AAfter RAFALE deal, Brazil need a new Carrier ?

Yeah the OSD for Phantom was meant to be 2008 not 1992, the Phantoms were going through an expensive SLEP when they were retired to get them to this point.

As for a naval Tornado if CVA-01 had happened…I don’t think so.

Phantom and Bucaneer would of operated off CVA-01 until the late 90’s at least maybe even the first few years of this decade. No reason why the couldn’t, the Phantoms were fairly fresh when they were retired and when CVA-01 was on the cards they were going to be purchased in larger numbers.

I think we would of seen a E2C Hawkeye purchase in the mid 80’s and the Phantom/Buccaneer replacement would of been a single type possible the the F/A18D or some kind of Anglo/French project.

The RN would probably have done a more in-depth modernization of the Phantoms in the early 1990s.

Perhaps like the Greek’s Peace Icarus 2000. That got the APG-65 radar… the same as the USN/USMC’s F/A-18A/C/Ds have.

Or the Japanese F-4EJ Kai, with the APG-66 (F-16) radar?

Or the Israeli Phantom 2000? They got a new radar based on the Norden multi-mode synthetic aperture technology developed for the A-6F/G program. They also wanted to replace the J79s with PW1120 (same thrust as the Spey in the RN’s Phantoms but with slightly worse fuel consumption, but better high-altitude performance than the Speys).

Perhaps the RN’s ‘Tooms & Buccs would get something resembling the Blue Vixen?
And upgraded Speys based on the TF41 (license-built Spey variant from the A-7D/E, which had 2,000-2,500 lb more military thrust than any UK Spey variant)?

Probably the late 1970s for the E-2B/Cs, and more likely either the UK sides with the French on a carrier version of the Eurofighter, go with France on Rafale, or just buy F/A-18E/Fs. Perhaps with EJ-200s?

The first Grumman W2F-1 Hawkeye (E-2A) flew in October of 1961, with first fleet operations commencing in January of 1964. There were 59 E-2A aircraft delivered by 1967.

In 1968, the development of two other versions started because some of the instruments aboard the E-2A were not very reliable. This resulted in the creation of the E-2B and the E-2C. Based on Vietnam experience, an improved model with a better computer, the E-2B, was developed, first flying on 20 February 1969. By 1974, 50 of the E-2As were retrofitted with improved avionics (new AN/APS-120 radar) and computers and were designated as E-2Bs. The E-2B can track up to 300 targets both in the air and on the surface or ground. The last E-2B squadron (VAW-117) traded them for E-2Cs in 1986.

Built during the early 1970s (new-builds, not modernizations except the 2 prototypes), the E-2C utilized an AN/APS-120 radar. In 1978 the AN/APS-125 Advanced Radar Processing System was introduced with automatic overland detection and tracking capability. In 1984 it was succeeded by the AN/APS-138, with improved operation in an Electro-Magnetic Interference (EMI) environment. December 1991 saw the start of an upgrade to the AN/APS-145 radar system, which provides fully automatic overland targeting and tracking capability, an improved IFF system, and a 40 percent increase in radar and IFF ranges.

Apparently Typhoon was supposed to be the replacement for Phantom, with the Tornado F3 continuing in service. However with the end of the cold war, Phantom was retired and now we have typhoon replacing Tornado rather then Phantom.

Yeah the OSD for Phantom was meant to be 2008 not 1992, the Phantoms were going through an expensive SLEP when they were retired to get them to this point.

As for a naval Tornado if CVA-01 had happened…I don’t think so.

Phantom and Bucaneer would of operated off CVA-01 until the late 90’s at least maybe even the first few years of this decade. No reason why the couldn’t, the Phantoms were fairly fresh when they were retired and when CVA-01 was on the cards they were going to be purchased in larger numbers.

I think we would of seen a E2C Hawkeye purchase in the mid 80’s and the Phantom/Buccaneer replacement would of been a single type possible the the F/A18D or some kind of Anglo/French project.

If the CVA-01 project had not been cancelled, then a Navalised variant of Tornado would likely have been developed from the start as a replacement for the FAA’s Phantoms and Buccaneers as well as the RAF’s ones. Of course in this scenario, more Phantoms and Buccs would have been aquired in the first place as the RAF wouldn’t have the option of stealing the RNs ones, so the overall fleet of aircraft needing replacement would be larger as well. The CVAs were designed to operate 36 jets (18 Phantoms and 18 Buccs) plus four AEW and six ASW Helo (sound familiar? CVF!) so there would be a requirement for three air groups plus HQ/OCU sqn and attrition spares. So we are looking at a minimum buy of 80+ ADV(N) and 80+IDS(N). Had Tornado been designed from the outset for Naval operations, it would have been a better aircraft IMHO, as it would have been more rugged in construction as the Phantom and Buccaneer had been. On the other hand if you just fitted the Tornado avionics to the Phantom and Buccaneer airframes, you get a better aircraft then the Tornado anyway… and that’s the opinion of the pilots who flew them!

Apparently Typhoon was supposed to be the replacement for Phantom, with the Tornado F3 continuing in service. However with the end of the cold war, Phantom was retired and now we have typhoon replacing Tornado rather then Phantom.

If the CVA-01 project had not been cancelled, then a Navalised variant of Tornado would likely have been developed from the start as a replacement for the FAA’s Phantoms and Buccaneers as well as the RAF’s ones. Of course in this scenario, more Phantoms and Buccs would have been aquired in the first place as the RAF wouldn’t have the option of stealing the RNs ones, so the overall fleet of aircraft needing replacement would be larger as well. The CVAs were designed to operate 36 jets (18 Phantoms and 18 Buccs) plus four AEW and six ASW Helo (sound familiar? CVF!) so there would be a requirement for three air groups plus HQ/OCU sqn and attrition spares. So we are looking at a minimum buy of 80+ ADV(N) and 80+IDS(N). Had Tornado been designed from the outset for Naval operations, it would have been a better aircraft IMHO, as it would have been more rugged in construction as the Phantom and Buccaneer had been. On the other hand if you just fitted the Tornado avionics to the Phantom and Buccaneer airframes, you get a better aircraft then the Tornado anyway… and that’s the opinion of the pilots who flew them!

Its for power projection rather than anything else and ofcourse prestige. Showing the world that Brazil has arrived.

An interesting proposition would be a Carrier capable Tornado IDS and ADV. Would it be Doable?

For Brasil or the UK?

Think the Tornado airframe wasn’t designed for carrier operations anyway.

No doubt this topic developped in an interesting discussion.
In case of the Falklands, the carriers were of importance for the UK but not for Argentina. As far as I know Brasil has no far over sea interests like the UK has with the Falklands so would it need a carrier at all?

An interesting proposition would be a Carrier capable Tornado IDS and ADV. Would it be Doable?

How about these?

Got a larger copy of the Jaguar-M pic?

Here is a diagram of a steam catapult the BS6 that was to be for the cancelled CVA. I’m sure there is more to it than the diagram shows but doesn’t look to hard to make. Famous last words

Diagram of the direct action water-spray arresting gear.

I can’t remember if this was discussed on this thread but here is a picture of the Naval Jaguar M during catapult trials at RAE Bedford, April 1970.

Without the RN carriers i imagine the UK would of still tried to take back the Falklands but not to sure how this would of worked. Could involve special forces and lots of paratroops to secure a beach head and land some troops as fast as possible. Lots more SAM’s and lots of Air to air refueling to provide some kind of cover but granted it would be a very hard mission. I just can’t see the Uk giving up the Falklands. We would of seen container ships converted to Harrier carriers and all kind’s of idea’s getting made up. Much more risky and maybe more deaths but the UK would of done it anyway.
It just show’s how relevant carriers and SSN’s are to a conflict. Without then it would of been hard. We would of seen special forces blowing Argentine aircraft on the main land or other high risk missions. This would of made world opinion less in UK favour by doing attacks on the main land but needs must.

You may well be right there, but even so in the scenario you’ve suggested the RN still needed carriers even if they were improvised ones.

just found.

Without the RN carriers i imagine the UK would of still tried to take back the Falklands but not to sure how this would of worked. Could involve special forces and lots of paratroops to secure a beach head and land some troops as fast as possible. Lots more SAM’s and lots of Air to air refueling to provide some kind of cover but granted it would be a very hard mission. I just can’t see the Uk giving up the Falklands. We would of seen container ships converted to Harrier carriers and all kind’s of idea’s getting made up. Much more risky and maybe more deaths but the UK would of done it anyway.
It just show’s how relevant carriers and SSN’s are to a conflict. Without then it would of been hard. We would of seen special forces blowing Argentine aircraft on the main land or other high risk missions. This would of made world opinion less in UK favour by doing attacks on the main land but needs must.

I think it would be wiser to get rid of that old carrier and buy some additional air refueling tankers.. Its cheaper and makes more flexible (read quicker) alerts possible during out of area Ops.

Its not only a carrier which sucks up the budget rather quick but you also need an escort and support fleet to keep it going.

You might want to have a read about the Black Buck missions and how effective they were.

Past armed conflicts like the Kosovo war, Falkland campaign and Iraq required large scale AWACS and air to air refueling capacity. There was less need for aircraft carriers. Even in OEF, air to air refueling is required to operate USN fighters over Afghanistan.

To say that carriers were not necessary to the Falklands conflict is one of the more ridiculous things I’ve read on this site, as pointed out the Flaklands was also won without AWACS.

But do you mind me modifying/clarifying part of your answer, whilst AEW/AWACS wasn’t used in the retaking of the Falklands it was certainly a desired capability. Many an RN officer who went down south have stated they missed the Gannets and the rushed development of the Seaking/Searchwater combination is proof of the need! Let me put it down to you rushing to correct a silly idea buddy!;)

Semantic point, really. It didn’t make the difference between success & failure, so not strictly a need. But yes, very desirable indeed, & would probably have reduced British casualties.

The Falklands certainly didn’t “require” AWACS, as it was fought to a successful (for one side) conclusion without AWACS being used. It did, however, require aircraft carriers for the UK to fight it at all.

Brazil has both AEW & tankers for use in its vast airspace over land, & is planning to replace its old tankers with new ones.

Argentina had, & used, tankers in the Falklands war. They were few in number & limited, & not all its fighters could use them, but they were used.

You got there ahead of me Swerve, carriers (Royal navy ones) were key in taking back the Falklands.

Without those carriers we would be talking about the Malvinas now…

But do you mind me modifying/clarifying part of your answer, whilst AEW/AWACS wasn’t used in the retaking of the Falklands it was certainly a desired capability. Many an RN officer who went down south have stated they missed the Gannets and the rushed development of the Seaking/Searchwater combination is proof of the need! Let me put it down to you rushing to correct a silly idea buddy!;)

Feel free to disagree. 😉

Past armed conflicts like the Kosovo war, Falkland campaign and Iraq required large scale AWACS and air to air refueling capacity. There was less need for aircraft carriers. Even in OEF, air to air refueling is required to operate USN fighters over Afghanistan.

Besides a long coastline, Brasil also has a large airspace over land which could not be covered by a carrier. Some AWACS and Tanker capacity could though even they might not be sexy enough. :p

Imaging what the Flakland War had brought if both parties had AEW and air to air refueling resources.
Instead Argentina’s old carrier stayed in port due to a submarine threat while the UK kept them far the Exocet threat. Both parties lacked AEW, while Argentina’s fighters only could fly limited time on target due to their limited fuel situation.

The Falklands certainly didn’t “require” AWACS, as it was fought to a successful (for one side) conclusion without AWACS being used. It did, however, require aircraft carriers for the UK to fight it at all.

Brazil has both AEW & tankers for use in its vast airspace over land, & is planning to replace its old tankers with new ones.

Argentina had, & used, tankers in the Falklands war. They were few in number & limited, & not all its fighters could use them, but they were used.

Feel free to disagree. 😉

Past armed conflicts like the Kosovo war, Falkland campaign and Iraq required large scale AWACS and air to air refueling capacity. There was less need for aircraft carriers. Even in OEF, air to air refueling is required to operate USN fighters over Afghanistan.

Besides a long coastline, Brasil also has a large airspace over land which could not be covered by a carrier. Some AWACS and Tanker capacity could though even they might not be sexy enough. :p

Imaging what the Flakland War had brought if both parties had AEW and air to air refueling resources.
Instead Argentina’s old carrier stayed in port due to a submarine threat while the UK kept them far the Exocet threat. Both parties lacked AEW, while Argentina’s fighters only could fly limited time on target due to their limited fuel situation.

There’s a big difference between “witnessed the use of …” and “required the use of …”. Just because we saw use of large scale AWACS and air to air refueling capacity doesn’t mean this was a necessity. And if it was a necessity, that doesn’t mean the necessity stemmed from the nature of the conflict (it could also be te result of there not or no longer being alternatives, e.g. due to budget cuts)

Feel free to disagree. 😉

Past armed conflicts like the Kosovo war, Falkland campaign and Iraq required large scale AWACS and air to air refueling capacity. There was less need for aircraft carriers. Even in OEF, air to air refueling is required to operate USN fighters over Afghanistan.

Besides a long coastline, Brasil also has a large airspace over land which could not be covered by a carrier. Some AWACS and Tanker capacity could though even they might not be sexy enough. :p

Imaging what the Flakland War had brought if both parties had AEW and air to air refueling resources.
Instead Argentina’s old carrier stayed in port due to a submarine threat while the UK kept them far the Exocet threat. Both parties lacked AEW, while Argentina’s fighters only could fly limited time on target due to their limited fuel situation.

I think it would be wiser to get rid of that old carrier and buy some additional air refueling tankers.. Its cheaper and makes more flexible (read quicker) alerts possible during out of area Ops.

Its not only a carrier which sucks up the budget rather quick but you also need an escort and support fleet to keep it going.

I disagree. Just because you can fly strike aircraft halfway around the world with AAR doesn’t mean you should. The pilots end up being in the cockpit for 20+ hours, taking stimulants to stay awake. The USAF tried that in the Gulf war, and found the incidence of friendly fire increasing because the pilots were tired. Far better to base the pilots closer to the area of action on a carrier where they can fly much shorter duration missions and be more productive, flying two or three missions in a day with proper rest in between. As for fleet escorts, Brazil already has them. They’re called frigates and destroyers and they will need replacement in due course anyway. Also, AAR tankers just aren’t sexy!:D If you seriously think the Navy will give up it’s carrier and strike aircraft to fund some converted airliners for the Air Force, you need to WUASC;)