  I've seen Skyhawks in red stars before, but I thought it might be neat to see one in the colors and the hardware to match.

[elmayerle]

I originally posted this question in the Question thread in the General section, and no one replied.  Now that there's an active Skyhawk discussion, maybe someone will answer.

Would various Russian/Soviet stores be compatible with the A-4?  I'm not talking about anything fancy, just FAB bombs and rocket pods.  If it helps any with conceptuallizing, I envision the captured examples of the A-4E/F being reverse-engineered by the Russians and put into service as an export fighter/attack plane for Vietnam and various client states in the 1970s.  I've seen Skyhawks in red stars before, but I thought it might be neat to see one in the colors and the hardware to match.

Interesting idea, possibly powered, at least initially, by a dry version of the R11/13/25 family?  And with a Gsh-23 on the centerline, forward of the pylon, and the existing cannon bays used for ammo?  I can just see this one with a couple of MiG-21 drop tanks.

ISTR that at least the basic Soviet weapons use the same stores attachment points as NATO stores, the better to use captured NATO weapons on victorious Soviet aircraft.  This could make for some interesting stores scenarios.

Edit:
Perhaps instead of a Gsh-23 on the centerline, two NR-30 or other single-barrel revolver cannon in place of the US guns.  I could see, given the similarities in layout between the MiG-21 and the A-4 that the MiG OKB would be given the reverse-engineering job and using MiG-21 components where feasible to simiplify the job (thou shalt not re-invent the wheel!).  Perhaps as a MiG-24?

Regarding stretched single-seater Skyhawks, I've always thought that a single-seater built on the basic two-seat airframe had some real potential as a more potent single-seater.

And, thirdly, unless you're going for supersonic performance, the existing A-4 lines work well enough for a radome as evidenced by the radomes installed on the A-4Kahu and the A-4AR.  As an alternative nose, if you really want one, use the one from the AV-8B+ and get both radar and FLIR (though I could see the "innards" there replaced by IRST, a targeting pod, etc. - certainly room to play).  Combine this with my thought of a stretched single-seater on the two-seater airframe (only the Singapore two-seaters have the same length as their single-seat sibs) and you've got the makings of a nice advanced Skyhawk. 

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

In order to upgrade the A-4, I identified what could be the major problems of the original design, even if most of them were already solved:

-Engine power: with a 50kN class engine, both F404 and J52 powered A-4 have a correct thrust/weight ratio for light attack fighters. But if we want an improved variant of the plane (air-air, turn rate, take off distance, but moreover maximal take-off weight...) they will probably need something a little more "punchy" and with less consumption than the J52.
The A-4SU with its F404 is a good start point, but there are not "perfect" Skyhawks!

-Sensor suite: A-4AR and Kahu Skyhawks have the best sensor of all Skyhawk i.e. a multipurpose radar, the APG-66. But some ameliorations could be done in range and multipurpose modes.

-Weapon payload/hard points number: Only five hard point for air-to-ground and air-air weapons. If the Skyhawk had to operate at a reasonable range, they will have to choice either the air-to-ground or the air-air weapons! And I'm not talking about the laser designators or so!!

-
For the "perfect" Skyhawk, I imagine a global refit with two main alternative solutions:


US Proposition

Engine: F414-GE-400D (65kN)

The USA industrials proposed a solution to give the Skyhawk a bigger payload and better performances: the F414-GE-400D that fitted at 65kN
The engine is computer controlled in order to maximize the consumption, and even if in take-off and high combat manœuvres the fuel consumption is higher than a A-4SU's (due to the higher thrust), this is largely compensated by the low cruise flight consumption.

NB: The F414-GE-400D is a derivative of the Enhanced F414. But instead of the 15% more thrust, it have a longer life time and and lower consumption.

Radar: APG-80(v)8

A APG-68 derivative was planed to replace the APG-66. Later, it was decided that this radar will be fitted wis a AESA antenna. Even if it is closer to a conventional APG-68, it was decided to name it after the APG-80 for commercial reasons.

The radar has at least twice the range of the APG-66 in air-air modes, and it has incredibly better abilities in air-to-ground and air-to-sea modes, mostly due to a new numeric central computer.

In option, a light FLIR could be fitted on the nose of the plane, with good navigation and ground target traking abilities and a reasonable air-air ability.


Weapons and payload
-New external tanks with greater capability
-Sniper XR in central pylon
-the entire US guided bombs arsenal (including JDAM), JSOW, SLAM-ER etc...

One of the gun could be replaced by additional ECM black box.

But the main changes is the adaptation of two Sidewinder rail on the wing tips, which strangely required only light modification of the wing itself (but a complete replacement of the moving part of it)

In air-air missions, the new A-4 is able to carry 2 AIM-9X, 2 AIM-120 alongside to 3 external tanks, and in air-to-ground mission, the plane could have self defense missiles while it carries GBU-12 (for example)and tanks/pod




I don't know a thing about US light ECM and Electronic Warfare systems, so I won't talk about them, but I presume that modern systems could easily fit into a A-4 airframe, giving it largely better performances.
Moreover, I imagine that a new canopy and a glass cockpit will be standard stuffs on this large refit.

And of course, those are the high level of the potential modernization, and a A-4 could receive only the new engine, or the new radar or the new wing tips if its owner doesn't have the money to offer the whole stuff.



French proposal
Being chosen to retrofit a large number of light aircrafts around the world those days (Pakistani Mirage III and maybe JF-17, Moroccan Mirage F1 etc...), we could imagine that the French industrials will propose their systems to the A-4.

Engine: M88-4S (56-63kN)
The M88-4S is a derivative of the M88-4 engine (92kN) with no afterburner and a higher dry thrust.
The particularity of this engine is that its software could configured it in two different variants:
-One in Combat Mode offers 63kN
-One in Eco Mode offers only 56kN but with lower maintain cost and a longer life time

Radar: RDY-3 or RBE-3
One more time, those designations are more commercial than real.
-The RDY-3 is actually a Thales RC-400 radar with mechanical antenna but performances largely higher than the APG-66 for a lower price. It offers good BVR abilities, a SAR mode and excellent A2G and maritime modes, just like on the Mirage 2000-9 (but with less range, due to the size of the antenna)
-RBE-3 is not a derivative of the Rafale's RBE-2 but a AESA derivative of the RDY-3. It gives the A-4 quite the same abilities than the Mirage 2000-5 or the F-16MLU, but with a far lighter and smaller radar!!


A FLIR is proposed in option, but never chosen, because the Damocles pod could fit this mission better.

For its electronic and avionic suite, the A-4 will be equipped by a derivative of the excellent Mirage 2000-9's ECM suite and a glass cockpit.


Weapons
French industrials don't propose to add wing-tip launcher, but they propose a dual rail launcher in order to carry 2 MICA on the 3 main stations (in a typical mission, it could carry 2 MICA-IR, 2 MICA-EM on the centerline and 2 external tanks)

For strike missions, they propose the whole French bombs and missiles (including AASM multimission missiles) and most of the European weapons (including ALARM, Brimstone and NSM (Naval Strike Missile).





Well, sorry if I was SO LONG, as you can see, I had very specific ideas in mind!!
It's not a general model, just the one I have in my alternate history model.
But I hope it could help you!

[elmayerle]

Hmm, I wonder if I should start speculating in more depth on the MiG-24 "Fauxhawk" reverse-engineered variant?  Or would it be the MiG-22?  I'm thinking that timeline-wise, MiG-24 makes more sense.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

PDS, what about the radar that is used on the Super Entendard? Would it not fit in the space available on the A-4?

It surely can, I see no problem with that. The new SEM radar is a the Thales Anemone with PESA antenna.
Sadly, due to this bad French tradition of non-communication about military things, I still don't know the exact weight of the Anemone (or even the old Agave). But I presume it's  around 100kg, just in the same class than the APG-66.
And even if it's a little bigger, we only have to redraw the nose, it wont be a problem.

For the Anemone radar, as it's a PESA (maybe now it is an AESA, I'm not sure of that), I imagined that my RBE-3 proposal was a RC-400/RDY-3 radar with the Anemone antenna.
I imagined and wrote this solution in my Brazilian Suepr Etendard thread I believe.


Well, now that I think about it, what is the exact weight of the A-4 radar? What is the volume in the nose? I know that the APG-66 is between 100 and 130kg and between  0.08m3 and 0.102m3 depending on the variant, but I don't know what was the exact variant of the Argentinian and Zealander Skyhawk's radar?

[Jschmus]

Hmm, I wonder if I should start speculating in more depth on the MiG-24 "Fauxhawk" reverse-engineered variant?  Or would it be the MiG-22?  I'm thinking that timeline-wise, MiG-24 makes more sense.

I had imagined the Soviet 'Hawk would be a Yakovlev product, but whatever works.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

For a Soviet Skyhawk, it could be cool to imagine the major structural changes of such a design.
I mean, even if they revers-engineered the Skyhawk, they will probably change a lot of things on it, don't you think??

For my part, I could easily imagine a longer nose (than the A-4B) with either a air-air radar optimized for short range dog-fight or an electro-optic air-to-ground system (just like on the Mig-27 or Su-25).
A-4 with Mig-27 nose, it could be cool!!

The tail could be largely modified too, with a more angled design and a bigger LERX (I don't know how to named that in English: I'm talking about the root extension of the tail we could see on the Mig-23/27 family). A lot of communication and ECM antennas could be fitted on it in a different disposition than on the US A-4.

And for latter variants, powered by RD-33 and RD-93 engines, what about a new air intake, with a more rectangular section?

Maybe they could have redrawn the main gear and their integration in the wings, in order to free some space and put 2 additional hard points at the wing/fuselage junction? Or maybe two wing-tip rail for air-air missiles? As we are talking of a modified design, such heavy modifications could be done, right?
The only 5 pylons of the Skyhawk always stressed me a lot!



And for the Rodina's Fleet lovers, what about such an aircrafts in a naval variant, able to support the Mig-23K for air support and maritime strike??





But I also thought about another way to have a "russianised" Skyhawk: the refit!!
Russian and South-African industrials agreed to develop a refit program for the Mirage F1. What if they did the same for the A-4??
After all, they were (and still are) plenty of second hand A-4 on the export market (Brazil just buy them in such conditions), what if Russian industrials proposed to modernized them with RD-33/93 engines, Russian radar and ECM and new generation weapons??