A-4 Skyhawk bring back the concept for the 21st century

Pioneer said:
wouldn't the Indian HAL Tejas be getting close to this requirement?
Click to expand...
The concept behind the Skyhawk was "absorbed" by most LCA/LIFT aircraft we see today as the cheaper alternatives to a proper Multirole. But this still a bit far ahead from what the A-4 is, specially considering that the A-4 wasn't intended to be a fighter from day 1 (At least for the US), thus why we never saw it armed with more than WVR missiles.

ddaw48c-1b8a8e95-70b3-4ac0-ac6f-96f54abebaef.jpg
It was relatively easy to take apart and service
​
Its often referred as "DogMeat" here, not as its nickname, but more as a term given to aircraft/Machines that are meant to be durable, cheap, and easy to keep running despite their age.

As for bringing the concept to todays standards...im guessing that like it did in the 50s, a lot of compromises would have to be taken in order to get something that could be as cheap and efficient (No stealth, small airframe and maybe subsonic?).

Despliegue-FAA-Sur-Rodrigo-Alvarez-3-chica.jpg
17072018-05_AF-1C.png
tom0txowegs61.jpg
 
Problem with a modern-day Skyhawk: 100% attack platforms are no longer a thing.
Most of the time, multirole is the norm: limited A2A + A2G, and the former means supersonic + AAMs.
I would say that, by this metric the KAI T-50 is the closest thing from a modern Skyhawk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

3.1 Republic of Korea
3.2 Indonesia
3.3 Iraq
3.4 Philippines
3.5 Thailand
3.6 Possible sales
Click to expand...
Some of these air forces are clearly intend to use their T-50s in ways many navies plus NZ AF used their Skyhawks: snoopers chasers, really. Limited air defense.

The case of M-346 is a bit more complicated, but it may be even closer from what a modern-day Skyhawk could be: subsonic, a bit of stealth, light and small...

Both are small and single engine.
 
Archibald said:
The case of M-346 is a bit more complicated, but it may be even closer from what a modern-day Skyhawk could be: subsonic, a bit of stealth, light and small...

Both are small and single engine.
Click to expand...

The M346 is twin engine, which is its main flaw. One could do much better with a single engine, non-afterburning design optimized for lower ownership costs and less transonic drag.

See my post #27 on the Northrop N400… now that would be something.
 
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.
 
For the Marines, a modern Skyhawk (ish)

361.jpg

Actually, a lot too big...
  • Crew: 1
  • Length: 55 ft 10.5 in (17.031 m)
  • Wingspan: 34 ft 9 in (10.59 m)
  • Wing area: 427 sq ft (39.7 m2)
  • Gross weight: 35,289 lb (16,007 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce RB.422.48 turbofan with three vectoring nozzles, 25,500 lbf (113 kN) thrust
 
H_K said:
Archibald said:
The case of M-346 is a bit more complicated, but it may be even closer from what a modern-day Skyhawk could be: subsonic, a bit of stealth, light and small...

Both are small and single engine.
Click to expand...

The M346 is twin engine, which is its main flaw. One could do much better with a single engine, non-afterburning design optimized for lower ownership costs and less transonic drag.

See my post #27 on the Northrop N400… now that would be something.
Click to expand...

D'OOOOOOOH !!
 
A totally crazy idea but I wonder if you were to build an A-4 today with modern composites and a fuel efficient turbofan I wonder how much improvement in weight saving, payload and range you would get?
 
Hood said:
A totally crazy idea but I wonder if you were to build an A-4 today with modern composites and a fuel efficient turbofan I wonder how much improvement in weight saving, payload and range you would get?
Click to expand...
So, still recognizably an A-4, just with modern materials? The biggest problem is engine diameter. Both the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW800 and Rolls Royce BR700 (both modern high bypass turbofans in roughly the same thrust class) are around 50" diameter while the P&W J52 is only 38". But if you can work around that, you can put a PW810 in and bump your thrust ratings up from 11,200 to 15,400. SFC should see at least a 20% improvement, though since the engine is some 800 pounds heavier than the J52, you'll probably see a more modest increase in range. With the same payload as a "legacy" Skyhawk, you'll probably see an increase of maybe 75-100nm in combat radius. Or you could probably carry an extra thousand to two thousand pounds or so of bombs over the same range.
 
Last edited:
jz3UoJ4.jpg
Ad from 1962

"Have here a first line defense aircraft thats gaining more and more fame, thanks to its versatility. The small sized Douglas A4D gives a service so efficient, that new orders for them in large quantities are made year after year.

Its funcional design allows it to change its mission as fast as the circumstances allow. The new models have five external supports for that purpose. Its magnificent maneuverability at low altitude and its great armament carrying capacity make it an ideal to support actions on the ground or for attack missions, so important as the defense of territory. Its easy operation and excellent visibility give te pilot a great effectiveness in interception operations. Its speed and great action radius allow it to efficiently act as a altitude bomber.

Nonetheless, the design of this plane, is so simple that it requires less hours of maintenance per flight hours than any other comparable plane. For its versatility, optimal operation, low initial cost, low costs in operation and maintenance, the Skyhawk A4D carries the Douglas tradition...provide the maximum defense at a minimum cost."

It really follows the "KISS" rule made by Mr.Heinemann (Keep It Simple Stupid!!!)
 
The fighter that I can think of that has a similar small size, single engine, flexible armament is the F16. Which is why so many countries have ended up using it.
In fact I wonder if some F35 orders may end up being replaced by running on and upgrading the F16.
Equally former Skyhawk operators like Argentina or New Zealand may end up with F16s.
 
uk 75 said:
The fighter that I can think of that has a similar small size, single engine, flexible armament is the F16. Which is why so many countries have ended up using it.
In fact I wonder if some F35 orders may end up being replaced by running on and upgrading the F16.
Equally former Skyhawk operators like Argentina or New Zealand may end up with F16s.
Click to expand...
It's not single engine, which would be a possible knock against it, but the Super Hornet would fit that mold as well. And given that the USN has, I think, another 70 or so on order, it figures to be supported for decades to come
 
The A-4 replacement is the myriad of trainers already available, combat versions of planes like the BAE Hawk or M346, and now we have the Boeing T-7A as a potential option moving forward.
 
The SHornet runs about 130% the per hour cost of the F-16. Adds up fast. And the F-16 is already over $8000 per hour even accounting for the massive worldwide fleet. Plus the cost of burning hours off of your already used SHornet or Viper. Gripen-C is around $6k which is about as close as one could hope for a true multirole fighter (and it wasn't a world-beater as an export, somewhat surprisingly).

Probably need to look at advanced trainers to get the costs down in the A-4 territory. USAF hope to get the T-7 to $5k per hour or under. Textron projects only $3k per hour for the Scorpion. But even the Gripen-C or F/A-50 carries three times the payload.

For available new builds, it's got to be KAI or Saab, imo. Maybe Boeing if they can produce a light attack or limited multirole version of the T-7. And that is probably enough for most countries.
 
SSgtC said:
uk 75 said:
The fighter that I can think of that has a similar small size, single engine, flexible armament is the F16. Which is why so many countries have ended up using it.
In fact I wonder if some F35 orders may end up being replaced by running on and upgrading the F16.
Equally former Skyhawk operators like Argentina or New Zealand may end up with F16s.
Click to expand...
It's not single engine, which would be a possible knock against it, but the Super Hornet would fit that mold as well. And given that the USN has, I think, another 70 or so on order, it figures to be supported for decades to come
Click to expand...
New Zealand passed on the F-16, and junked the Skyhawk without replacement. Given how far away other countries are, we probably don't need an fighter capability so much as a method of sinking aircraft carriers.
 
NZ could have retained it for a bit more though, the A-4 on their ultimate forms (Kahu, Ayit, AR, and Skyhawk II) still are in some way a "viable" weapon system.

There are certain things that give it a huge plus tho:
  • Cheapness and Simplistic design (yeah, i know we probably mentioned that like..what 100 times?)
  • It was a naval capable aircraft (That was a huge deal for the Argentines, Australians, Brazilians...and well the US of course, who had tons of those in a single carrier, while the rest used The colossus class)
  • Ground clearance: the ability to use MER/TER (Triple and Multiple ejector racks) and possible room for tons of stuff (Torpedo!)
  • Was a relatively easy to fly aircraft: Another thing i saw being a bit strange was that in its initial form it lacked a 2 seater, pilots often... flew with another aircraft above them directing them during their "solo" flight.
Maybe a more streamlined version of the same aircraft, but now with the already proven F404 and FBW could be something, add lets say an AESA Radar and some BVR missiles and you might have a...decent/regular LCA support aircraft ?
 
UpForce said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
New Zealand passed on the F-16, and junked the Skyhawk without replacement. Given how far away other countries are, we probably don't need an fighter capability so much as a method of sinking aircraft carriers.
Click to expand...

Rocket Lab, are you listening?
Click to expand...

Now that would be an interesting deterrent against China. Rocketlab DF-21B anti-Liaoning weapon, anybody ?
 
Roland55 said:
Maybe a more streamlined version of the same aircraft, but now with the already proven F404 and FBW could be something, add lets say an AESA Radar and some BVR missiles and you might have a...decent/regular LCA support aircraft ?
Click to expand...

What you describes looks very much like the late incarnation of Singapore's Skyhawks. We had them training in Cazaux, near Bordeaux, for quite a long time. They have now been retired.
One of them was even donated to the local museum at Bordeaux Mérignac airport / air base 106, the CAEA.

Douglas-ST Aerospace A-4SU Super Skyhawk

www.caea.info www.caea.info
 
The Royal Canadian Navy tested A-4 Skyhawks on HMCS Bonaventure. "Bonnie" was a British light fleet carrier with a 704 foot long flight deck. The landing deck was angled. RCN hoped that A-4s could replace Banshees, but test pilots said that the deck was barely long enough for A-4s and was difficult for landings.
RCN scrapped HMCS Bonaventure and most of their fixed-wing fleet when budget cuts forced them to concentrate on anti-submarine helicopters.
 
Anyway, back on topic. I wonder if a marinized T-7A equivalent might be viable as a Harrier replacement for the Spanish Armada. Would require fitting an angled deck and arrestor wires on BPE Juan Carlos, but why not… Airbus Spain is looking to get back in the jet trainer business so this might be a way to kill 2 birds with one stone.

Maybe combined with an advanced trainer order for the French and Indian Air Forces / Navies… that would make for a large enough customer base. Highly unlikely I know, but would be an interesting thought exercise.
 
Last edited:
I would have thought Brazil's possible effort in a navalised Gripen is of interest.....
 
Currently the L-159 ALCA is about the same size/weight as a Skyhawk and also designed to be cheap, simple, and easy to fly. It doesn't have the load carrying capability of the Skyhawk, but I'm not sure max load is that important in operational use. Personally I think a number of low-budget air forces would be far better off with a sustainable force of L-159 (including trainer versions) and a good SAM system than with the very limited number of much "cooler" aircraft that they actually buy, but that's just me . . .

For a more blue sky solution, I'd say it depends on how much you want multi-role for low-budget air forces vs. how much you want a light attack option for high budget air forces (the "low" part of a high-low mix). If you want multirole, then there are real limits on how cheap/simple you can be and people have already mentioned the obvious candidates (Grippen, F/A-50, M-346).

If you want light attack, I'd argue the plane to emulate is not the A-4, but rather it's successor, the A-7 Corsair II. I'm a big fan of the A-4, but the range/load profile of the A-7 was amazing for a plane of it's size. If you want a low cost bomb truck to batter down an enemy with limited air defenses, or after a SEAD effort has succeeded, the A-7 formula is tough to beat.
 
BB1984 said:
If you want light attack, I'd argue the plane to emulate is not the A-4, but rather it's successor, the A-7 Corsair II. I'm a big fan of the A-4, but the range/load profile of the A-7 was amazing for a plane of it's size.
Click to expand...

The A-7 was great for its time but these days I think a lifting body design would be a lot more efficient at storing lots of fuel in a small package. I’m fascinated by Sukhoi’s “mini-Flanker” designs (S-54, but especially the S-55)… they seem like more muscular precursors to the T-7A Redhawk.


S-55 (1995):
s55_001-jpg.859


5bf6598962e1c635b26b76b3-jpg.619712

548px-S54_aircraft_sketch.svg.png



The slightly smaller & earlier S-54 (1992)… very T-7A like:

10325-e2a3dd7d0b7d276a7d9624d1618ecc28.jpg

5c3d01c9f8efdc7e70121759-jpg.619708

36-1-gif.155896
 
Last edited:
I wonder why the Soviet designers never ventured on a light combat aircraft design like that. :rolleyes:
 
Roland55 said:
I wonder why the Soviet designers never ventured on a light combat aircraft design like that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Political agreements with the Czech's maybe? The L-39ZO/A seems to have been the Warsaw Pact's "light" export plane with the Su-25 ,Su-22, and Mig-23's being the next step in capabilities. Russia is still flying the L-39 as its primary trainer.
 
trose213 said:
chimeric oncogene said:
Cheap planes make no sense these days when pilots and hardened airbases and smart munitions and whatnot are so expensive. It's like giving a giant a spoon to fight with "because the spoon's cheaper". You've already paid for the giant. Might as well pay extra for a big, shiny sword.
Click to expand...
I more view it as the job getting done by a runway independent attritable drone, that you don't have to pay for the pilot or ground maintainers, etc.
Click to expand...
Would be good to know what kind of roles will still demand a pilot/crew in 2035. Seems like time to dig through old studies....
 
BB1984 said:
Currently the L-159 ALCA

If you want light attack, I'd argue the plane to emulate is not the A-4, but rather it's successor, the A-7 Corsair II. I'm a big fan of the A-4, but the range/load profile of the A-7 was amazing for a plane of it's size. If you want a low cost bomb truck to batter down an enemy with limited air defenses, or after a SEAD effort has succeeded, the A-7 formula is tough to beat.
Click to expand...

A-7F - a terrific flying machine.
 
Roland55 said:
I wonder why the Soviet designers never ventured on a light combat aircraft design like that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Soviets didn't do light, but they did go back to cheap / simple / dedicated CAS with the SU-25. A little smaller than an A-10 (by empty weight) but still twice as big as even a late model Skyhawk.

A CAS plane, not a light attack plane, but still the idea of a cheaper bomb truck to use instead of more expensive, and less focused, multi-role aircraft.
 
H_K said:
BB1984 said:
If you want light attack, I'd argue the plane to emulate is not the A-4, but rather it's successor, the A-7 Corsair II. I'm a big fan of the A-4, but the range/load profile of the A-7 was amazing for a plane of it's size.
Click to expand...

The A-7 was great for its time but these days I think a lifting body design would be a lot more efficient at storing lots of fuel in a small package. I’m fascinated by Sukhoi’s “mini-Flanker” designs (S-54, but especially the S-55)… they seem like more muscular precursors to the T-7A Redhawk.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting; interesting stuff, Sukhoi does some good looking designs.

When I said "A-7 formula" I meant optimized for heavy loads at subsonic speeds with an efficient turbofan and a lot of fuel, not any particular shape, so maybe the Sukhoi approach would make sense, or maybe we'd see some other technologies come into play. The supercritical wing, as used on the AV-8B, comes to mind and I've always been fond of the F-16XL's cranked-arrow delta wing, though I'm not sure if that approach would shine at the lower speeds we're thinking of . . . just speculating.
 
BB1984 said:
Roland55 said:
I wonder why the Soviet designers never ventured on a light combat aircraft design like that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Soviets didn't do light, but they did go back to cheap / simple / dedicated CAS with the SU-25. A little smaller than an A-10 (by empty weight) but still twice as big as even a late model Skyhawk.

A CAS plane, not a light attack plane, but still the idea of a cheaper bomb truck to use instead of more expensive, and less focused, multi-role aircraft.
Click to expand...

In November 2004 in Ivory Coast, a pair of Gbagbo's Su-25s piloted by mercenaries made a devastating surprise attack on French soldiers, killing and maiming a number of them.

en.wikipedia.org

2004 French–Ivorian clashes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The Su-25 is a rugged and cheap, but deadly weapon.
 
Having been so widely exported, the Su-25 may be a modern day Skyhawk, somewhat.
 
H_K said:
Archibald said:
Depends whether is was a Colossus or a Majestic...
Click to expand...
Actually, both ARA 25 de Mayo and MB Minas Gerais were Colossus sub-types. HMCS Bonaventure was a Majestic sub-type, so if anything slightly easier to adapt to fast jets.
Click to expand...
The concept of the Canadian Armed Forces ever buying A-4 Skyhawks died for political reasons. Both the RCAF and RCN were evaluating new jets. Both RCAF and RCN seriously considered choosing A-4. The RCAF wanted A-4 for ground attack, while RCN wanted A-4 because it was one of the few jets that could fly off HMCS Bonaventure. Northrop CF-5 Freedom Fighter was priority-last on both lists, but Defense Minister Paul Hllier had worked (as an engineer) at Northrop and Canada's Federal Gov't needed to buy more votes in separatist-leaning Quebec, so Canadair (Montreal Island) got a contract to license-build CF-5s. The RCAF did not want CF-5s and promptly put a third of the fleet on blocks (CFB Mountainview, near CFB Trenton, Ontario). Eventually, the RCAF used their CF-5s as lead-in trainers for supersonic fighters (CF-101, CF-104 and CF-18).
CF-5 may have been an expensive flop for the RCAF, but it did buy enough votes that Quebec never separated from the rest of Canada.
 
Last edited:
riggerrob said:
H_K said:
Archibald said:
Depends whether is was a Colossus or a Majestic...
Click to expand...
Actually, both ARA 25 de Mayo and MB Minas Gerais were Colossus sub-types. HMCS Bonaventure was a Majestic sub-type, so if anything slightly easier to adapt to fast jets.
Click to expand...
The concept of the Canadian Armed Forces ever buying A-4 Skyhawks died for political reasons. Both the RCAF and RCN were evaluating new jets. Both RCAF and RCN seriously considered choosing A-4. The RCAF wanted A-4 for ground attack, while RCN wanted A-4 because it was one of the few jets that could fly off HMCS Bonaventure. Northrop CF-5 Freedom Fighter was priority-last on both lists, but Defense Minister Paul Hllier had worked (as an engineer) at Northrop and Canada's Federal Gov't needed to buy more votes in separatist-leaning Quebec, so Canadaid (Montreal Island) got a contract to license-build CF-5s. The RCAF did not want CF-5s and promptly put a third of the fleet on blocks (CFB Mountainview, near CFB Trenton, Ontario). Eventually, the RCAF used their CF-5s as lead-in trainers for supersonic fighters (CF-101, CF-104 and CF-18).
CF-5 may have been an expensive flop for the RCAF, but it did buy enough votes that Quebec never separated from the rest of Canada.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom