You know, I'm honestly curious how many "remain" votes that contract actually secured. If there were enough to meaningfully change the outcome of the vote.
It was not just the contracts with Canadair (North Star transport, Argus ASW, CF-5, CF-104, CF-18 over-haul), but also Bell 414 Griffin helicopters, the CH-124 helicopter assembly plant in Longeuil, Sorel boots, Iltis and trucks built by Bombardier, Vickers Shipbuilding in Montreal, Sorel shipyards, etc. that "bought" many votes in Quebec.
Many of those projects would have cost less if built in foreign factories (e.g. Sikorsky in Connecticut), but it is important to spend defense dollars at home.
Sounds like you plan on building flying radar reflectors that are blind in battle without aesa and no ew capability. What's the point? its not 1960 anymore and the bsttlespace has grown up. What's needed is a congress that does not cap fighter production at 187
Is this airplane supposed to be sub-sonic (like the original A-4) or supersonic?
What is the weight penalty to increase top speed from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.8?
Is this airplane supposed to be sub-sonic (like the original A-4) or supersonic?
What is the weight penalty to increase top speed from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.8?
If you take out the engines from the airframe caverns and air intakes, you'll have almost the entire airframe to store fuel, store rockets in the nose, and a large internal bay
One attractive thing about the A4 Skyhawk was that its size and performance allowed it to be used on much smaller carriers than other US types (also in larger numbers on bigger ones).
The US Marines chose the Harrier to do the same job but the Skyhawk was arguably cheaper and easier to operate.
The F35 now does the job more safely but still costs a lot.
A modern Skyhawk for the US Marines would need to be able operate from short strips or ski-jump fitted LHDs.
No, the Navy has outright said that they consider the ski jump a waste of space on a ship who's primary mission is to conduct an amphibious assault with heavy use of helicopters. The ski jump takes up too much space and removes 1-2 helicopter landing spaces. Unlike every other country that uses similar sized or smaller ships as aircraft carriers with a secondary amphibious mission, the USN uses these ships primarily assault ships with a secondary (if even that high up the list) role as a carrier. Which makes sense when you consider that the USN has an entire fleet of dedicated full size aircraft carriers that can do the job much better than a 40,000 ton baby carrier.
One attractive thing about the A4 Skyhawk was that its size and performance allowed it to be used on much smaller carriers than other US types (also in larger numbers on bigger ones).
The US Marines chose the Harrier to do the same job but the Skyhawk was arguably cheaper and easier to operate.
The F35 now does the job more safely but still costs a lot.
A modern Skyhawk for the US Marines would need to be able operate from short strips or ski-jump fitted LHDs.
What about something like the F-16XL? It wouldn't be stealthy in its original metal construction, but the use of composites and other modern design and manufacturing materials could help mitigate some of the RCS return.
The modern methods would also reduce manufacturing, acquisition, and sustainment costs, but more importantly TOLC / WOLC (Term Of Life Costs) / (Whole Of Life Costs). It would also mean that the airframe life could be 12,000 or 20,000 hours instead of the usual 4,000 to 6,000 hours. For any air force that has to be Value for Money.
What about something like the F-16XL? It wouldn't be stealthy in its original metal construction, but the use of composites and other modern design and manufacturing materials could help mitigate some of the RCS return.
The modern methods would also reduce manufacturing, acquisition, and sustainment costs, but more importantly TOLC / WOLC (Term Of Life Costs) / (Whole Of Life Costs). It would also mean that the airframe life could be 12,000 or 20,000 hours instead of the usual 4,000 to 6,000 hours. For any air force that has to be Value for Money.
Too much of a one off. There's a reason the Strike Eagle was chosen over it. IIRC, the F-16XL was a Falcon in name only, much like the Super Hornet only looked like a legacy Hornet but was in reality a brand new plane. The same applies to the XL. If you need a strike-optimised fighter and don't care about stealth, you might as well buy either an F-15, an F/A-18 or an F-16 Block 70. All of which still have hot production lines and who's manufacturers would love to sell you a plane.
What about something like the F-16XL? It wouldn't be stealthy in its original metal construction, but the use of composites and other modern design and manufacturing materials could help mitigate some of the RCS return.
The modern methods would also reduce manufacturing, acquisition, and sustainment costs, but more importantly TOLC / WOLC (Term Of Life Costs) / (Whole Of Life Costs). It would also mean that the airframe life could be 12,000 or 20,000 hours instead of the usual 4,000 to 6,000 hours. For any air force that has to be Value for Money.
Too much of a one off. There's a reason the Strike Eagle was chosen over it. IIRC, the F-16XL was a Falcon in name only, much like the Super Hornet only looked like a legacy Hornet but was in reality a brand new plane. The same applies to the XL. If you need a strike-optimised fighter and don't care about stealth, you might as well buy either an F-15, an F/A-18 or an F-16 Block 70. All of which still have hot production lines and who's manufacturers would love to sell you a plane.
There is that but I think that you could take the F-16XL design, digitise it and rework it to meet the modern requirements that you want. For example it could be a two tier design with a light variant for nations who can't afford all the bells and whistles; and the full variant for those who can. They only difference being the avionics / electronics fit out. The XL had excellent range because of the large internal fuel stowage within the delta wings, freeing up pylons for things that went bang. It could be fitted with FBW (Fly By Wire) but today that possibly can be replaced with optical cables, reducing weight, electronic interference, and increasing security. AESA radar can also be included with it fitted to the leading and trailing edges of both wings giving full 360° coverage. You build a digital prototype before starting to build the first physical prototype and test everything out on that as much as you can. A digital prototype is accurate down to the last fastener, washer and rivet. In this particular case I think that the XL crank / delta wing design offers more than the traditional design of the other contenders.
IIRC politics and Congress critter pork barrelling played a part in the XL losing out to the F-15.
Clever concept.
The second version's wider fuselage would provide plenty of internal space for fuel, rockets, etc. Just keep the single engine because few Third World countries can afford multi-engine fighters.
If the primary role is maritime strike, then top intake can work because they only need to fly close enough to launch an anti-ship missile.
These sketches remind me of a jet fighter proposal out of New Zealand during the 1980s.
Textron's Scorpion would make a nice USAF/USMC close-in air support platform with some survivability mods, plenty of wing hard-points. I also think Boeing's most recent X-32 configuration with the more blended wing/fuselage and H-Stabs could be a second-coming of A-7 Corsair II for USN. A modern A-4 Skyhawk-type aircraft could be a very versatile platform as well. The USN had three nice jet-powered attack aircraft and sharing the same deck space on the carriers, A-4, A-7 and A-6, don't have that now. Now it's F-18, F-35, E-2, C-2, maybe V-22 and Seahawks, that's it, oh and maybe MQ-25 at some point as the fleet tanker.
Before you argue about how stealthy this thing has to be, step back and ask yourself:
Who will be using it? (Consider affordability, etc.)
Against whom? (How much stealth do you really need?)
What tasks will it be asked to perform, and what weapons will it be required to deliver? (Determinant of size, avionics.) It's clearly not going to be an air-superiority platform against a modern fighter (even F-16 era fighters will eat it for breakfast), but if what you want to shoot down is enemy COIN aircraft, helicopters, transports and the occasional maritime snooper, how much of a dogfighter does it need to be?
But in the context which potential adversaries won’t also have F-16/ MIG-29 equivalents (or better)?
And even they don’t wouldn’t the likely adversary counter to you fielding a Skyhawk equivalent be to seek that superior capacity? And you then having to obtain an equivalent capacity to match your adversary?
Plus the very simple comment; if a real market really existed for this “modern Skyhawk” wouldn’t it already exist?
The closest we actually see are the likes of the FA-50 or JF-17; very much supersonic fighters but that bit smaller and cheaper than an F-16. Even armed jet trainers have fallen out of use in this kind of role (the ability to carry precision targeting pods and weapons while providing robust self defence against F-16/MIG-29 level threats seems to be a minimum - if you can’t do that you might as well save some money and go with turboprop powered solutions).
The a-4 was absolutely loved by its pilots. Cheap and versatile (less than 600k ea when first introduced) Heinemann's hot rod was built for simplicity, ruggedness and performance. It was even more agile than the Mig-17s according to pilots. The last F404 powered version for Singapore (A-4SU) was spectacular in its performance.
Any thoughts on a next generation, rugged, simple, and cheap A-4 type aircraft built with the same things in mind that made the A-4 so great?
For the modern day add some stealth features, light weight materials, an f404 type engine, flyby wire, advanced shaping, etc. Have an air to air version, strike version and possibly a STOL version for the Marines. (I know, sounds like the JSF) BUT KEEP COST DOWN and the aircraft small like the A-4 was.
I talked to a person in the Navy who wasn't a big believer in the modern ever increasing complexity and cost in the new systems. He said many wanted more of a "numbers" philosophy that the A-4 represented, badly needed today. He also said many times on the ships the encrypted communications systems would fail or be jammed, and the simple morse code transmitters (80+) years old, would be able to punch thru the jamming for ship to ship and ship to aircraft communications. Just something to be said about simplicity in combat, and the things that work. That was the underlying philosophy of the A-4.
Anyway, back to the A-4. Would like to see some personal sketches of you're idea of a 21st century/modern A-4 would look like. I will add some of my sketches if others are interested, and are A-4 fans.
The a-4 was absolutely loved by its pilots. Cheap and versatile (less than 600k ea when first introduced) Heinemann's hot rod was built for simplicity, ruggedness and performance. It was even more agile than the Mig-17s according to pilots. The last F404 powered version for Singapore (A-4SU) was spectacular in its performance.
Any thoughts on a next generation, rugged, simple, and cheap A-4 type aircraft built with the same things in mind that made the A-4 so great?
For the modern day add some stealth features, light weight materials, an f404 type engine, flyby wire, advanced shaping, etc. Have an air to air version, strike version and possibly a STOL version for the Marines. (I know, sounds like the JSF) BUT KEEP COST DOWN and the aircraft small like the A-4 was.
I talked to a person in the Navy who wasn't a big believer in the modern ever increasing complexity and cost in the new systems. He said many wanted more of a "numbers" philosophy that the A-4 represented, badly needed today. He also said many times on the ships the encrypted communications systems would fail or be jammed, and the simple morse code transmitters (80+) years old, would be able to punch thru the jamming for ship to ship and ship to aircraft communications. Just something to be said about simplicity in combat, and the things that work. That was the underlying philosophy of the A-4.
Anyway, back to the A-4. Would like to see some personal sketches of you're idea of a 21st century/modern A-4 would look like. I will add some of my sketches if others are interested, and are A-4 fans.
Northrop F-20 Tigershark could have been the one. Increased fuel capacity to 700 gallons (excluding drop tanks.) and Mach two capable. The few airforce pilots that few it were astounded at the over all performance. The basic elements of the airframe, it's maneuverable and recoverable nature, even with the modifications made to it over the years, seemed to have remained generally unchanged.
I first did this back in 1978-80, when I was in High School.
It originated as a modified carrier-capable G91, but it ended up as a M1.5 A-4.
I spent some time working the drawings over in the mid-2000s, but never finished it.
It was to be designed & built in Australia for Melbourne (Sydney was to be fully modernised instead of being scrapped)or a pair of RAN VSS (and possibly a 3rd in the late 1990s).
Australia had gotten rid of reserve fighter squadrons in the 1960s, my plans would bring them back.
Wedgetail FS. Mk.1
Background 1962
In March 1964, with the Mirage fighter being delivered to the RAAF, the Melbourne based Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation presented its idea for a locally designed and manufactured, advanced supersonic aircraft designed to meet both flying and weapons training needs. The RAAF jet trainer requirement was eventually fulfilled in 1967 by Macchi Trainers license built by CAC, and a number of 2 seat Mirages built by GAF in Melbourne, resulting in the CA-31 project being cancelled, effectively ending CAC’s indigenous designs.
I see no reason why the Aussie aircraft industry couldn't combine their experience and knowledge of the Mirage III, CA-31, and the A-4 to develop the Lightweight Carrier Fighter {Australian} during the 1970s.
The beginnings would be an indigenous ~1969 project on the feasibility of providing the A-4G with a low-boost (30%) afterburner for its 9,300 lbst J52-P-8 (to achieve something on the order of 12,100 lbst).
The engineers would quickly determine that a better "cheap" solution would be to strengthen their mid-sections a little and install the newly-developed 11,200 lbst J52-P-408 just starting to be installed in the USMC's new A-4Ms (1970), and the existing –G models (and a second order) were so modified.
However, they would also propose a separate long-term option... that of designing a "supersonic Skyhawk"!
This would apply the known aerodynamics and structure of the A-4 (and Mirage III) to a fully-supersonic aircraft... with a full-boost (45%) afterburner equipped J52-P-408 (producing ~16,400 lbst) and modern fighter avionics (to be the Magnavox APG-159 A-A radar of the F-5E [also just entering production]).
Having just approved a modernization program for Sydney & Melbourne, there was a need to provide more modern and capable fighter aircraft to equip them, and this seemed a perfect choice... especially as the only other suitable modern type was the Harrier, which at that time was a relatively unproven design with no radar.
Approval for the LCFA was given in 1971, and design work began immediately.
During the development phase, the US would be proceeding with the “LFX” competition, featuring the YF-16 & YF-17. The J101 engine for the YF-17 would look rather attractive to the designers, and they would therefore design the rear fuselage to accept this slightly larger diameter engine as an upgrade option (this would require that the engine-mount section of the aft fuselage be modified for the 33.5” diameter of the J101 [further adapted for the 34.5" F404] rather than the 31" of the J52). The prototypes, however, would have non-AB J52s (mounted in an adapter to allow for later replacement) for their initial flights.
The first prototypes would fly in ~1978, by which time the planned engine would have been changed to the F404-GE-100 (10,800 lbst/16,000 lbst AB), which is the production development of the J101.
The change to the APG-65 (24" antenna vs the 28” of the F-18 Hornet) would also occur in 1978 requiring a hurried integration of the new radar before low-rate production begins in 1980. This variant of the APG-65 was first proposed for the AV-8B before 1980, but was rejected on grounds of cost (until the late 1980s when it was installed in the AV-8B+).
Engine: F404-GE-100 (10,800 lbst/16,000 lbst AB)
Dimensions: Length 43 feet 4 inches (13.2 m); Span 28 feet 4 inches (8.6 m); Height 12 feet (3.66 m) +L.G. Wing area: 268 square feet
Weight: ~12,000 pounds empty (~5,455 kg); ~22,500 lb gross, ~26,500 lb max
Speed: 1.5 Mach
Range: (w/2 x 300 gal. ext. tanks) 650 miles (1,080 km); (ferry ) ~2,000 miles (~3,300 km)
Armament: 2 x 30mm DEFA cannon (150 rpg);
10,000 lb weapons/fuel tanks on:
one underfuselage rack, capacity 1,588 kg (3,500 lb) [wet];
two inboard underwing racks, capacity of 1,020 kg (2,250 lb) each [wet];
two outboard underwing racks, capacity of 450 kg (1,000 lb) each [dry]:
4 dedicated AAM hardpoints (200 lb capacity each) [overwing pylons removable]
normal A-A load: 4 x AIM-9 & 2 x AIM-7; 2 x 250 & 1 x 333 Imp. G. drop tanks
normal A-G load: 2 x AIM-9; 2 x 1,000 lb bombs; 6 x 500 lb bombs; 2 x 250 Imp. G. drop tanks
These choices fit well with the as-historic choice of the F-18 to replace the Mirage III in the RAAF.
The 120 Wedgetail FS.mk 1 [formerly the LCFA] were produced from 1980-1987: 48 for the RAN (2-12 aircraft squadrons, 1-12 aircraft reserve squadron, 1-12 aircraft OCU [joint RAN/RAAF], and 13 “attrition reserve”), and 72 for the RAAF (4-14 aircraft squadrons and 16 “attrition reserve”). As the RAAF received its last Hornets in 1990-92, 35 of their Wedgetails were assigned to 2 reserve squadrons (7 “attrition reserve”), and the remaining aircraft were transferred to the RAN to provide 1 reserve squadron (later transferred to active status for the 3rd CVR) and a repair/upgrade pool.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
