Brazilian Skyhawks, are they any good?

Hi Ja,

Sorry I missunderstood you on the kiwi A-4s… 😉

Well, any upgrade would do wonders for the Skyhawks but the idea to subject them to the existing F-5EM upgrade at Embraer’s Gavião Peixoto plant is still under consideration. this would add a whole new Elbit digital/glass cockpit comuters and avionics, new Fiar Grifo X radar, RWR, chaff/flare launchers BVR (Derby/R-Darter probably) missile capability and the ability to fire the local Piranha IR short range missiles. The Navy by using the already tested F-BR upgrade would reduce the program’s risk and grow component comonality simplifying the logistics operation.

But the first truely effective and modern shipboard fighter for the Brazilian Navy would only come after the A-4s time. Maybe by 2010-5 timeframe, a new fighter/attacker ought to relegate them to a secondary training role, if there is money to keep them flying. Possible options are centered around the F-18A/B/C/D, the Rafale or the MiG-29K.

For some skyhawk pictures I suggest: http://www.basemilitar.com.br/artigos/vf1/index.htm

Best Regards,

Hammer

Hammer: mate i just read what you wrote with deep interest and had to re read what I wrote to see what you were talking about. I wasn’t talking about the AF-1’s being fitted with the radar, I was actually refering to the A-4K’s of the RNZAF which had the APG-66, now if this was to be fitted to the AF-1’s, then what a boost they would get in service don’t you think?

Hi guys!

Returning to the Brazilian Skyhawks theme for a while. 😉

a) The Brazilian Air Force was created in 1941 with the merger of the former Army and Naval Aviation units, pilots and mechanics and all their aircraft, no need to say this was done over these services rampant protests…
b) the Navy bought the Minas Gerais (A-11) in 1956 and delivered in 1960 after major upgrades in the Dutch Verolme Shipyards after seeing the good use the americans did with their carriers
c) The then still young Brazilian Air Force considered the purchase of the new carrier a major Navy provocation, a way to force the re-creation of the Naval fixed-wing Aviation force
d)The Navy acting alone without higher authorization bought T-28s Trojans attack planes and Pilatus PC-3 trainers for for pilot development for the the A-11
e) The Air Force for a number of months monitored the Navy’s aviation activities eventualy “denouncing” the creation of an “ilegal” Naval Air Station in São Pedro d’Aldeia near Rio. There were even cases of FAB fighters strafing Navy planes…
f)In 1965 the Brazilian president in order to end the inter-service crisis decreed that the all fixed wing planes onbord the Navy’s CV would be owned and operated by the Brazilian Air Force, Navy helicopters would be allowed on the carier and on the escorts’ helipads
g)The FAB only operated the Grumman Tracker ASW patrol aircraft from 1965 to their retirement in 1996 never deciding to field fighter planes on the A-11. No aircraft was ever planned by teh FAB to replace the Trackers due to lack of funds in the FAB budget…
h) Two years later the Navy obtained another presidential decree allowing it to operate fixed wing planes and immediately purchased the Kuwaiti Skyhawks

The Minas Gerais was very small by todays standards, very few aircraft could operate from it’s short flat top and anemic catapults. The boilers could nos accelerate the ship fast enough to launch newer model fighters. The Skyhawk was a compromise, cheap, limited in terms of military potential but just enough to get the naval aviation rolling with fixed wing fighters. Because of this purchase there was finally a reason for a number of pilots to be sent to Argentina and Uruguay for fixed wing basic school. The FAB now a fully mature force just ignored these navy moves.

The twist came in some years later with the bargain basement purchase of the Ex-Foch from the French Navy now this larger ship much faster could allow for larger and heavier planes such as the A-7 and Super Etandard, but mow the high cost of operating and manning the São Paulo was keeping the Aviation Arm from refurbishing and flying their A/F-1 fighters. The Navy had over twenty pilots and no planes for them to fly in. Unfortunately the size of the catpults, arestor wires and elevators in the São Paulo still limits the size of any future planes to under 20tons thus peventing the adoption of more modern aircraft such as the F-18, Su-33, and the Rafale… There are some plans in the bud for a nationally built and designed new generation CV (the “A-13”) but there is no money at all for this pipe dream.

Harriers have been repeatedly offered and discarded by the Brazilian Navy over the years as not to be forced by the politicians and the Air Force into a small and limited future STOBAR carrier design. The Bailian Navy never settled for anything other thn catapults and long deck.

The A/F-1 as they are today don’t carry any air to air radars Ja, some plans were discussed about applying the F-5BR upgraded cocpit and BVR missile system to the Navy Skyhawks but this too is being restrained by the lack of funds….

There you have it gents, the full story.

Any other doubt?

Regards,

Hammer

Congress objected that this would cost so much that it would endanger the A-12, so the cheaper A-6G program was proposed. This would have all of the new avionics, but would use existing airframes (and a limited number of new-build to the existing design), with new wings of the same design as those just starting to be built as replacement for cracked ones on the -Es.

With the expected “wisdom” of “money solves everything”, Congress decided to forgo any “stop-gap” program, on the grounds that all that money would, if transferred to the A-12, speed it up to a 1995 production date, thus negating the need for upgrades to the Intruder.

Of course, we all know how that turned out, don’t we!!

We had something of the sort with the TSR.2/Buccaneer saga in the early 1960s. The Buccaneer airframe did most of what the TSR.2 was intended to do (biggest difference being it couldn’t do a supersonic dash over the last leg to the target). Chief weakness was that it lacked the sophisticated avionics (terrain-following radar, etc) being developed for the TSR.2. The air force vigorously resisted any funding for Buccaneer upgrades, seeing them as a threat to the TSR.2. How could you justify an awesomely expensive new air force plane if it could be done for a fraction of the price by upgrading an existing navy one? Then the TSR.2 was cancelled as too expensive – and so were the systems developed for it, with which the Buccaneer could have been upgraded. So the Bucc never achieved anything like the potential of the airframe, always being limited by its avionics.

Thats what the fb-111s were there for before the axe fell on them . Now their role has to be reactivated again

I have always thought that the A-6 might actually make a good USAF ‘Regional Bomber’, allowing a common Navy/Air Force bomber. The A-6F would be able to carry almost half the bombload of a B-52 (okay, a smaller number of missiles, but 24 500lb versus 51 500lb bombs). It would also allow the USAF to operate its own EA-6Bs (EA-6Cs). Think of the numbers –

150 EA-6Cs for the Navy/Marines, instead of the EA-18Gs
150 EA-6Cs for the USAF, since they currently have to borrow Navy aircraft
300 A-6Fs for the Navy/Marines
300 A-6Fs for the USAF as regional bombers

That would be around 900 aircraft, more than were originally built!

The original plan for USN/USMC medium attack was to “go slow” with the A-12, allowing time for the design and technologies to be fully developed before they tried to build actual aircraft. This would have seen them enter service starting around 2000-2005, and finishing by 2010.

This would have necessitated something to “fill in” for the A-6Es, which were experiencing problems with airframe and wing structure fatigue.

The A-6F was to be this temporary “replacement”, and details were released in early 1984. They would have had 3 of the same computer as went into the F-14D upgrade (one for flight & A-A combat, one for radar & bombing, and one as a “spare”), as well as a variant of its radar. There were to be two (one per wing) new “light-weight” stores pylons added outboard of the existing ones, specifically to carry Harm missiles for radar supression or AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles for “self-defense”.

The wing was to be a new part-composite one, and the fuselage would be redesigned for transsonic (but not supersonic) flight, as well as to accept the larger diameter F404 engines.

Congress objected that this would cost so much that it would endanger the A-12, so the cheaper A-6G program was proposed. This would have all of the new avionics, but would use existing airframes (and a limited number of new-build to the existing design), with new wings of the same design as those just starting to be built as replacement for cracked ones on the -Es.

With the expected “wisdom” of “money solves everything”, Congress decided to forgo any “stop-gap” program, on the grounds that all that money would, if transferred to the A-12, speed it up to a 1995 production date, thus negating the need for upgrades to the Intruder.

Of course, we all know how that turned out, don’t we!!

The A-6F which never got beyond prototype stage used a variant of the F404, if the F/A-18 had been a failure the A-6F would of been in service now with navy attack squadrons.

I don’t know… I have only seen it mentioned in the 1988-98 Jane’s Aircraft engine section, where it is said to be capable of being fitted to both the -8 and -408 engines “in the field”. I do believe it was also to be for the proposed “A-6G” upgrade of the Intruder… which was turned down in ~1985/6. (The proposed new-build “A-6F” would have had non-afterburning F404s).

When I completed my time in the USMC in June 1989, none of the A-6E Intruders in VMA (AW)-121 or VMA (AW)-242 (based in El Toro Ca.) had had their -8 engines refitted, nor was there any talk of doing so to any of the Marine birds, so I really doubt that the Intruders did … I have no idea on the Prowlers (-408).

As all the USMC A-4Ms (-408) & OA-4Ms (-8) were being replaced with AV-Bs and F-18Ds at that time, they wouldn’t have either… and the TA4Fs (-8) of the USN had no need for that extra power, so no there also.

I don’t know if the US has let them buy the -409 upgrade kit (12,000 lb.s.t.).

I have only heard of the J52-409 in connection with a cancelled upgrade to the EA-6B Prowler?

Did the USN/USMC ever retrofit the -409?

Another major difference between Brazil’s Skyhawks and Australia’s (long retired) is that the A-4G had the 9,300 lb.s.t. J52-P-8 engine, while the AF-1s have the 11,200 lb.s.t. J52-P-408. I don’t know if the US has let them buy the -409 upgrade kit (12,000 lb.s.t.).

The main reason they bought the Skyhawks was because they got a good price off the Kuwaitis….

True, the Kuwaiti Skyhawks had been on the market a long time, but they also were in excellent condition with low hours.

The choice of Skyhawks was dictated by size of the carrier Minas Gerais

That could be right, we had Skyhawks on our old Carrier Melbourne and the USN/USMC hated landing on it because it was so small. MG was once in RAN service as HMAS Vengence (1950-1953, loaned to us from the RN, hence keeping the same name, while we waited for the Melbourne which was getting upgrades in the Dutch docks).

Super etendards were too heavy

That’s not true, the MG was of similar construction standards to the older VdM in Argentine service and they had both the A-4 and SuE’s on board. Besides, after the desimation of the engine/boiler room, the AdA did use the SuE’s on the MG a couple of times during joint excercises with the MdB. That statement I can’t believe at all. Besides, the SuE and the current AF-1’s are of similar weights (both being around 12 tonnes).

The main reason they bought the Skyhawks was because they got a good price off the Kuwaitis and the French didn’t have any SuE’s readily available because they were the only plane in MN service at the time with the Raf taking so long to come on line.

Just bit curious, Brazil has choosen either for political or economic reasons to fly Skyhawks from its carrier. Is that a good idea?

Why not?

The A-4J was the U.S. Navy’s advanced carrier trainer until recently. For a small navy, with a single carrier and limited experience with combat jet aviation, the A-4 is an ideal type.
[QUOTE=worthyoneWhat can the Skyhawk offer in todays world?[/QUOTE]

Brazil’s A-4’s are very nearly as capable as Brazil’s landbased AMXs. In many respects, the A-4 has superior flight performance to the AMX.

Wouldn’t they have been better off getting Harriers or A-7’s?

It is just about impossible to find used Harrier IIs with remaining flight hours, and the production line is closed.

Assuming that there are suitable A-7Es left in storage, the operating costs are significantly higher than the Skyhawk’s. The A-7E is also substantially heavier, raising questions about operations from the ex-Foch.

i once read article about brazillian anval aviation in finnish aviation magazine and it said that The choice of Skyhawks was dictated by size of the carrier Minas Gerais, which was then the sole operational brazilian flattopper…A-7s and Super etendards were too heavy and Harriers werent aviable to the braz’s so A-4 was only choice..

I can see that you are new here, don’t worry, we don’t bite peoples heads off.

Anyway, the Skyhawk was chosen for weight and size reasons. They have been upgraded to a similar standard to the old RNZAF skyhawks with the APG-66 radar making them a very capable plane to play with.

Sadly with the ecconomic down turn in Brazil, the fleet of AF-1’s (local designation for the skyhawks) are forced into a slight hiatus, thus only three are flyable atm and another two being worked on in Argentina. The MdB recently awarded LMAATS a contract to look after two skyhawks and six engines for 5 years.

The Carrier is rented out to the AdA for continuation of carrier qualifications for it’s pilots and the MdB’s pilots have not had much sea time in two years.

IMHO, the AF-1 force is becoming a joke in the service, the pilots are very capable but the money keeping them in the service and not flying is just ludicrous. Now that the FA.2’s are retired perhaps the MdB could buy some of them, but then again, perhaps not since it needs money first.

If I were in control of the MdB funds, the first thing I’d do is retire a lot of the old rust buckets still floating just to make up the numbers, this would inturn free up funds for a more equiped and better force.

I have spoken to a few Brazilian friends on this subject and they agree with me.