Reply to thread

Message

If you don't mind me saying zen, to have the A-4 Skyhawk supersonic would undoubtedly require an afterburning engine to replace the reasonable fuel-efficient J52/J65 engine. A thinner wing (which might cause issue with main landing gear storage), an air-to-air centric radar (and it's associated black boxes)....all equating to a very short legged and limited fighter, with limited offensive/defence armament because external fuel would most likely be required.
Saying this I have read that Douglas (or it could have been McDD by that stage) studied a proposed fighter/Interceptor derivative of the Skyhawk, which seems to have remained subsonic, but carried it's air-to-air radar in a modified droptank and was to be armed with Aim-7 Sparrow AAM's...... [I'll attempt to find the quote/literature!].

Such configuration would seemingly give the Skyhawk the best of both worlds - attack and fighter/interceptor options (alas subsonic).

Regards
Pioneer

<blockquote data-quote="Pioneer" data-source="post: 472561" data-attributes="member: 122">If you don't mind me saying zen, to have the A-4 Skyhawk supersonic would undoubtedly require an afterburning engine to replace the reasonable fuel-efficient J52/J65 engine. A thinner wing (which might cause issue with main landing gear storage), an air-to-air centric radar (and it's associated black boxes)....all equating to a very short legged and limited fighter, with limited offensive/defence armament because external fuel would most likely be required.Saying this I have read that Douglas (or it could have been McDD by that stage) studied a proposed fighter/Interceptor derivative of the Skyhawk, which seems to have remained subsonic, but carried it's air-to-air radar in a modified droptank and was to be armed with Aim-7 Sparrow AAM's...... [I'll attempt to find the quote/literature!].Such configuration would seemingly give the Skyhawk the best of both worlds - attack and fighter/interceptor options (alas subsonic).RegardsPioneer</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pioneer, post: 472561, member: 122"] If you don't mind me saying [I]zen[/I], to have the A-4 Skyhawk supersonic would undoubtedly require an afterburning engine to replace the reasonable fuel-efficient J52/J65 engine. A thinner wing (which might cause issue with main landing gear storage), an air-to-air centric radar (and it's associated black boxes)....all equating to a very short legged and limited fighter, with limited offensive/defence armament because external fuel would most likely be required. Saying this I have read that Douglas (or it could have been McDD by that stage) studied a proposed fighter/Interceptor derivative of the Skyhawk, which seems to have remained subsonic, but carried it's air-to-air radar in a modified droptank and was to be armed with Aim-7 Sparrow AAM's...... [I'll attempt to find the quote/literature!]. Such configuration would seemingly give the Skyhawk the best of both worlds - attack and fighter/interceptor options (alas subsonic). Regards Pioneer [/QUOTE]

Verification