Carrier Aviation ~ 100 years of USA/USN Traditions; 1922-2022

[Vrenn]

Here's another classic aircraft of USN CV aviation, and one I think should be reconsidered. Revised and updated.

Douglas A-4 Skyhawk: The US Military's Beast in the Sky​

MSN

It was a beast. But it's day is past unless it's a country with shallow pockets. There are hundreds of these just laying around and if reconditioned they can make a really good small airforce on the cheap. But during the same time period, there was another equally useful fighter, the F-5E that grew into the Hornet. Like the A-4, the F-5E is still used around the world and is constantly being updated.

 

[Stryder50]

Here's another classic aircraft of USN CV aviation, and one I think should be reconsidered. Revised and updated.

Douglas A-4 Skyhawk: The US Military's Beast in the Sky​

MSN

More fuller details and information on this classic; which should be seeing continued use in today's world;

Douglas A-4 Skyhawk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also;

Douglas A-4 Skyhawk - Price, Specs, Photo Gallery, History - Aero Corner

The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was developed for the US Marine Corps and US Navy in the early 1950s. It is a single-seated carrier-capable well-lit fighter plane. The sole turbojet, delta winged craft was made and manufactured by Douglas Aircraft Company. It was initially designated as the A4D under...

aerocorner.com

 

[Stryder50]

It was a beast. But it's day is past unless it's a country with shallow pockets. There are hundreds of these just laying around and if reconditioned they can make a really good small airforce on the cheap. But during the same time period, there was another equally useful fighter, the F-5E that grew into the Hornet. Like the A-4, the F-5E is still used around the world and is constantly being updated.

I'm not so sure it's day is past. Especially if one did a slight improved redesign with a newer, improved engine, and improved avionics, radar, and targeting gear, etc.

As I suggested in a prior post here, the F/A-18 Super Hornet comes short on range, payload, and a couple other factors when compared to the original F-14 Tomcat and it's been proposed that an newer and improved Tomcat II be considered.

It's worth consideration in my opinion to examine the mixed aircraft airwing concept again with the three types, F/A-18'G'(third gen), "F-14" Tomcat II, and "A-4" Skyhawk II as the basic air defense and strike aircraft types.

BTW, the F-5E is a good example and the F-20 could have been an even better upgrade;

Northrop F-20 Tigershark - Wikipedia​

 

[Vrenn]

Footnote to the above^;

IIRC, I read once that the SR-71 was built with gaps in the skin panels and fuel tanks to allow for heat expansion when getting into Mach speeds, at which point they would expand and seal. When fueled pre-flight they leaked puddles underneath, so tanks only filled and topped just before take-off.

Also, the fuel used was not standard jet fuel, but a special blend for those specific engines. Hence the aerial tankers supporting only carried that type of fuel and couldn't also serve other jet aircraft at the same time/flight. In other words, the SR-71 also required dedicated aerial tankers to support it's mission flights. An added cost to operate, and a factor in discontinue of it's use.

Not to mention improvement in satellite technologies provide as good and a safer overflight observations.

The faster the SR went, the more it SSSTTRRREEETCCHHHED. The Fuel was JP-7 which was a special blend for that particular engine which was part turbojet and part ramjet depending on the flight. It took off with just enough fuel to meet up with a tanker to top it off, get it to speed and altitude. On the way down, it had to be refueled again to give it enough fuel to land as it leaked like a sieve on that part as well. One would think that it had a ton of power. It didn't. At anything where it wasn't operating as part ram it's two engines were inadequate. They used modified J-58 engines designed to run at full Afterburner for extended times. The J-58 was a half brother to the J-75 originally used in the F-105 and in the original version of the first A-12 Boxcarts. The J-75 was not capable of running for extended periods of time in full AB nor could it be used in a Ramjet configuration. But the J-75 got the A-12 off the ground first. The J-58 was needed to get the A-12 into the history books.

 

[Vrenn]

I'm not so sure it's day is past. Especially if one did a slight improved redesign with a newer, improved engine, and improved avionics, radar, and targeting gear, etc.

As I suggested in a prior post here, the F/A-18 Super Hornet comes short on range, payload, and a couple other factors when compared to the original F-14 Tomcat and it's been proposed that an newer and improved Tomcat II be considered.

It's worth consideration in my opinion to examine the mixed aircraft airwing concept again with the three types, F/A-18'G'(third gen), "F-14" Tomcat II, and "A-4" Skyhawk II as the basic air defense and strike aircraft types.

First of all, I think the A-7E would be the better choice between the two attack birds. The payload is much heavier on the A-7 than it is on the A-6. Plus, the A-7 is a titanium bathtub. I've seen those things land with huge dents on their fuselage that would being down anything except an A-10 or an A-1. But in the "Fighter" role, the A-4 was a bit more nimble. But that isn't what you would want it around for. BTW, the A-7 never got Top Cover when it flew bombing missions. If it got jumped, half would drop the ground loads and go Mig hunting. It didn't take the North long to learn to leave the flock of A-7s alone until the flack fields.

BTW, the F-5E is a good example and the F-20 could have been an even better upgrade;

Northrop F-20 Tigershark - Wikipedia​

There were already a couple thousand F-5s out there and USAF had a fire sale on them. Many countries jumped on them. A Trainer with a real bad attitude for a song and dance. The A-4 was getting ready to go through the same thing with the Navy.

What got the F-20 into trouble was it was going against the F-16 and it's own YF-17. The F-16 won the flyoff.
The Navy didn't want to modify the F-16 and went for another bird. The YF-17 had two engines which is what they required. If you look closely at the YF-17 you will see that it's just an enlarged twin engined F-5E where they made some pretty neat area rule improvements that the lack of power has allowed it to compete with even the hotrods of today. What's funny, the Iranian Hesa Saequeh also looks very similiar including the twin tails and the tail locations. But under theirs, it's still an F-5 and the F-18E should still eat it's lunch. Just don't get too cocky.

 

[Dayton3]

Footnote to the above^;

IIRC, I read once that the SR-71 was built with gaps in the skin panels and fuel tanks to allow for heat expansion when getting into Mach speeds, at which point they would expand and seal. When fueled pre-flight they leaked puddles underneath, so tanks only filled and topped just before take-off.

Also, the fuel used was not standard jet fuel, but a special blend for those specific engines. Hence the aerial tankers supporting only carried that type of fuel and couldn't also serve other jet aircraft at the same time/flight. In other words, the SR-71 also required dedicated aerial tankers to support it's mission flights. An added cost to operate, and a factor in discontinue of it's use.

Not to mention improvement in satellite technologies provide as good and a safer overflight observations.

I remember reading that you could see where an SR-71 had been sitting on the runway prior to take off as it was outlined by fuel that had leaked out

Now people often asked how this was safe (fuel leaks) but the fuel used by Blackbirds (JP-3 IIRC) could only ignite under temperature and pressure.

 

[Dayton3]

First of all, I think the A-7E would be the better choice between the two attack birds. The payload is much heavier on the A-7 than it is on the A-6. Plus, the A-7 is a titanium bathtub. I've seen those things land with huge dents on their fuselage that would being down anything except an A-10 or an A-1. But in the "Fighter" role, the A-4 was a bit more nimble. But that isn't what you would want it around for. BTW, the A-7 never got Top Cover when it flew bombing missions. If it got jumped, half would drop the ground loads and go Mig hunting. It didn't take the North long to learn to leave the flock of A-7s alone until the flack fields.



There were already a couple thousand F-5s out there and USAF had a fire sale on them. Many countries jumped on them. A Trainer with a real bad attitude for a song and dance. The A-4 was getting ready to go through the same thing with the Navy.

What got the F-20 into trouble was it was going against the F-16 and it's own YF-17. The F-16 won the flyoff.
The Navy didn't want to modify the F-16 and went for another bird. The YF-17 had two engines which is what they required. If you look closely at the YF-17 you will see that it's just an enlarged twin engined F-5E where they made some pretty neat area rule improvements that the lack of power has allowed it to compete with even the hotrods of today. What's funny, the Iranian Hesa Saequeh also looks very similiar including the twin tails and the tail locations. But under theirs, it's still an F-5 and the F-18E should still eat it's lunch. Just don't get too cocky.

IIRC one of the things that people had against the F-20 Tigershark was that three of the four prototypes crashed. The USAF has a pretty big bias against aircraft that crash at that stage even if it is due to pilot error.

 

[Vrenn]

I remember reading that you could see where an SR-71 had been sitting on the runway prior to take off as it was outlined by fuel that had leaked out

Now people often asked how this was safe (fuel leaks) but the fuel used by Blackbirds (JP-3 IIRC) could only ignite under temperature and pressure.

I don't know what used Jp-3 fuel but the SR and the YF-12 both used JP-7.
JP-7 - Wikipedia

 

[Vrenn]

IIRC one of the things that people had against the F-20 Tigershark was that three of the four prototypes crashed. The USAF has a pretty big bias against aircraft that crash at that stage even if it is due to pilot error.

I am familiar with 2 crash. Both were over gees by the pilots. But having to go heads up against the F-16 in all areas pretty well spelled defeat. Even if the F-20 was superior in some areas. The Overseas buyers went with what USAF was buying and that was the F-16.

 

[Sandisk]

Don't be ridiculous.

1) How would the U.S. Navy have any examples of enemy hypersonic missiles to test on?
2) What would be the differences between U.S. built hypersonics and enemy ones anyway?
3) No one has any hypersonic cruise missiles yet so your entire idea is stupid.

Three strikes.
You lose.

No link...we are done here.

Good day.

 

[Sandisk]

Junior, that's the closest thing to reality you are going to get without going to a real war. It's the most realistic simulator in the world. When I was in the AF, we used Air Wars which was no where near as sophisticated. Are you aware of who wrote the original DCS Program? The Russians and they still have the bulk of the writing for it today. But since then, it's world wide. It's recommended by US, British and Russian Military Flyers as being as real as anything there is out there.

Now, you must admit that the Russians and Chinese are a couple or three years away from fielding their military hypersonic missiles in enough quantity to make a difference. It's like saying the SU-57 is a true threat. And yes, the US is slightly behind. But by 2025, hypersonic missiles (and a host of other weapons) will be obsolete.

And that is just the ground units. The Space units are also going to come on line about next year making even mervs worthless. Now, they are not claiming that they can use it against nuclear tipped warheads but I think that is to buy time in order to get the whole system online first. Unlike the Russians and Chinese, when the US says they are near completion, they really are.

Sorry 'senior'...video games are a joke to use to compare weapons.
ESPECIALLY newer weapons where the specifications and capabilities of said weapon systems are not even known.
Video simulations designed for military applications ONLY are different.
This link of your is NOT that...it is of a video GAME.
If you think that is an accurate means of identifying, newer weapons systems capabilities?
Then you are fucking dreaming.

Video games and 50 mph Nimitz/Ford carriers?
I am done with this silliness.

We are done here.

Good day.

 

[Vrenn]

Sorry 'senior'...video games are a joke to use to compare weapons.
Video simulations designed for military applications ONLY are different.
This link of your is NOT that...it is of a video GAME.
If you think that is an accurate means of identifying weapons systems capabilities?
Then you are fucking dreaming.

Video games and 50 mph Nimitz/Ford carriers?
I am done with this silliness.

We are done here.

Good day.

Good. Does that mean you are not going to post anymore? Works for me.

 

[Dayton3]

No link...we are done here.

Good day.

How could I link to something about weapons that don't even exist?

Who do you think I am CaptainRussia ?

 

[Mushroom]

They might think that the political/public morale impact of the U.S. losing a carrier would be worth it.

And the loss of a significant percentage of their strategic nuclear force?

I don't think so.

 

[Mushroom]

You've never heard of 'satellites'?

They are awesome if you are planning on striking a static target. Like a training camp or outpost.

They are pretty much completely ineffective for what you are talking about against a moving target.

They are not real time, the are not everywhere, it takes time to get the feed from a satellite, locate a target within it, then pass along that to an attacking organization.

All of which time said target is moving.

What, you think that such could really locate something instantly, then it just be targeted with the flip of a switch?

 

[Mushroom]

I don't know if individual Tomahawks can be launched from underwater.

Yes, they can.

And that is your very problem, you do not know and do no research to find out.

But many of us already know these things, or take the time to do some research and see if they are or are not possible.

 

[Mushroom]

The Hawkeye cannot track the Standard missiles the Navy would fire to shoot down the missiles.
And you are seriously suggesting that the Hawkeye's radar can track a hypersonic missile while the Aegis radar cannot?

Wow, do you really not know that there are a great many types of RADAR systems?

Look, if you want to have a serious discussion with things like facts, we can do that.

If all you are going to do is state over and over you do not believe something, then there is no point in this really.

 

[Mushroom]

Standard ER have an ASAT capability. Russian satellites wouldn't last a single orbit in a war.

Well, yes and no.

The ASAT still needs to be within range of the bird they want to shoot down. It is after all a more or less direct fire weapon with little to no "travel" in distance other than up. Hitting a bird within a few hundred miles of any cardinal direction, that it can do. Hitting a bird in say Japan while the launching platform is off Hawaii, not gonna happen.

 

[Mushroom]

Which is why in all the techno thrillers, while the Soviet Backfire force generally gets some shots in early, they are then all but annihilated and that's all she wrote.

Like the well known "Dance of the Vampires" from "Red Storm Rising".

And it is not just a "story for a book", the authors (Tom Clancy and Larry Bond) were already known in both the military and gaming community for their naval knowledge. And they gamed the scenario (WWIII in the Atlantic) multiple times, with actual DoD and Naval Personnel to make sure the scenario would work as they imagined. Almost every single battle in that book was gamed out with real Naval Experts.

And in their real games, 2 times out of 3 the US-Allied force realized what was coming and reacted to prevent the destruction of the French carrier Foch. Only in one was the attack successful. But that was the direction they wanted the story to go, so that was how they wrote it in the book. But the loss of those bombers was also a significant blow to the Red Air Force as it crippled their options in other areas.

And the result of almost each one was matched in what the Soviets thought when they talked to them after the USSR dissolved. That the Soviets could take out quite a bit of military hardware, but in exchange for a significant portion of their bomber fleet. A bomber fleet that was many times more than what Russia has today.

Hence, why I mentioned "Midway". The Japanese learned that even with equal losses (or slightly higher US losses compared to theirs), they would lose. Tactically, strategically, and logistically the US is the "deepest" military in the world. It is not the largest, or best. But as Japan learned, going against such an opponent is almost impossible because they can take the losses without a problem.

And this can be seen in another battles. The Battle of the Coral Sea was a Japanese Tactical Victory. They sunk the USS Lexington, and only lost a light carrier Zuikaku. However, strategically it was an Allied Victory, as the US could much more afford the ships lost than Japan could. And it forced the Japanese to abort the attack on Port Moresby.

After that battle Japan grew more desperate, which ultimately resulted in Midway. And they could never recover from that lost, and their empire shrunk smaller and smaller after that.

Like a Featherweight boxer going against a Heavyweight. He may get some points in during the early rounds, but it only takes a few of the hard hits to put him on the canvas.

 

[Mushroom]

They do not need tankers for that.
They have 19 tankers.
But they can use any number of other aircraft as 'buddy tankers' (the US Navy does it all the time with F/A-18's).

Look up "Operation Black Buck", and try again.