F-4s or A-4s? Sao Paolo would struggle to operate Phantoms, though it isn’t impossible. She has BS-5 catapults, the same as Ark Royal and Eagle had in the bow position. These could launch Phantoms with a useful load, but in low wind conditions they had to use the longer stroke waist cat. Also the JBDs on Sao Paolo would have to be upgraded, even non-spey engined Phantoms launch in full afterburner so water cooled JBDs and deck plates are required. Those nations which purchased F-4s tended to use them heavily, so any remaining examples will be high hours examples. Land based variants would be relatively easy to convert for shipborad ops though, as the basic airframe is the same. Fitting catapult spools is straightforward, as the hardpoints on the airframe are there in all examples. Tyres/wheels can be changed over to more suitable ones, though for the short cats it may be necessary to replace the standard nose gear leg with the F-4Ks extra extensible leg (approx 40inches longer). These could be manufactured new relatively cheaply. The whole F-4 question would depend on whether the aircraft were used for AD or AG. The former means relatively light loads so is feasible, whilst the latter would mean heavy bomb loads so it’s really pushing the limits of the cats.

As to the A-4 question, Brazil already purchased the best available airframes (ie lowest hours/ longest remaining life). Any other available purchases will be a matter of diminishing returns, though that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth pursuing. Also the number of turbo tracker AEW conversions announced seems a bit small, three is the minimum number needed aboard ship to provide round the clock cover (four would be better) which leaves none for training and no attrition reserves. One would hope this order is just an initial purchase with more to follow, for a total of at least six to eight airframes (three frontline, two for training and one spare, minimum).

Hi Obi Wan

I ‘m not sure a F4 would be useful for such a navy as MB. Phantoms are old aircrafts, not easy to keep them service able.
Second point: Sao Paulo is fitted with two BS5 steam cats, but the waist one is in a sad shape. The waist cat on Ark and Eagle was much longer.
Third point: most important, the Clémenceau’s landing deck is available to receive 15 t aircrafts, according Jean Moulin’s excellent book on these Carriers. (p171)

Three S2T AEW are better than none.

regards

X

really interesting to talk about this ship, one of my favourite’s, with HMS Eagle….keep on

thanks

X

Thanks for the info. When I was researching that illustration post I was asking around forums trying to tie down exactly when the flight deck was extending and when/when etc. I was told, on Militaryphotos IIRC, that the flight deck was only extended in 83 and that as-of Falklands it was not SE capable. Not saying your facts are wrong, but do you have any sources to collaborate them?

Bager’s right: 1980/81 flight deck extension. INS fitted in 1983. So, SuE were not able to land on 25DM until 1983, not because of the deck, but because of the INS.

sources:
Dassault Super Etendard. Serie Aeronaval N°12. Jorge F. Nunez Padin. February 2001. J.F.N. Padin is a specialist of Aviacion Naval de la Armada de la Reppublica Argentina.
Conway’s all the world fighting ships. 1947-1995.
and others…

regards

X

[b]t

Falklands Myth 1: It’s a myth that the Argentine navy could operate Super Etendards from their carrier 25 de Mayo during the war; suitable modifications were only made in 1983 after the conflict. Instead Super Etendards had to operate from shore bases.
.

A. Why a mith? it was only a fact: ANA had only 5 super étendards in april 1982, transferred from France (St Nazaire) to Argentina (Puerto Belgrano) on the merchant ship “Cabo de Hornos”. They arrived in Argentina November 18th 1981. 1 was used for spares, 4 able to fly, 2da ECA was operationnal mars 4th 1982. Deck modifications were already done in 1980/81 (angle deck extension), but no trials have been conducted on board with SuE. Air refueling trials were conducted april 10th 1982. Anti-ship attack trials were conducted against ARA Santissima Trinidad april 15th 1982, against ARA Alferez Sobral april 22 1982. Based at Rio Grande naval base april 18th 1982.
1st attack: may 1st. 2nd attack : may 4th. 3rd attack: may 23rd. 4th attack: may 25th. 5th attack: may 30th.
december 1982: 5 new SuE on “Bahia San Blas” and 4 on “Cabo de Hornos” arrived in Argentina.
1st deck landing: april 18th 1983 (3-A-208)
last deck operations (on board ARA 25DM): july 19th 1986.

B. About your drawing of 25 de Mayo: the carrier was fitted with a angle deck extension (165 meters lenght), there was another park deck extension behind the island for two S2 or 3 A4, and after 1984 another park in front of the island for an helo or a crane. Bow deck was not so broad.

regards

X

ARA Veinticinco De Mayo was indeed decommissioned in 97, most sources quote her as being inactive since 1986 and laid up in reserve since 88. Parts of her catapult were sold to Brazil, though these would only have been smaller parts as the catapult itself remained aboard all the way to the scrapyard. Also Minas Gerais catapult was a different type to the 25DM’s, so whilst in principle very similar many parts would have been incompatible. MG had a McTaggert Scott steam Catapult whilst 25DM had a Mitchell Brown Long Stroke BS4 Steam Catapult, parts of which would be compatible with the BS5 Steam Catapults fitted to Sao Paolo (ex Foch) so those parts may have been a forward investment .

In fact, last practices on board 25DM were performed in march 1988, S2 trackers of 2nda Escuadrilla Antisubmarina, according Jorge F. Nunez Padin.
MG really had a Mc Taggert Scott C3 steam cat, and 25DM a BS4 (Mitchell Brown). To my knowledge, it seams to be the sole steam catapult made by Mc Taggert wich is, as I know, rather a specialist of landing systems (arrest wires i.e)?

Any schematics or near-plan-view photos of 25 de Mayo as she was at the time of the Falklands? Photos of her show that at some time the port landing deck was extended and landing angle made less acute. But was this before/after the war?

It war made before Falkland War, but 25 DM was not able to carry SuE until 1983

http://forummarine.forumactif.com/argentine-f34/ara-v2-25-de-mayo-t1173.htm

if any question about this ship

regards

X

1) Are those dates for Ark and Illustrious accurate? Fairly sure they are to decommission as QE and PoW are delivered for trials.

2) Dates for QE and PoW are still 2014 and 2016 IIRC.

3) GR.9’s are basicly equivilent of the Original Sea Harriers as they only had Sidewinder as well.

4) the Four batch 3 T42’s still have Sea Dart.

decommission dates http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=107714
for sure, QE and POW are due to commission in 2014 and 2016, as Daring was due to commission in 2007?
GR9 are less effective than FA2 Sea Harriers. No AMRAAM, no Blue Vixen radar….so no BWR capability…
T42’s still have the Sea Dart launcher, but do they still have the missiles? Read they were not fitted with to save money…

That’s why I said I hoped RN would not have to face such problems from 2009 to 2015….