Gollevainen, here is another picture showing both types (A-4s and SUE) on deck.

Deck, hangar, catapult and elevator modifications took place, as you correctly posted, after 1982.
Both types were flown alongside for a while, couple of years, and apparently there was no incompatibility problem with the A-4 launch system (IRCC, the A-4 uses the same cable system as the SUE).
But by 1987 ARA 25 de Mayo was on her last leg, and she sailed under own steam for the last time in 1988. She was decomissioned in 1995 and towed to Aalang in 1999. End of story.

Her boilers, drivetrain and screws were tired, and she had become slow (may be too slow to launch a fully loaded SUE, as suggested on this topic).

Summarizing, the only reason there are few pictures of SUE´s on her deck, is because she only hosted them for a couple of years. May be less than a 100 days at sea, or so.

The ARA nowadays trains carrier operations (take-off, landing, fleet defense, etc) on MB Sao Paolo (ex- MN Foch), while ARA pilots still do their carrier qualifyng on American carriers (T-45 Goshawk?) . IRCC touch and goes were practiced on old MB Minas Gerais (Colossus type) and on various American carriers (the SUE not being able to land, due to the impossibility of launching again, here the different catapult system the USNavy uses being the reason).

King Jester

So we can say that the reason why SUE’s couldnt operate from 25 de Mayo were due the proplems of the ships powerplant, and not that whole Class of ex-RN ligth fleet carriers couldn’t field the plane, as long as there would have been proper take-off&landing devices.

Thanks, you all have enlightened me alot, over this matter…things arent always what they seems to be, eh? 🙂

well this boiler proplem…any cahnge to beeing related to the fact that the orginal Karel Doorman’s boilers did suffer some fire (the reason the Dutch whitdrew her) and that the boilers from HMS Levithan fitted for substitute werent working OK?? …or was it genaral fault of the whole Colossus/majstetic classes?