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.
Another thought came to mind over Easter while I was away. If you want to bring back the OV-10 Bronco, then why not have something a little harder hitting
Bring back:
The A-37 Dragonfly
I remember reading somewhere that the CIA had plans to have these planes operate out of standard shipping containers. Two containers carried the plane and stores, equipment, fuel and weapons as well as a workshop and a rudimentary control facility. The planes wings folded upwards and were lowered upon leaving the container. I have seen the A-37 in operation (albeit as a warbird collectors piece at several airshows) and I can tell you, they are nothing short of spectacular, they jump of the ground in such a short distance that carrier ops would really pose no problem, landing also is very short, I seriously doubt if a hook system would really be needed!
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.
Sign In
