Sao Paulo question

Yeah, its called “mail fraud” and “investment scam”.

It does have that whiff, doesn’t it?

Well I have questioned the Marketing team via email, just waiting for a reply- as soon as I get one, I’ll let you know ok!

T-45 Goshawk: “Deliveries [to USN and USMC] are scheduled to conclude in 2009.”

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/t45/

I doubt it would be very hard to ‘splice’ the forward section of a Hawk-200 and ‘graft’ it onto the T-45 Goshawk and arrange for 7 hardpoints. I have a hunch the LIFT variant is pretty close to latest Goshawk variant anyway in terms of cockpit. This is soooo do-able. But …. very small demand and so commercially probably not viable!

I dunno – buy 20 Hawks as a trainer / light attack and we will also sell you 10-15modified for Carriers. Im sure BAE would be up for it.

T-45 Goshawk: “Deliveries [to USN and USMC] are scheduled to conclude in 2009.”

Boeing, in St Louis, acts as prime contractor with responsibility for the manufacture of the forward fuselage and cockpit, overall systems integration, final assembly, flight test, and integrated logistic support.

BAE Systems is responsible for manufacture and assembly of the sections aft of the rear cockpit bulkhead, which include the wings, centre and rear fuselage, fin, tailplane, air intake, tailcone, speedbrake, windscreen, canopy, and flight controls. BMW Rolls-Royce is responsible for the powerplant and Raytheon for the simulators.

To meet the needs of the US Navy training mission and to ensure aircraft carrier compatibility, several modifications to the basic Hawk airframe were incorporated into the T-45 Goshawk design, including: new twin nose-wheel with catapult launch T-bar; nose-wheel steering for manoeuvring within the confines of the carrier deck; strengthened airframe and undercarriage for catapult launches; relocated speed brakes; provision of under-fuselage tailhook; revised avionics and modified cockpit layout for compatibility with front-line US Navy combat aircraft.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/t45/

I doubt it would be very hard to ‘splice’ the forward section of a Hawk-200 and ‘graft’ it onto the T-45 Goshawk and arrange for 7 hardpoints. I have a hunch the LIFT variant is pretty close to latest Goshawk variant anyway in terms of cockpit. This is soooo do-able. But …. very small demand and so commercially probably not viable!

Maybe the cheapest solution would be to get Boeing to start AV-8B+ production up again.:D But really, other than prestige(sp), what real mission does Sao Paulo have?

Train crews, get experience and an aeronaval culture?

Nic

It does have that whiff, doesn’t it?

I went back in to my mail folder and pulled the info, just for you Swerve:

The company that is sending me the info is Danair Australia:

http://www.danair.com.au/

They are still marketing the Javelin on their site (which I just looked at now), so someone somewhere has to be doing something with it!

Yeah, its called “mail fraud” and “investment scam”.

Ta.

I went back in to my mail folder and pulled the info, just for you Swerve:

The company that is sending me the info is Danair Australia:

http://www.danair.com.au/

They are still marketing the Javelin on their site (which I just looked at now), so someone somewhere has to be doing something with it!

I remember these guys at the Avalon 2007 Airshow with a mock up near the Media tent, just down a bit from the F-35 mock up and on the other side of the only flyable Wright Flyer in Australia (owned by Narromine Air Museum). Danair didn’t want to discuss anything on the Javelin back then but it seems that someone is not up to speed on what has happened here in Australia. Rest assured, i’ll be calling them in the morning and asking for confirmation about what’s going on with the Javelin and why they still have it on their website!

What’s the company, then? ATG’s website has been dead for two years. Who is sending out these e-mails? Where are they building the Javelin? With what workforce, since the entire ATG workforce was laid off in December 2007, & most were re-employed by other companies rather quickly? ATG went into Chapter 7 bankruptcy in May 2008. That’s liquidation – not Chapter 11, where the firm continues trading under administration, with a hope of resuming business. Chapter 7 is a sale of all assets & distribution of the proceeds to creditors. The company ceases to exist.

Seriously, I think you should post here the contact details of whoever it is who says they’re making Javelin. Company name, website address, etc. I’d like to know what’s going on, & why a newsletter is being produced for a firm which was liquidated, with news which I can’t find reported anywhere else.

I did wonder a similar thing last time this was brought up.

Although you have to say the plane looks great, ehll BAE should buy it – sort it out and offer two planes for the jet trainer market 😛

…

Getting back to the Javelin- Odd how I keep getting news letter from a company that is dead telling me of the latest developments, including how an un-named european military has placed an order for 12 (speculation at the time was that it was the French Navy), this prompted the redesign of the basic Mk-30 Military version for Naval service (initially titled the Mk-50, the Mk-40 being the armed trainer version of the Mk-30)….

What’s the company, then? ATG’s website has been dead for two years. Who is sending out these e-mails? Where are they building the Javelin? With what workforce, since the entire ATG workforce was laid off in December 2007, & most were re-employed by other companies rather quickly? ATG went into Chapter 7 bankruptcy in May 2008. That’s liquidation – not Chapter 11, where the firm continues trading under administration, with a hope of resuming business. Chapter 7 is a sale of all assets & distribution of the proceeds to creditors. The company ceases to exist.

Seriously, I think you should post here the contact details of whoever it is who says they’re making Javelin. Company name, website address, etc. I’d like to know what’s going on, & why a newsletter is being produced for a firm which was liquidated, with news which I can’t find reported anywhere else.

Shhhhhh don’t tell Iran we already have their plane here in the west 😉

Whoops, nearly gave away one of our best kept secrets there :p

Or for Brazil to choose the GripenNG for their Air Force fighter, and then check the “options: CATOBAR version; 24 ea” block on the order form.

Remember that SAAB has formally offered a carrier-capable version, equipped for arrested landings with an option for a catapult-rated/fitted nose gear strut?

This link to the previous thread has the pertinant parts highlighted in red:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1520174&postcount=12

SuperTucano

What would it take to get a navalised version of the SuperTucano? It is propeller driven, so it should be able to fly of the São Paulo (well, at least last time propeller airplanes were used in large scale they got of (and landed on) smaller decks), and it has a useable payload.
Besides that it is smalish, Brazilian-made (which would get some good points on the ego side – which is a big point on all of the smaller navies – meaning everyone but the US, since UK, France, India, Spain, Italy and I don´t recall who else all have a single or at most two aircraft carriers, which mean most of the time it will on the wrong place to do anything, or on dock on refit), comparatively inexpensive, and should be able to do the main mission stated for the São Paulo.
As far as I know, which is a lot closer than I can throw a 500 kg weight :), the main stated reason for the São Paulo is to cover our EEZ, specially in regards to our oil platforms, and this shouldn´t be a major problem for any plane…

Maybe the cheapest solution would be to get Boeing to start AV-8B+ production up again.:D But really, other than prestige(sp), what real mission does Sao Paulo have?

I have two reservations about the Javelin, & IMO either of them would be enough to kill the project.

1. The aircraft itself. I just can’t imagine it as a carrier fighter. It’s tiny! You suggested that the weapons load of the T-45 was too small – but you could crush a Javelin into bomb-sized packages, hang it under a Hawk 200, & still have almost a ton of external load spare. Take a Hawk 200-ised Goshawk, including the extra thrust of the latest Adour (or re-engine it with something newer & more powerful), & you’d have a multiple of the useful load of a Javelin, & in a more robust, longer range package.

The Javelin desn’t look like something that would land too well on a carrier, & by the time it’s been modified, given a radar (a poky little one, because it’s too small for a decent one), the extra power supply needed for all the military avionics etc., would it be able to carry anything into the air except itself?

2. The company. It wasn’t financially viable even without the cost of further developments. It couldn’t possibly have financed a carrier-capable fighter derivative of the Javelin. It went bust before it could even get the civil version to market. Any military customer would have to take on all the risks & cost of the development, while sorting out the finances, trying to restart a project that’s been dead for over two years, seeking out people who can remember what was going on & persuading them to leave their new jobs . . . .

No, it’s a non-starter.

BTW, I wouldn’t trust the word of an organisation which announces new manufacturing facilities three weeks before laying off all its employees because it has no money to pay them. Note that the founder of ATG set up a new company & started touting for cash for it several months before quitting ATG – & ATG crashed & burned within weeks of his departure. Does that tell us anything?

Has anyone else noticed the odd phenomenon of the serial entrepreneur who never actually gets a product to market? There are quite a few of ’em around, & they tend to concentrate in areas which are popular at the time. One day it’s personal jets, another it’s green energy . . . Their business prospectuses always describe their plans, never their past successes. 🙁

OK if the ATG Javelin is too small, then what about this…

The Bede BD-5J

Ok I’ll stop being silly now- sorry :o:o:o

Getting back to the Javelin- Odd how I keep getting news letter from a company that is dead telling me of the latest developments, including how an un-named european military has placed an order for 12 (speculation at the time was that it was the French Navy), this prompted the redesign of the basic Mk-30 Military version for Naval service (initially titled the Mk-50, the Mk-40 being the armed trainer version of the Mk-30).

Cheapest, but not exactly a useful fighter. What about a radar?

No, you’d need a significant rework for there to be any point in the exercise.

I agree on this point- the T-45 would need a fair bit of reworking to be considered a credible carrier fighter- on the other hand, so would a Hawk 200 series (remember where the speed brake is- the main reason the US had to redesign the Hawk for their service), don’t forget the considerable frame strengthening that would be needed to bring the 200 standard air frame up to Cat launch and arrestor landing specs.

If Brazil are serious about replacing the AF-1’s in service, then the only real option would seriously be to restart the A-1 production line at Embraer and follow through on the Naval AMX option- Again, not really credible but atm, the only possible solution.

Why, it’s the twin tailed F-5 version made by Iran!? :diablo:

Shhhhhh don’t tell Iran we already have their plane here in the west 😉

Well… I guess you mean “no Commonwealth carriers from WWII”… or “no non-US carriers from WWII”.

There are 4 USN WWII carriers still in existence in the US… the Essex class carriers CV-10 Yorktown, CV-11 Intrepid, CV-12 Hornet, & CV-16 Lexington… all preserved as museums.

They all had extensive combat records, having been commissioned 4/43, 8/43, 11/43, 2/43 respectively.

I stand corrected- I keep forgetting about these four vessels, but you have to agree- the British and the Brazilians were silly in scrapping such an important part of history!

Midway was from the era also…….launched just after ww2 I think.

Ahhhhh Midway- technically yes she was a WWII carrier, but she commissioned after WWII and thus saw now service in this conflict. In fact her baptisim of fire came in 1950 with Korea, so while technically a War Carrier, the definition is actually which war that was and Korea wasn’t WWII so I- like many others out there, don’t count her as a WWII carrier.

Midway was from the era also…….launched just after ww2 I think.

Sadly no carriers from WWII now exist, Minas Gerias was the last, The former Spanish carrier Dedalo went in the early 90’s.

Well… I guess you mean “no Commonwealth carriers from WWII”… or “no non-US carriers from WWII”.

There are 4 USN WWII carriers still in existence in the US… the Essex class carriers CV-10 Yorktown, CV-11 Intrepid, CV-12 Hornet, & CV-16 Lexington… all preserved as museums.

They all had extensive combat records, having been commissioned 4/43, 8/43, 11/43, 2/43 respectively.

I have thought about the T-45, but it’s weapons load is rather small and developing a higher load with more capabilities (AAM’s, ASM’s, Bombs) would probably cost as much as developing a new plane- give what the US are like with their military equipment and sales to over seas customers.

In fact there were plans to develop a T-45 with more of a weapons range back in the early 90’s- this was for the RAAF LIFT requirement which saw the Hawk Mk-127 bought instead (much better choice if you ask me). So if Boeing wish to seriously consider that option (which may also go well in fleet service with the USN/USMC), then dig up those plans that MD had and run with it.

Another option I had thought of- and I know I’m labouring the point here- would be the ATG Javelin, I know from my mail updates from the company, that an armed version is in the works as well as a Carrier capable one should a customer be interested. Now if you ask me, ATG should not wait for a customer to express interest, but build one and get out there with it to generate sales. I realise its a costly adventure but if you don’t have something people can see, no one has any confidence in your products and won’t even think about it when discussions are held for replacement aircraft.

Why, it’s the twin tailed F-5 version made by Iran!? :diablo:

…
Another option I had thought of- and I know I’m labouring the point here- would be the ATG Javelin, …

I have two reservations about the Javelin, & IMO either of them would be enough to kill the project.

1. The aircraft itself. I just can’t imagine it as a carrier fighter. It’s tiny! You suggested that the weapons load of the T-45 was too small – but you could crush a Javelin into bomb-sized packages, hang it under a Hawk 200, & still have almost a ton of external load spare. Take a Hawk 200-ised Goshawk, including the extra thrust of the latest Adour (or re-engine it with something newer & more powerful), & you’d have a multiple of the useful load of a Javelin, & in a more robust, longer range package.

The Javelin desn’t look like something that would land too well on a carrier, & by the time it’s been modified, given a radar (a poky little one, because it’s too small for a decent one), the extra power supply needed for all the military avionics etc., would it be able to carry anything into the air except itself?

2. The company. It wasn’t financially viable even without the cost of further developments. It couldn’t possibly have financed a carrier-capable fighter derivative of the Javelin. It went bust before it could even get the civil version to market. Any military customer would have to take on all the risks & cost of the development, while sorting out the finances, trying to restart a project that’s been dead for over two years, seeking out people who can remember what was going on & persuading them to leave their new jobs . . . .

No, it’s a non-starter.

BTW, I wouldn’t trust the word of an organisation which announces new manufacturing facilities three weeks before laying off all its employees because it has no money to pay them. Note that the founder of ATG set up a new company & started touting for cash for it several months before quitting ATG – & ATG crashed & burned within weeks of his departure. Does that tell us anything?

Has anyone else noticed the odd phenomenon of the serial entrepreneur who never actually gets a product to market? There are quite a few of ’em around, & they tend to concentrate in areas which are popular at the time. One day it’s personal jets, another it’s green energy . . . Their business prospectuses always describe their plans, never their past successes. 🙁

Bomb racks on a T-45…….cheapest solution. Probably wire them for sidewinders too……

Cheapest, but not exactly a useful fighter. What about a radar?

No, you’d need a significant rework for there to be any point in the exercise.

I never get tired of looking at that pic! It’s a shame that she was scrapped- She served the RN well, she served us here in Australia well- as a flight training ship for 805, 850 and 816 sqdn’s who later went to Korea aboard HMAS Sydney (the original plan to send this vessel fell through after the government of the day decided that the sub threat in the area was too great to send a ship that was “On Loan”.

Sadly no carriers from WWII now exist, Minas Gerias was the last, The former Spanish carrier Dedalo went in the early 90’s.