Advanced A-4 SkyHawks: USN VA (L) and for the U.S. Army CAS competition

[64jmb]

Army A-4 Proposal model by Microwest

(Source: Ebay)

Do you own this model? Or where I can find one?

FYI all, I doubt it was a Micro West model, but probably a Marketing Aids. I saw a plethora of A-4's being painted there. Being the official Douglas Model Shop and partnered by one of my best friends, Al Parker he did move on to create Micro West when they closed Marketing Aids. He sold it to Paul Williams who ran it till his passing a few years ago and I never saw them paint any A-4's. Now on the other hand I did see DIck Nyland of Westco fame do a few over the course of a few years. Here are a few that I have done myself recently since I had a box of blanks and some free time. I am in process of making a CA-4F as well and will post pictures when done. I had a factory one in my years ago sold collection that was actually done in Navy white and orange that I quite liked, even with the Quasimodo humpy bumpy. Douglas was really trying to keep the model alive I guess and I quite like the bright colors.

WOW! Would you consider selling the Army A4 since you can paint more of them up? Id pay good money for it.

 

[64jmb]

Army A-4 Proposal model by Microwest

(Source: Ebay)

Do you own this model? Or where I can find one?

FYI all, I doubt it was a Micro West model, but probably a Marketing Aids. I saw a plethora of A-4's being painted there. Being the official Douglas Model Shop and partnered by one of my best friends, Al Parker he did move on to create Micro West when they closed Marketing Aids. He sold it to Paul Williams who ran it till his passing a few years ago and I never saw them paint any A-4's. Now on the other hand I did see DIck Nyland of Westco fame do a few over the course of a few years. Here are a few that I have done myself recently since I had a box of blanks and some free time. I am in process of making a CA-4F as well and will post pictures when done. I had a factory one in my years ago sold collection that was actually done in Navy white and orange that I quite liked, even with the Quasimodo humpy bumpy. Douglas was really trying to keep the model alive I guess and I quite like the bright colors.

I have a A4K for sale in the NZ markings for sale.

 

[yasotay]

LOL - that A4 in Army colors does look nice!

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Army A-4 Proposal model by Microwest

(Source: Ebay)

Do you own this model? Or where I can find one?

FYI all, I doubt it was a Micro West model, but probably a Marketing Aids. I saw a plethora of A-4's being painted there. Being the official Douglas Model Shop and partnered by one of my best friends, Al Parker he did move on to create Micro West when they closed Marketing Aids. He sold it to Paul Williams who ran it till his passing a few years ago and I never saw them paint any A-4's. Now on the other hand I did see DIck Nyland of Westco fame do a few over the course of a few years. Here are a few that I have done myself recently since I had a box of blanks and some free time. I am in process of making a CA-4F as well and will post pictures when done. I had a factory one in my years ago sold collection that was actually done in Navy white and orange that I quite liked, even with the Quasimodo humpy bumpy. Douglas was really trying to keep the model alive I guess and I quite like the bright colors.

Tell me more about the t-tail in _0191 - love it! The Skyhawk looks good in Army green......

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[allysonca]

Here is where I found an original....

SDASM Archives
Follow

Douglas​

Catalog #: 00065426
Manufacturer: Douglas
Designation:
Official Nickname:
Notes: Attack/Trainer proposal - John Barter
Repository: San Diego Air and Space Museum Archive​

 

[TsrJoe]

European interest, Belgian Air Force, Italian Navy ?, Netherlands Navy (I have seen Douglas artwork re the Dutch proposal, would make for a nice model) The evaluation aircraft also sported Belgian roundels for the sales visit too

Belgium Evaulates the Skyhawk | The Skyhawk Association

Netherlands Skyhawk Proposal | The Skyhawk Association

 

[hesham]

From Air Pictorial 9/1955,

the Douglas company intended to develop a supersonic fighter version of A4D Skyhawk for USAF,
and I am asking,what was it ?.

I hope my dear Tony Butler solve this mystery in his new book ASP5 .

 

[hesham]

From Aviation magazine 1988,

Super Skyhawk.

 

[BlackBat242]

From Aviation magazine 1988,

Super Skyhawk.

Upgrade of Singapore's A-4S - which was itself an upgrade of ex-USN/USMC A-4B (40 + 7 TA-4 conversions in 1972) & A-4C (70 + 16 TA-4 conversions from A-4Bs in 1980) airframes. The F404 engine replacements were done from 1986 on, with new navigation equipment & Maverick missile capability being added from 1991.

Actually entered service... but was NOT supersonic, as the F-100-GE-100D did not have an afterburner.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Were there ever any supersonic A-4 developments? I wonder how many changes to the airframe would've been required to make the aircraft capable of passing mach in level flight. I know there were/are advanced A-4 variants with decent multi-mode radars (Singapore's?), and the idea of a M1.5 capable A-4 with AMRAAM capability would be an attractive and cheap solution, not to mention very robust and maneuverable with the added sustained agility that a more powerful afterburning engine would provide. Singapore's A-4Ss do have non-afterburning F404-GE-100Ds......

It probably would have required redesigning the fuselage for area ruling. Transonic drag is a killer if you don't.

A4D-6 and A4D-5 comparison.

File:Douglas A4D-5 and A4D-6 Skyhawk models 1962.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

That's a much larger plane! (where's the "mind blown" emoji?)

Is there any further explanation in the Technical description for the unusual CA-4E and F designation. I kind of guess it is a company designation and that the C stands for 'Camera'.

C as a prefix is usually used for anything in Canadian service, and in the late 1950s the Canadians did have a carrier...

 

[BlackBat242]

Had the FIAT G.91 been chosen, any ideas as to what its designation would have been? Just curious since the others already had US designations, I guess the worst case would have been a sub-type to the main designation, but the G.91 wasn't in the system.

Re the G.91 - perhaps A-8?

Hmm, I hadn't thought of A-8 since the Harrier was "intended" to fill the A-8 slot by being mis-designated. Yeah, that would work!

Wouldn't this have predated the AV-8?

if they were being honest, the Harrier probably should have been the AV-6B rather than the AV-8A.

In 1966, after the dissolution of the Tri-partite Squadron (UK, Germany, US evaluation unit for the Hawker P.1127 Kestrel) "all nine of the Kestrels were turned over the the United States. They were assigned the USAF serial numbers 64-18262/18270. However, only six of them were actually delivered, with the remaining three being retained in the UK. They were initially assigned the designation VZ-12, but were later redesignated XV-6A, because the VZ-12 designation was allocated long before adoption of the Tri-Service aircraft designation system."

 

[TomS]

C as a prefix is usually used for anything in Canadian service, and in the late 1950s the Canadians did have a carrier...

Yes, CA-4E and CA-4F were proposed designs for Canada.

Post in thread 'Spey A-4 Project' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/spey-a-4-project.2144/post-329632

 

[BlackBat242]

That's a much larger plane! (where's the "mind blown" emoji?)

The A4D-6 was an enlarged A4D-5 (A-4E) and was Douglas' entry to the U.S. Navy's 1962 VAL (light attack aircraft) competition.
As the VAL was specified by the USN to use the TF30 (non-afterburning) the fuselage was re-designed for the fatter and longer engine* - and the wings enlarged to increase the payload to where the USN required.
No A4D-6 was built, as the competition was won by Ling-Temco-Vought with what later became the A-7 Corsair II.

* J52: 117" long, 30.2" diameter, 8,500 lb.s.t. - 9,300 lb.s.t. A-4E (32.1" dia & 11,200 lb.s.t. A-4M)
TF30: 125" long, 40.06" diameter, 11,350 lb.s.t A-7A (13,400 lb.s.t. A-7C)

C as a prefix is usually used for anything in Canadian service, and in the late 1950s the Canadians did have a carrier...

Until 1962, the Canadian Navy had operated F2H-3 Banshee fighters (acquired used from the USN) from its sole carrier, HMCS Bonaventure.

At the final Naval Board meeting in July 1964 the A-4E fighter was approved for Bonaventure (then undergoing refit). This was not approved by the Government (see below).

By 1966 the Naval Staff, as it had previously existed, was disbanded. The Naval Board had been abolished.

By 1967 Bonaventure returned to operational service with her complement of newly improved CSF-3 Trackers and Sea King helicopters. The often criticized refit, although over budget, provided the carrier an estimated 10 year period of operations with an enhanced performance provided by the various modifications to operational equipment and crew habitability. In spite of the size and speed limitations of the carrier, flying operations and the ASW performance of Bonaventure and her escort group over the next 18 months was second to none in the ongoing NATO exercises involving both the USN and other western navies.

Maritime Commander, Vice Admiral O'Brien, however, was under increasing pressure from the highest levels at CFHQ. In one graphic example he was told to provide no further fuel for Bonaventure, which was scheduled for a major exercise. He managed to bypass that directive by filling the supply ship Provider with fuel and then transferring it to the carrier.

In the spring of 1969, with cutbacks facing the forces, rumors began circulating that the carrier was a particular target insofar as Prime Minister Trudeau's announced change in defense policy included a phased reduction of the Canadian Commitment to NATO.

On the night of 20 September 1969 Bonaventure and her escort group were in the midst of Exercise Peace Keeper, one of the most intensive and wide-ranging series of maneuvers to date involving major fleet units of the USN, RN and other NATO Forces. The bombshell arrived in the form of a CBC short wave news service. Bonaventure was to be scrapped, and VS 880 (the Tracker squadron) was slated for disbandment.

The duplicity of the new Defense Minister Leo Cadieux together with his insensitivity was unpardonable. Only one week earlier he had dismissed a report of Bonaventure's retirement as pure speculation. Vice Admiral O’Brien had assured Captain Jim Cutts, the CO of the carrier, that he would inform Cutts if there were to be any change of status in the carrier. Even O'Brien, the navy's top operational commander, was not given the courtesy of being advised prior to the media that his most valuable fleet asset was being scrapped. Also humiliated was the Parliamentary Committee aboard Bonaventure who had prepared a complete dossier of the role and scope of Maritime Command for presentation to Parliament.

So yes, the CA-4E and CA-4F were designations for the proposed Canadian Skyhawks for both the Navy and Air Force. The F-5A was selected instead, in part as behind the scenes the decision to get rid of Bonaventure was already gaining support so only the Air Force's needs were taken into account.

CSF-1 and CSF-2 were designations for S2F (S-2) Trackers built for the Canadian Navy by de Havilland Canada, and CSF-3 were upgraded CSF-2s.

 

[royabulgaf]

European interest, Belgian Air Force, Italian Navy ?, Netherlands Navy (I have seen Douglas artwork re the Dutch proposal, would make for a nice model) The evaluation aircraft also sported Belgian roundels for the sales visit too

Belgium Evaulates the Skyhawk | The Skyhawk Association

Netherlands Skyhawk Proposal | The Skyhawk Association

I recall that artwork, but I've never been able to relocate it. IIRC it had Dutch, Indian, and Canadian navies, and a fourth country I forgot.

 

[isayyo2]

A-4Ns flown by Top Aces are now being fitted with AESA and IRST!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1762448644228190310

A-4 Aggressor Now Boasts Infrared Search And Track System

One of Top Aces’ A-4Ns appears to have become the first privately operated aggressor aircraft with both an IRST and an AESA radar.

www.twz.com

 

[GTX]

All 3 contenders:

 

[riggerrob]

BlackBar242 posted plenty of Royal Canadian Navy facts above.
But cancelling HMCS Bonaventure was just out part of a much deeper rot in National Defence Headquarters.
During WW2, many RCN officers had trained aboard RN capital ships and concluded that Canada needed at least one capital ship to train junior officers. During the 1950s, the only capital ship that RCN could afford was a lonely aircraft carrier.
But the cultural problem was much deeper. In July of this year I was chatting with a retired Canadian Armed Forces clearance diver who had fully-qualifed as a Tracker pilot, but decided that he did not want to occupy the same wardroom as a bunch of snooty, pinky-finger-in-the-air officers who pretended to born into the wealthy British upper class.
Part of the problem was that the tiny RCN was trying to retain expertise in a wide variety of roles: anti-submarine, convoy escort, air defence of the fleet, ground attack, etc.
A succession of defense cutbacks were needed if Canada was to afford a universal health care plan. With the USA providing protection against the evil Russians, Ottawa felt confident in gutting the Army, Navy and Air Force.
Circa 1960, the RCN had decided to focus on its wartime role of convoy escort. To that end they invented the Bear Trap haul-down system for Sea King helicopters and built a couple of new classes of DDEs and DDHs destroyer escorts or frigates in other navies.
But HMCS Bonaventure was absorbing something like 40 percent of the sailors and was unsustainable in the face of declining defence budgets.
In-fighting became so viscous between Army generals, RCAF generals and admirals, that Defence Minister Paul Hellyer decided that it was easier to unify all three services. When several admirals resigned in protest, politicians breathed a huge sigh of relief!

The CF-5 fiasco is s story for another day.

 

[Archibald]

The CF-5 fiasco is s story for another day.

Cold War Air Power Choices For The RCAF: Paul Hellyer and the Selection of the CF5 Freedom Fighter - Canadian Military Journal

Cold War Air Power Choices For The RCAF: Paul Hellyer and the Selection of the CF5 Freedom Fighter

www.journal.forces.gc.ca

 

[Apophenia]

... At the final Naval Board meeting in July 1964 the A-4E fighter was approved for Bonaventure (then undergoing refit). This was not approved by the Government ...

Is there a source for this?

Naval Staff had already agreed in 1962 that HMCS Bonaventure's future role would be purely ASW - as had been the focus of most of the RCN fleet for over a decade. And, as always, the CNS and VCNS were senior members of the Navy Board in 1964.

So why would VAdm Rayner and RAdm VAdm Dyer have "approved" carrier-borne strike aircraft (of any form) when, as CNS and VCNS, they had personally been behind decisions to go full-on ASW with HMCS Bonaventure?

Like a lot of stories about the 'Bonnie', this A-4E yarn smacks of storytime in the mess.
_______________________________

[Edit]
A minor correction: By 02 July 1964, Ken Dyer was a Vice-Admiral and Chairman of the Navy Board. As a destroyer captain in the North Atlantic during WW2, I can't imagine VAdm Dyer having second-thoughts on having given priority to ASW.

FWIW, members of The Navy Board of Canada in July 1964 were:

VAdm Herbert. S. Rayner; Chief of the Naval Staff
VAdm Kenneth L. Dyer; VCNS and Chairman of the Navy Board
RAdm Michael G. Stirling; Chief of Naval Personnel
RAdm Charles J. Dillon; Deputy Comptroller General
Capt(N) Allan O. Solomon; Navy Board Secretary
Mr. Robert A. Stead; Deputy Naval Secretary [1]

[1] R. A. Stead was a bureaucrat. In 1966, Stead moved on to the National Energy Board.

 

[riggerrob]

A couple of test pilots did land USN A-4 Skyhawks on HMCS Bonaventure, but concluded that the deck was marginally long enough.
That and budget changes killed the concept of the RCN operating any more jet fighters.
A-14 was near the tops of lists compiled by both the RCN and the RCAF. F-5 was "priority last" on both lists, but Paul Hellyer had worked as an engineer at Northrop before he turned to politics. CF-5 proved a bit of a dud with such a small payload that it could barely deliver a full bomb-load to the end of its own runway!
Hah!
Hah!
In the end, the RCAF primarily used Cf-5 as lead-in trainers for super-sonic fighters like Cf-101 Voodoo, CF-104 Starfighter and CF-18 Hornet.
How often did the Argentine Navy fly their A-4s from their aircraft carrier?

 

[Apophenia]

... That and budget changes killed the concept of the RCN operating any more jet fighters.
A-14 was near the tops of lists compiled by both the RCN and the RCAF...

Ummm ... not really. 'Bonnie' may have been too small for most naval fighters but, as mentioned above, it was a role-priority recommendation from The Navy Board of Canada that put paid to RCN 'fast jets'. As such, by 1962, it wouldn't have mattered how long Bonaventure's fight deck was. (Apologies for continuing OT but this 'CA-4 for the RCN' myth just keeps going.)

By the time that Douglas was pitching its Spey-powered CA-4, the sole audience was the RCAF. But the CF-104 had just entered service and it was Paul Hellyer (as Pearson's first MND) who oversaw the introduction of the low-level nuclear strike role for NATO. At the time, the CF-104 appeared to be the RCAF's ideal answer to both strike and photo-recce in Europe. Small wonder then that no-one in the RCAF recognized a need for A-4s.

It was Hellyer and its 1964 Defence White Paper that pushed the idea of new strike aircraft - as an alternative to pricey F-4s. Hellyer wanted aircraft that could be readily deployed in Europe or Canada and shifted back-and-forth as needed. Obviously the CA-4 was not going to satisfy that role. Ironically, neither was the 'Tinker Toy' from Northrop.

As for Paul Hellyer himself, yes he was an engineer but he never worked for Northrop ... at least, not in any pay-cheque sense.

 

[BlackBat242]

Is there a source for this?

Naval Staff had already agreed in 1962 that HMCS Bonaventure's future role would be purely ASW - as had been the focus of most of the RCN fleet for over a decade. And, as always, the CNS and VCNS were senior members of the Navy Board in 1964.

So why would VAdm Rayner and RAdm VAdm Dyer have "approved" carrier-borne strike aircraft (of any form) when, as CNS and VCNS, they had personally been behind decisions to go full-on ASW with HMCS Bonaventure?

Like a lot of stories about the 'Bonnie', this A-4E yarn smacks of storytime in the mess.

I've dug and dug, but I can't find where I got this - I either got it from a discussion board or another internet source that I can't find now.

So I'll concede that it was likely a "story" and not reality.