Whats the point of getting these nine older M/F1 when the upgraded Skyhawk will do the job perfectly well?

Better to wait for a new carrier down the line and buy a follow up order of the latest carrier variant of the Rafale.

Will they?
That depends on what the Brasilian Navy thinks of their strategical enviroment. And they dont have to look very far for something capable of making an (highly) upgraded A-4 look like a Sopwith Camel…

http://fav-club.com/galeria/main.php?g2_itemId=6060

http://fav-club.com/galeria/main.php?g2_itemId=5730

http://fav-club.com/galeria/main.php?g2_itemId=5960

Cheers 🙂

WE might see Rafale on a new Brazillian carrier in the future but not on the Sao Paulo. Whilst the Rafale was tested on the Foch it is really too heavy to operate well off this carrier with any kind of load. If you look at the video posted by Stonewall you will see the Ski Jump that had to be mounted on the strop catcher to support testing.

Considering the Skyhawk are going through a SLEP with new avionics I see it staying in service for at least another ten years. Brazil is also buying tanker and AEW conversions of the S2 Tracker from America so they clearly have plans for the Sao Paulo to retain much of its current airgroup. Oh and they are replacing the Seaking with Seahawk as well.

The Skyhawk with a Grifo radar, HMS, Python 4 and Derby working with an AEW Tracker Brazil will have a perfectly good budget carrier force. People forget that the Skyhawk in service were also the last to come off the line in the late 70’s.

Fedaykin

The RAFALE made 168 flights from the Foch, including several with internal fuel, two external tanks, four MICA and two MAGIC II, this was before the refitting made by the MB…

And yes, the French instaled a very small ski jump, the Brasilians can do the exact same thing.


Right now, the central “Cat” is rated for twenty tons.
Not only the RAFALE can be safely operated from the São Paulo, it can also have a decent load (at least in the ATA scenario), the biggest problem might not be the take off, but the landing (bring back capability).

Cheers 🙂

BTW, I suspect the catapults are unlikely to outlast the ship. I’m sure I’ve read that they’re no longer able to operate at full capacity. I reckon a new carrier would need new catapults, either EMALS or new steam catapults. The latter shouldn’t be a technological challenge, but designing new ones for one or two carriers would be a bit expensive.

The São Paulo Mitchell-Brown BS-5 catapults were completely revised by the Brasilians, they´ve striped out the entire steam tubulation and substituted part of it, right now they are in very decent conditions.
The two catapults are rated by the MB for the original 20 tons (central catapult) and 15 tons (lateral catapult).

Part of the re-qualification work.

Cheers

my point is that there is no plans to buy any new planes for the carrier, and my point is that 2 of the planes of offer have marinised versions, wondering if any of you would be looking to upgrade the carrier airwing and if it was likely.

The Super Hornet on the São Paulo?
Maybe a case of too much aircraft for a too small ship?
There are rumours (and just that) that France offered the RAFALE F1 M to the MB in case the FX2 went to Dassault, but its just speculation by now.

Cheers

My suspicion on why Eurofighter was left out from the FAB shortlist is that the SH, JAS-39 and Rafale all have a mature maritime attack capability which is actually harder to do than people might think. Radar modes has to be developed and extensively tested besides actual weapons integration… not sure where the EF is today on such development and if any customer has ordered the capability but it’s certainly not something that is operational today.

They also have the large recon pods integrated, again not sure where the EF is on that.

Yep this could definitely be Rafale’s year…

Signatory

“Radar modes”?
I do have this idea that it´s a lot easier to integrate a maritime strike option on the Phoon than… developing what is a next generation AESA radar with a rotating antena for the Gripen NG! 😉

Eurofighter (spearheaded by Alenia) response to the Brasilian RFI offered the mechanical CAPTOR, this might have have been one of the reasons why the Typhoon was not short listed.

Cheers 🙂

But how much more expensive is that to operate, a fair old bit I bet, each jet takes longer to get airborne let alone to the target area then any GMLRS shot by a huge margin.
It’s highly accurate hence it being known as the 60km sniper. Troops on the ground don’t care what delivers the hurt to the enemy be it aircraft or the big guns, they just want it there in a hurry and in a highly accurate manner and this is where GMLRS and other systems like it excell over aircraft.
Also with a GMLRS system you also put less personel at risk, that is the pilots risk which is always a factor and lose the pilot and you lose the plane, see the Tornado and F-15 going down recently as an example, GMLRS should have zero losses if deployed correctly.

What?!

Hey, NEWSFLASH, that was how the French did CAS in 1939/40!

The planes are already on the air with assigned killboxes, and those kill boxes are hugely bigger than a 60 km´s circle…
There´s a 24h/24h air coverage over much of A`stan.

This will give a good idea of how the system works:
“A system of close liaison with the ground troops was set up by the RAF and army: RAF radio operators in vehicles equipped with VHF R/T travelled with the troops, often close to the front line. In situations where air support was needed they were able to call up Typhoons operating in a “Cab Rank”, which then continuously attacked the targets marked for them (usually with smoke shells fired by mortar or artillery) until they were destroyed.”

This was a description of a defensive action taken by the RAF in… 1944, Normandy.

The rest of your post has already been dealt (very well) by Grim, so…

From my point of view fast jets are simply to expensive and not always the best system for the job (I know, thats heresy on an aviation forum!).

Systems like GMLRS (far cheaper then a Typhoon) can be a damn good substitute for CAS aircraft. Obviously there are differences and yes it’d still be nice to have some fast jets for delivering 2000lb bombs and also there’s the problem that GMLRS would have its own logistics footprint/trail but I’m betting that’d still be far cheaper then a fighter jets running costs.
I imagine you are familier with GMLRS but for those who aren’t here’s a run down on it:
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/artillery-air-defence/1512.aspx?rating=5

and in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j_t0Aq3W40&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYSgtDTRoC4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eYnfHZTglE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bDRsafyvyQ&feature=related

How short memory can be…

On all the major conflicts that GB plc participated from the IWW to 2009, air power has alway´s been essential.
Let´s just have a look at the last 30 years:
1982 – Falklands
1991 – Iraq
1999 – Jugoslavia
2001 – Afghanistan (Enduring Freedom)
2003 – Iraq round two (or three, if we include the original “Persian boxing years”)

In each of these operations air power was essential, not just important, it was ESSENTIAL…

From 1991 to these day´s the RAF was slashed from 30 FJ (fast jet) sqn´s to 13 (plus 3 OCU´s), to compound problems the front line is full of “not so young” Tornados and Harriers who are burning airframe hours at a very fast rithm. The prospect of disbanding more sqn´s in the next few years because of “tear and wear” is quite real.
So, you want to halve the acquisition of the ONLY combat aircraft that will be available to the RAF for the NEXT DECADE?
Fine, a six/eight sqn RAF in 2017…
And before someone starts “but the F-35B…”, the IOC for the first JCA sqn is scheduled for 2017, IF everything goes acording to plan, fat chance…

A Typhoon, in one single airframe covers the entire ATA (air to air) scenario, covers CAS, precision bombing, interdiction, recon and basicaly every single role that the Tornado FMK3/GR4/Harrier/Jag fullfiled, and actually being better than most of these airframes in their perceived roles…

Now if you want to compare the GMLRS with Air Power (!!) if only in the CAS job, do it the right way, buy enough of them to cover the radii that a fast jet has in half an hour…
Do i hear the word EXPENSIVE?!

And by the way, have you ever considered the kind of problems that using a 25 ton tracked MLRS launcher brings in one of the most mountainous country in the entire planet?

The GMLRS is a very fine system, but it´s a niche capability, it´s not even comparable to airpower.

Cheers

The very basis for departing from ASRAAM is that the frame is not good for dogfight, as apparently found by Germans with their studies on R-73. The participation of Sweden, Italy, and others in IRIS-T just endorse the point.

Savion

The “today´s” AIM-132 is quite a diferent beast than the one that Germany walked away, from the seeker, to the engine, to the software algorithms, is… well, diferent…
The AIM-132 is vastly more agile than the previous generation of IR AAM´s, and in part of the flight envelope is actually more agile than the IRIS-T, specifically at the near-BVR range, it´s a question of energy.
Dont discount the MBDA weapon.

It is amusing that you found “talks by India” worth mentioning:D, as India talks to every weapon manufacturer on the planet, be it buying or “indigenous” R&D.

And you forgot to mention that the RAAF, a force that is seen by many, for a very long time as a benchmark for “acquisition strategy” (ask Roy Braybrook) have bought the dam thing on an international competition.