The best way to properly prepare Brazil militarily for an actual Lobster War Against France In Late 1964?

[F.L.]

58 unidades AT-33A
60 unidades Gloster Meteor
32 unidades F-80C
64 unidades B-25J
28 unidades B26 Invaders

Look further up the in thread.

In addition, the frontline fighter of the Brazilian AF was the Meteor F.8, received in 1953, 27 of which were in flying condition in 1960. In 1962, the FAB had a dozen T-33s used for close-air-suport, 48 additional aircraft being delivered in 1965, too late to participate in the "Lobster war". Aditionally , 33 F-80C-10-LO were delivered to the FAB in 1958 and 1960.

 

[H_K]

Okay, so it will be
-Clemenceau with 15F and eventually 11F, both on Etendard IVs. Crusaders not there yet, Aquilons and Corsairs are on their last legs, same for Lafayette.

-This leaves Arromanches for ASW with Breguets Alizés.

Clemenceau deployed to West Africa in early 1963 with Aquilons (16F) and Alizes.

The Aeronavale was still working the kinks out of the Etendard. That said 15F should have been available with 16 Etendards delivered by end of 1962 (excluding 7 prototypes). Etendard deliveries continued in 1963 at a rate of 3-4 aircraft per month, and 11F was almost up to full strength by April 1963, at which point its pilots had completed 1,000 hours on Etendards.

Not sure Arromanches was needed... see below.

Foch: not so ok

Foch should have been available in a pinch.

Her builder's trials were completed in Jul-Aug 1962, aviation trials in Sept 1962, followed by a post-trials refit in the winter of 1962. From Feb-April 1963 she was in operational work-ups off Brest, after which she departed on 11 June 1963 on her first short deployment to the US East Coast.

PORTE-AVIONS CLASSE CLEMENCEAU

PORTE-AVIONS CLASSE CLEMENCEAU (FRANCE) Le porte-avions Clemenceau à la mer. La présence de Crotale indique que la photo est postérieure à octobre 1986 AVANT P

forummarine.forumactif.com

The newly delivered Etendards would not have very sophisticated weapons-cannon and bombs? But they would give France a good edge.

Sidewinder and AS-20 were the main missiles available in 1963, but not sure the squadrons had yet had the chance to fire these in training... that said nothing stopping a crash training program.

AS-30 also potentially available (200+ delivered by early 1963 to the French Air Force for its Vautours) and was a really useful weapon. Not yet tested on Etendards, but since it was similar to the AS-20 it would have made a good crash program to accelerate adoption.

Alizes also could fire AS-12s against surface targets.

There was no way France could win a littoral war with Brazil, as it meant that planes from the mainland could defeat the French maritime air force.

I'm not sure what makes you so categorical.

1) What air bases did Brazil have along the North East coast and how many bombers & fighters could be staged from there?
2) What was the range of the Brazilian fighters? (F-80, Meteor, T-33s)... could any have reached a carrier group 250nm+ offshore?
3) What would stop the French from repeating another Suez and destroying the old bombers on the ground? If the bombers flew out to the task force, most likely flying slow and unescorted, how many would survive naval fighter & gun defenses?

 

[uk 75]

The naval confrontation interests me. The Brasilian navy has some reasonable ships and had a tradition of working with the US Navy.
Would the US have been as relaxed about supporting France as it was eventually with the UK in 1982? Perhaps, yes if France had a different attitude to NATO similar to the UK.
If on the other hand relations between the Johnson White House and De Gaulle were as testy as in our history, the US might have shadowed the French as it did at Suez in 1956. USAF aircraft might also have deployed to conduct "exercises" with the Brasilians.

 

[carvalho2008]

Ok, então será
-Clemenceau com 15F e eventualmente 11F, ambos em Etendard IVs. Os cruzados ainda não chegaram, Aquilons e Corsairs estão em suas últimas pernas, o mesmo para Lafayette.

-Isso deixa Arromanches para ASW com Breguets Alizés.

Clemenceau melhorou na África Ocidental no início de 1963 com Aquilons (16F) e Alizes.

A Aeronavale ainda estava resolvendo os problemas do Etendard. Dito isso, o 15F deveria estar disponível com 16 Etendards entregues no final de 1962 (excluídos 7 protótipos). As entregas de Etendard continuaram em 1963 a uma taxa de 3-4 aeronaves por mês, e o 11F estava quase com força total em abril de 1963, quando seus pilotos completaram 1.000 horas em Etendards.

Não tenho certeza se Arromanches era necessário... veja abaixo.

Foch: não tão bem

Foch deveria estar disponível em uma pitada.

Os testes de seu construtor foram concluídos em julho-agosto de 1962, os testes de aviação em setembro de 1962, seguidos por uma reforma pós-testes no inverno de 1962. De fevereiro a abril de 1963, ela esteve em trabalhos operacionais ao largo de Brest, após o que partiu em 11 de junho de 1963 em sua primeira missão curta na costa leste dos Estados Unidos.

PORTE-AVIONS CLASSE CLEMENCEAU

PORTE-AVIONS CLASSE CLEMENCEAU (FRANCE) Le porte-avions Clemenceau à la mer. La présence de Crotale indique que la photo est postérieure à octobre 1986 AVANT P

forummarine.forumactif.com

Os Etendards recém-entregues não conseguem armas-canhão e bombas muito sofisticadas? Mas dariam uma boa vantagem à França.

Sidewinder e AS-20 eram os principais mísseis disponíveis em 1963, mas não tenho certeza se os esquadrões ainda tiveram uma chance de dispará-los em treinamento... isso não impediu um programa de treinamento de choque.

AS-30 também potencialmente disponível (mais de 200 entregues no início de 1963 à Força Aérea Francesa para seus Vautors) e era uma arma realmente útil. Ainda não testado em Etendards, mas como era semelhante ao AS-20, seria um bom programa de trabalho para acelerar a adoção.

Alizes também poderiam disparar AS-12s contra alvos de superfície.

Não havia como a França vencer uma guerra litorânea com o Brasil, pois isso significava que os aviões do continente poderiam derrotar a força aérea marítima francesa.

Não tenho certeza do que o torna tão categórico.

1) Quais bases aéreas o Brasil tinha ao longo da costa Nordeste e quantos bombardeiros e caças poderiam ser posicionados a partir daí?
2) Qual era o alcance das caças brasileiras? (F-80, Meteor, T-33s)... algum poderia ter alcançado um grupo de porta-aviões 250nm+ offshore?
3) O que impediria os franceses de repetir outro Suez e destruir os antigos bombardeiros no solo? Se os bombardeiros voassem para a força-tarefa, provavelmente voariam devagar e sem escolta, quantos sobreviveriam às defesas de caças e canhões navais?

Até que ponto está o conflito? Bem, não foi uma batalha oceânica, foi uma batalha costeira. Veja o mapa, o conflito estava a 10 milhas da costa... Jamais o Brasil seguindo sua frota de forma a perder a cobertura aérea continental e dar vantagem aos franceses. Em uma guerra fora do continente, a França venceria facilmente. Mas em uma batalha costeira, não!

Clemenceau implantado na África Ocidental no início de 1963 com Aquilons (16F) e Alizes.

A Aeronavale ainda estava resolvendo os problemas do Etendard. Dito isso, o 15F deveria estar disponível com 16 Etendards entregues no final de 1962 (excluindo 7 protótipos). As entregas de Etendard continuaram em 1963 a uma taxa de 3-4 aeronaves por mês, e o 11F estava quase com força total em abril de 1963, quando seus pilotos completaram 1.000 horas em Etendards.

Não tenho certeza se Arromanches era necessário... veja abaixo.


Foch deveria estar disponível em uma pitada.

Os testes de seu construtor foram concluídos em julho-agosto de 1962, os testes de aviação em setembro de 1962, seguidos por uma reforma pós-testes no inverno de 1962. De fevereiro a abril de 1963, ela esteve em trabalhos operacionais ao largo de Brest, após o que partiu em 11 de junho de 1963 em sua primeira missão curta na costa leste dos Estados Unidos.

PORTE-AVIONS CLASSE CLEMENCEAU

PORTE-AVIONS CLASSE CLEMENCEAU (FRANCE) Le porte-avions Clemenceau à la mer. La présence de Crotale indique que la photo est postérieure à octobre 1986 AVANT P

forummarine.forumactif.com

Sidewinder e AS-20 eram os principais mísseis disponíveis em 1963, mas não tenho certeza se os esquadrões ainda tiveram uma chance de dispará-los em treinamento... isso não impediu um programa de treinamento de choque.

AS-30 também potencialmente disponível (mais de 200 entregues no início de 1963 à Força Aérea Francesa para seus Vautors) e era uma arma realmente útil. Ainda não testado em Etendards, mas como era semelhante ao AS-20, seria um bom programa de trabalho para acelerar a adoção.

Alizes também poderiam disparar AS-12s contra alvos de superfície.



Não tenho certeza do que o torna tão categórico.

1) Quais bases aéreas o Brasil tinha ao longo da costa Nordeste e quantos bombardeiros e caças poderiam ser posicionados a partir daí?
2) Qual era o alcance das caças brasileiras? (F-80, Meteor, T-33s)... algum poderia ter alcançado um grupo de porta-aviões 250nm+ offshore?
3) O que impediria os franceses de repetir outro Suez e destruir os antigos bombardeiros no solo? Se os bombardeiros voassem para a força-tarefa, provavelmente voariam devagar e sem escolta, quantos sobreviveriam às defesas de caças e canhões navais?

The contested area was 10 miles from shore.

Extremely close to the Natal and Recife air bases.

Two of the largest Brazilian air bases were allocated there precisely because it is the closest point between Brazil and Africa. Special attention to the Natal air base (BANT), because during the Second World War it was used by the Americans as a starting point and mainly due to the fear of German invasions, South America could start there.

2) If the French fleet stayed 250 miles or more from the coast, the Brazilian objective would already be achieved, as the Brazilian exclusion zone was in its territorial sea of 10 miles (today 200 miles). The French fleet would have to stay within striking distance of the Brazilian coast, but Meteors, F-80 B-26s and all the others would have full autonomy to reach them... see the maps.

3) Theorizing, about France destroying Brazilian aviation on land? It may be, as well as the other way around, but I see no advantage in the French position. It's like Taiwan... The US can have the best navy, but it can't have the best navy in Taiwan, since the Chinese have it... because the Chinese ships and forces are already there... and because yes, they are worth risking everything... We must also remember how the tax of western naval defenses experienced in 1982 in the Falklands... for the generation of reaction fighters, imagine in 1960...

 

[carvalho2008]

@carvalho2008 English, please?

sorry...!

 

[H_K]

2) If the French fleet stayed 250 miles or more from the coast, the Brazilian objective would already be achieved, as the Brazilian exclusion zone was in its territorial sea of 10 miles

Basic concept of sea control / carrier raids is to repeatedly strike enemy air bases and fleet units from afar until the enemy forces are weakened enough. Once they have gained air superiority naval units can come close to the coast.

I don’t see how some old, slow B-25/B-26s operating from Natal and Recife air bases, level bombing from high altitude and most likely unescorted, are going to scare any carrier admiral. The carrier will approach to within 250-300nm, launch an alpha strike and most likely catch a large number of land based aircraft on the ground. Then defend against any enemy air attack and repeat alpha strikes as necessary. Worked during the Second World War and still worked at Suez in 1956. No reason it wouldn’t work against Brazil.

 

[carvalho2008]

Basic concept of sea control / carrier raids is to repeatedly strike enemy air bases and fleet units from afar until the enemy forces are weakened enough. Once they have gained air superiority naval units can come close to the coast.

I don’t see how some old, slow B-25/B-26s operating from Natal and Recife air bases, level bombing from high altitude and most likely unescorted, are going to scare any carrier admiral. The carrier will approach to within 250-300nm, launch an alpha strike and most likely catch a large number of land based aircraft on the ground. Then defend against any enemy air attack and repeat alpha strikes as necessary. Worked during the Second World War and still worked at Suez in 1956. No reason it wouldn’t work against Brazil.

maybe, but FAB inventory, although
with some units under maintenance was:

58 At-33A units (Received 1958 - Operated until 1975)
60 Gloster Meteor units (Received 1953 - Operated until 1974)
32 F-80Cs (Received 1958 - operated until 1973)
64 B-25J units (1944/1975)
28 B-26 Invaders (received 1957 - operated until 1975)

Links of the Museum of the Ministry of Aeronautics of Brazil:

LOCKHEED T-33A - Shooting Star | Lockheed Aircraft Corporation - MUSAL

www2.fab.mil.br

GLOSTER G.43 (TF-7) METEOR T.Mk.7 | Gloster Aircraft - MUSAL

www2.fab.mil.br

LOCKHEED F-80C - Shooting Star | Lockheed Aircraft Corporation - MUSAL

www2.fab.mil.br

Histórico bombardeiro North American B-25 está de volta ao MUSAL - MUSAL

www2.fab.mil.br

DOUGLAS A-26B - Invader | Douglas Aircraft Company - MUSAL

www2.fab.mil.br

 

[F.L.]

maybe, but FAB inventory, although
with some units under maintenance was:

58 AT-33A units (Received 1958 - Operated until 1975)
60 Gloster Meteor units (Received 1953 - Operated until 1974)
32 F-80Cs (Received 1958 - operated until 1973)
64 B-25J units (1944/1975)
28 B-26 Invaders (received 1957 - operated until 1975)

These figures do not take into account attrition and fatigue of airframes. In particular, the number of Meteors had been severely reduced after signs of weakness appeared in the wings. These were the result of the Meteors being used as low-altitude ground attack aircraft when they were actually interceptors.

And, from the book "Latin American fighters" :

The first five TF-33As (AT-33A) entered service in 1965, followed by another eight in 1966 and, the final thirty-five in 1967.

Otherwise, four T-33A were delivred in 1956, four more in 1960 & two more in 1962, only ten aircraft.
I don't know if these aircraft were armed.

 

[carvalho2008]

Acho que a melhor opção de caça seria o F11F Tiger. Uma atualização que poderia ser considerada seria substituir o motor J-65 por uma versão de-combustão do J-52, que ofereceria um sfc um pouco menor e um empuxo pós seco semelhante ou maior. Sim, eu sei que muitas pessoas adoram o J-79, mas observe que o F-104 teve uma taxa de perda significativamente maior devido a falhas de motor do que as aeronaves J-57 ou J-75 contemporâneas. Isso pode ser um problema com uma caça monomotor; já era um problema suficiente com uma caça terrestre monomotor. Embora o F8U fosse, em muitos aspectos, uma aeronave melhor, ele também apresentava uma taxa de atrito bastante alta. Acho que 18 F11F seria um grupo aéreo razoável, com um total de cerca de 36 aeronaves compradas para a marinha. Seria útil comprar a mesma aeronave para a FAB.

Eu adicionaria o E-1 à mistura.

Quantas surtidas Minas Gerais poderiam suportar com uma aeronave da classe F11F (seria menos com o F8U)?

----------

As únicas opções de aeronaves porta-aviões não americanas são francesas (o Etendard IV) e britânicas (Sea Vixen, Scimitar). Outras aeronaves que omitem incluem o Sea Venom, Sea Hawk, F9F Cougar & Panther, F2H Phantom, F3H Demon, F4H Phantom II, o F4D Skyray e os vários tipos de FJ Fury, embora eu ache que alguém poderia fazer um argumento razoável para o Puma F9F.

These figures do not take into account attrition and fatigue of airframes. In particular, the number of Meteors had been severely reduced after signs of weakness appeared in the wings. These were the result of the Meteors being used as low-altitude ground attack aircraft when they were actually interceptors.

And, from the book "Latin American fighters" :

Otherwise, four T-33A were delivred in 1956, four more in 1960 & two more in 1962, only ten aircraft.
I don't know if these aircraft were armed.

some T-33s actually seem to be received later, as it was a buffer solution precisely to replace some F-80C. That's probably where the At-33 nomenclature came from...they were versioned for attack in this solution, I think that's it. Don't find the arrival date for this batch.
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS (Lockheed T-33A Thunderbird)

Engine: An Allison J33-A-35 5,200 lb thrust turbojet
Wingspan: 11.85 m
Length: 11.48m
Height: 3.55m
Wing surface: 21.81 m2
Weight: 3794 kg (empty); 6,831 kg (maximum)
Speed: 965 km/h (maximum)
Ascension rate: 1,484 m/min
Service ceiling: 14,630 m
Range: 2050 km (maximum)
Crew: two, in tandem
Armament: two 12.7 mm machine guns; ability to carry
two 454 kg bombs and up to 10 5″ rockets on underwing hangers

 

[F.L.]

Some T-33s actually seem to be received later, as it was a buffer solution precisely to replace some F-80C. That's probably where the AT-33 nomenclature came from...they were versioned for attack in this solution, I think that's it. Don't find the arrival date for this batch.

According to the book I referred to, the only T-Birds received by Brazil are the ones I mentioned. In addition, the Brazilian designation for the AT-33A was "TF-33A", not At-33.
I'd never heard the T-33 called Thunderbird before, I thought it was only T-Bird or Shooting Star ?

 

[carvalho2008]

According to the book I referred to, the only T-Birds received by Brazil are the ones I mentioned. In addition, the Brazilian designation for the AT-33A was "TF-33A", not At-33.
I'd never heard the T-33 called Thunderbird before, I thought it was only T-Bird or Shooting Star ?

Here in Brazil, our air force formed a very strong doctrine of employing models of coaches with dual employment capabilities (coach/attack). A kind to optimize scarce resources where aircraft have to fulfill more than one function. For example, the Mb326, which we had manufactured more than 180 units here, was designated AT-26. ) Crossing the historical sites of the Ministry of Aeronautics and the Author Historian Rudinei Cunha (former Lieutenant Colonel of the FAB), the first T-33s came to train the conversion of 32 F-80Cs, but later, with the rapid degradation of the F-80C Shoting Star, a quick and cheap replacement and complement was thought of using an armed version of the T33... solution used until the entry of the F-5 and EMB-326 Xavante (which had already been produced 40 units until 1974). ..

Lockheed T-33A Thunderbird – História da Força Aérea Brasileira

historiadafab.rudnei.cunha.nom.br

 

[Archibald]

Any T-33 & F-80 & Meteor will be a sitting duck even for Etendard IVs...same for MASURCA and Tartar naval SAMs, against A-26s and B-25s.
It will be a carnage.

 

[F.L.]

Any T-33 & F-80 & Meteor will be a sitting duck even for Etendard IVs...same for MASURCA and Tartar naval SAMs, against A-26s and B-25s.
It will be a carnage.

Did the French Navy already have SAMs at that time ?
Anyway, in the "Chevalier du Ciel" series, a T-33 shot down two SMB2s !

 

[H_K]

same for MASURCA and Tartar naval SAMs

No Masurca and Tartar SAMs in early 1963 (1st converted Tartar ship Dupetit Thouars started sea trials in March 1963… probably impossible to rush it to the South Atlantic so soon).

That said even guns-only would have been very dangerous with 6x 127mm + 6x 57mm on the French destroyers, 16x 127mm + 20x 57mm on the anti-aircraft cruisers, and 8x 100mm on the carrier itself.

 

[Archibald]

Oh, crap !! Hmmm...

 

[edwest4]

Suggestions:

1) Develop the Anti-Lobster Shield (handheld).
2) Create a rapid-fire weapon for shooting down thrown lobsters.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

No Masurca and Tartar SAMs in early 1963 (1st converted Tartar ship Dupetit Thouars started sea trials in March 1963… probably impossible to rush it to the South Atlantic so soon).

That said even guns-only would have been very dangerous with 6x 127mm + 6x 57mm on the French destroyers, 16x 127mm + 20x 57mm on the anti-aircraft cruisers, and 8x 100mm on the carrier itself.

Plus 5 out of the 6 Le Normand class frigates in the French task force had 6 x 57mm and the sixth had 4 x 57mm.

Did all three calibres fire proximity fused ammunition?

Each of the destroyers and frigates had twelve 550mm torpedo tubes. Could they be made to fire anti-ship as well as anti-submarine torpedoes?

Correction

2 of the 3 French destroyers were T53s and they only had six 550mm torpedo tubes.

Another Correction

According to Conway's 1947-95 the third French destroyer (Cassard) had her forward with 57mm mounting removed in the early 1960s to allow the bridge to be extended and became a command ship. She and the other pair of T47 destroyers that were similarly converted (Scourf and Chevalier Paul) replaced the 2 former Italian light cruisers in that role. Furthermore, in 1962 Cassard was fitted experimentally with a helicopter deck.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As usual - it is !

The POD is late 1964 and according to my table.

There were 3 Alizé squadrons (4F, 6F and 9F) in late 1964 and they had been equipped with the type for a number of years.

There were 4 Etendard IV squadrons.

• 15F reformed on 01.06.62 with the Etendard IVM. It had previously operated the Corsair until it disbanded on 01.06.62.
• 11F reformed on 01.04.63 with the Etendard IVM. It had previously operated the Aquilon until it disbanded on 18.04.62.
• 17F reformed on 06.01.64 with the Etendard IVM. It had previously operated the Corsair until it disbanded on 01.04.62.
• 16F reformed on 01.05.64 with the Etendard IVP. It had previously operated the Aquilon until it disbanded on 01.04.64

However, as noted by others, the Aquilon remained in second-line service with the Aeronavale until 1966.

There was one recently formed Crusader squadron in existence and a second squadron was planned.

• 12F reformed on 15.10.64. It had previously operated the Corsair until it disbanded on 01.04.63.
• 14F reformed on 01.03.65. It had previously operated the Corsair until it disbanded on 01.10.64.

Clemenceau & Foch were completed on 12.11.61 & 15.07.63 respectively and both should be fully worked up by late 1964. In the late 1960s each ship had an air group of 44 aircraft consisting of 10 Crusaders, 16 Etendard IVM, 4 Etendard IVP, 10 Alizés and 4 helicopters.

• I guess that there were enough aircraft and trained personnel to provide each ship with their full complement of 16 Etendard IVM, 4 Etendard IVP, 10 Alizés and 4 helicopters.
• However, there was only one Crusader squadron available and it might not have been fully worked up. Plus the USA will likely suspend deliveries of military equipment to France (and Brazil) as soon (if not before) the war starts.
• Therefore, they will have to form a fifth front-line Etendard IV squadron to fill the gap. About 100 were built and the last was delivered in 1962 so there should be enough aircraft.
• Or bring the Aquilon back into first-line service.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think the best fighter option would be the F11F Tiger. One upgrade that could be considered would be to replace the J-65 engine with an afterburning version of the J-52, which would offer a somewhat lower sfc and similar or greater dry thrust. Yes, I know many people love the J-79, but do note that the F-104 had a significantly higher loss rate due to engine failures than did contemporary J-57 or J-75 powered aircraft. This could be a problem with a single-engined carrier fighter; it was enough of a problem with a single-engined land-based fighter. While the F8U was, in many ways, a better aircraft, it also had quite a high attrition rate. I think that 18 F11F would be a reasonable air group, with a total of about 36 aircraft bought for the navy. It would be useful to buy the same aircraft for the FAB.

I would add the E-1 to the mix.

How many sorties could Minas Gerais support with an aircraft in the F11F class (it would be fewer with the F8U)?

----------

The only non-US carrier aircraft options are French (the Etendard IV) and British (Sea Vixen, Scimitar). Other aircraft I omitting include the Sea Venom, Sea Hawk, F9F Cougar & Panther, F2H Phantom, F3H Demon, F4H Phantom II, the F4D Skyray, and the various flavors of FJ Fury, although I think one could make a reasonable argument for the F9F Cougar.

As far as I know Minas Gerais couldn't operate the Sea Vixen and Scimitar because her steam catapult wasn't powerful enough.

Of the other Colossus/Majestic class carriers that were fitted with steam catapults and angled flight decks.

• HMAS Melbourne initially operated 22 aircraft - 8 Sea Venoms, 12 Gannets and 2 Sycamore helicopters.
• HMCS Bonaventure (according to its Wikipedia entry) initially operated 24 aircraft consisting of 16 F2H Banshees and 8 Trackers.
• INS Vikrant operated 20 aircraft - 16 Sea Hawks and 4 Alizés before she was converted into a Harrier carrier. Source: An Illustrated Guide to Naval Aviation and Aircraft Carriers by John Jordan.
• HMNLMS Karel Doorman (according to Wikipedia) initially operated 24 aircraft after she was rebuilt which consisted of 10 Sea Hawks and 14 Avengers. The Wikipedia article also says that the Sea Hawks were armed with Sidewinder missiles from 1959.
• ARA 25 de Mayo (ex-Karel Doorman) was operating 19 aircraft in 1983 consisting of 10 Super Etendards, 5 Trackers and 4 Sea Kings. Source: An Illustrated Guide to Naval Aviation and Aircraft Carriers by John Jordan.

I think the aircraft that the ship could operate and were available would have been new Skyhawks & Etendards and second-hand Sea Hawks, Sea Venoms, F2H Banshees, F9F Cougars & F11F Tigers.

 

[F.L.]

Before being delivered to Brazil, the Minas Gerais was tested with aircraft from the Royal Navy, Sea Hawks and Gannets.

 

[F.L.]

Before being delivered to Brazil, the Minas Gerais was tested with aircraft from the Royal Navy, Sea Hawks and Gannets.

 

[Lascaris]

As far as I know Minas Gerais couldn't operate the Sea Vixen and Scimitar because her steam catapult wasn't powerful enough.

Of the other Colossus/Majestic class carriers that were fitted with steam catapults and angled flight decks.

• HMAS Melbourne initially operated 22 aircraft - 8 Sea Venoms, 12 Gannets and 2 Sycamore helicopters.
• HMCS Bonaventure (according to its Wikipedia entry) initially operated 24 aircraft consisting of 16 F2H Banshees and 8 Trackers.
• INS Vikrant operated 20 aircraft - 16 Sea Hawks and 4 Alizés before she was converted into a Harrier carrier. Source: An Illustrated Guide to Naval Aviation and Aircraft Carriers by John Jordan.
• HMNLMS Karel Doorman (according to Wikipedia) initially operated 24 aircraft after she was rebuilt which consisted of 10 Sea Hawks and 14 Avengers. The Wikipedia article also says that the Sea Hawks were armed with Sidewinder missiles from 1959.
• ARA 25 de Mayo (ex-Karel Doorman) was operating 19 aircraft in 1983 consisting of 10 Super Etendards, 5 Trackers and 4 Sea Kings. Source: An Illustrated Guide to Naval Aviation and Aircraft Carriers by John Jordan.

I think the aircraft that the ship could operate and were available would have been new Skyhawks & Etendards and second-hand Sea Hawks, Sea Venoms, F2H Banshees, F9F Cougars & F11F Tigers.

Cougars and Tigers off a Majestic?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Cougars and Tigers off a Majestic?

I don't know for sure. However, as the ships of that class fitted with steam catapults could operate the Super Etendard and Skyhawk, I don't see why they couldn't operate Cougars and Tigers.

 

[F.L.]

Before being delivered to Brazil, the Minas Gerais was tested with aircraft from the Royal Navy, Sea Hawks and Gannets.

Another pic of the Minas test with Sea Hawk :

 

[F.L.]

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

According to its Wikipedia entry Dixmude served as an accommodation ship until 1965. Could she have been brought back into service as a helicopter carrier?

I think it was a bit used as helicopter carrier.
View attachment 703080

Thanks for the photo. However, I meant. "Would her material condition have allowed her to be brought back into service as an helicopter carrier?" E.g. did her engines still work?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

What would the best equipment they could get before hostilities start ? Even experimental or prototypes could count.

What's the Point of Departure (POD) for this? That is when can Brazil start to prepare for this war that breaks out in late 1964?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 10.

Assuming a Conservative government in London the UK sells Brazil HMS Belfast and completes the unfinished carrier Leviathan to operate Seahawks and Venoms. There were a couple of other old cruisers still around in 1963.

I very much doubt that Leviathan could have been completed and worked up by late 1964 if Brazil had bought her in 1963. They might stand a better chance of doing that if they bought her sister ship Magnificent, which had been in reserve since 1957 and wouldn't be scrapped until 1965.

According to Conway's 1947-1995 Vengeance was purchased by Brazil for $9 million and her reconstruction at the Verolme Dock, Rotterdam from June 1957 to December 1960 cost $27 million. However, the $ sign might mean Brazilian Reals rather than U.S. Dollars.

Vengeance was refitted to a higher standard than what I think you are proposing for Leviathan. Vengeance's refit included fitting a fully angled flight deck and a steam catapult.

I think you're proposing the minimum changes needed to make the ship operational and capable of operating Sea Hawks & Sea Venoms. The Majestic class was designed to operate 20,000lb aircraft which means their existing hydraulic catapult, lifts, flight deck and arrester gear could cope with the Sea Hawk & Sea Venom because according to my copy of "British Naval Aircraft since 1912" by Owen Thetford both had loaded weights that were less than 20,000lbs. If my assumption is correct changes to the ship's aviation facilities would be limited to fitting an interim angled flight deck.

However, even if either ship (and preferably both) was for sale in 1963 and could be made ready by late 1964 the most that either ship could have operated was a mix of 20 Sea Hawks or Sea Venoms. Plus there might not be enough of those aircraft left in 1963 for an air group that was that big.

***** ***** *****​

For what it's worth the Royal Navy had 6 Colossus and 3 Majestic class light fleet carriers in the late 1950s and according to "British Warships Since 1945" by Mike Critchley their fates were as follows.

Colossus class

Glory

• Trooping and Ferry Carrier 1954-56.
• Reserve at Rosyth 1956-61.
• Arrived at Inverkeithing for breaking up, August 1961.

Ocean

• Home Fleet Training Squadron, 1954-58.
• In Reserve 1958-62.
• Arrived Faslane for breaking up, 06.05.62.

Theseus

• Home Fleet Training Squadron 1954-58.
• In Reserve 1958-62.
• Arrived Inverkeithing for breaking up, 29.05.62.

Triumph

• Officer Cadets Training Ship, 1953-55
• In Reserve 1955-58.
• Converted to a Heavy Repair Ship, 1958-65.
• Relieved Hartland Point as Escort Maintenance Ship in Singapore, 1965.
• Returned to UK to pay off, 1972.
• In Reserve at Chatham, 1975.
• For Disposal, 1980.

Vengeance

• Leant to RAN, 1953-55.
• In Reserve 1955-56.
• Sold to Brazil, 14.12.56.
• Reconstructed at Rotterdam, 1957-60.
• Left Rotterdam 13.01.61 under her new name "Minas Gerais".

Warrior

• Headquarters ship of atomic tests at Christmas Island, February to October 1957.
• Sold to Argentina, July 1958.
• Commissioned 26.01.59 under her new name of "Independencia" at Puerto Belgrano naval base.
• Disposal List, 1971.

Majestic class

Hercules

• Construction stopped, May 1946.
• Laid up at Faslane, May 1947.
• Sold to India, January 1957.
• Arrived Belfast for large-scale modernisation by Harland & Wolf Ltd, April 1957.
• Renamed Vikrand and commissioned into Indian Navy, 04.03.61.

Leviathan

• When structurally almost complete, work stopped, May 1946.
• Towed to Portsmouth, July 1946.
• Used as spare parts for refit of HMNLS Karel Doorman when sold to Argentina.
• Arrived Faslane for breaking up, 27.05.68.

Magnificent

• Leant to RCN 1948-57.
• In Reserve, 1957-65.
• Arrived at Faslane for breaking up, 12.07.65.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 10 again.

Assuming a Conservative government in London the UK sells Brazil HMS Belfast and completes the unfinished carrier Leviathan to operate Seahawks and Venoms. There were a couple of other old cruisers still around in 1963.

Of course (as you often say) the aircraft carrier that Brazil would want to buy from the UK in 1963 was Centaur. Except, that she didn't pay off until the end of 1965 in the "Real World" and unless the Brazilian Government was prepared to pay an absurdly high price for her in this "version of history", she wouldn't have been for sale.

Centaur was built to operate 30,000lb aircraft and in that condition she and her sisters Albion & Bulwark could operate 38 aircraft, i.e. 16 Sea Hawks, 8 Sea Venoms, 8 ASW Gannets, 4 AEW Skyraiders and 2 SAR helicopters.

Centaur had her two hydraulic catapults replaced by two steam catapults in her 1956-58 refit.

By 1963-64 Centaur was operating an air group of 24 aircraft consisting of 12 Sea Vixens, 4 helicopters for ASW & SAR and 4 AEW Gannets.

However, her half-sister Hermes which normally operated 28 aircraft (a mix of 16 Buccaneers, Scimitars & Sea Vixens, 8 ASW helicopters and 4 AEW Gannets) could operate more aircraft and on two occasions that I know of did. In the late 1960s she operated (if I remember correctly) about 36 aircraft consisting of 12 Sea Vixens, 12 Buccaneers, 8 ASW helicopters and 4 AEW Gannets for several months in the late 1960s. And during the Falklands War her peak air group was (if I remember correctly) a mix of 37 Sea Harriers, RAF Harriers, Sea Kings and Wessexes.

Therefore, it may have been possible for Centaur to have operated an air group of up to 24 Sea Vixen & Scimitar sized aircraft plus 8 ASW helicopters & 4 AEW Gannets. It depends upon how much difference the position of her forward lift (which was on the centreline) makes. The forward lift of Hermes was a deck-edge unit. This might have allowed Hermes to have a larger deck park than Centaur. Furthermore, Hermes might have had a longer hangar than Centaur due to the different position of the forward lift. Can anyone confirm or refute that?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 10 yet again.

Assuming a Conservative government in London the UK sells Brazil HMS Belfast and completes the unfinished carrier Leviathan to operate Seahawks and Venoms. There were a couple of other old cruisers still around in 1963.

In order of disposal the couple of other old cruisers still around in 1963 were.

• Mauritius, which arrived at Inverkeithing for breaking up on 27.03.65.
• Bermuda, which arrived at Briton Ferry for breaking up on 26.08.65.
• Sheffield, which arrived at Faslane for breaking up in September 1967.
• Gambia, which arrived at Inverkeithing for breaking up on 05.12.68.

Plus Royalist on loan to the RNZN. She was returned to the RN in 1967 and arrived at Osaka in Japan for breaking up in January 1968.

In common with what I wrote about the British light fleet carriers Leviathan and Majestic I suspect that it would have been difficult to refit, commission and work up these ships for late 1964 if purchased in 1963. Having written that the ship in the best condition was probably Bermuda as she paid off in 1963. The paying of dates of the other ships were: Gambia, 1960; Sheffield, 1959; and Mauritius, 1952.

The dates are according to "British Warships Since 1945" by Mike Critchley.

 

[F.L.]

I can't see why Brazil would want a new aircraft carrier, as the NAEL Minas Gerais was already in service at the time. It is the most modern of the Colossus/Majestic class aircraft carriers.
The main problem was to find a proper naval air group, despite the obstacles put in the way by the FAB.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Post 10 in full.

Assuming a Conservative government in London the UK sells Brazil HMS Belfast and completes the unfinished carrier Leviathan to operate Seahawks and Venoms. There were a couple of other old cruisers still around in 1963.
The UK had A and T class conventional submarines it could transfer quickly.

At the time most of the ships in the Brazilian Navy had been built in the USA or built in Brazil with weapons and sensors supplied by the USA. For example the two cruisers acquired in 1951, 4 Fletcher class destroyers acquired 1959-61, 2 Gato class submarines acquired in 1957 and 2 Balao class submarines acquired in September 1963. Even Minas Gerais received American radars (and I think an American steam catapult) when she was rebuilt at Rotterdam 1957-60.

Therefore, if the Brazilian Government wanted to buy more warships the USA would be its supplier of choice because they could be integrated into the fleet more easily than British warships. If Brazil wanted more cruisers they'd want to buy some of the surviving unconverted Cleveland class, more destroyers they'd want to buy more Fletchers and if they wanted more submarines they'd want to buy more Balao & Gato class.

Whether the US Government would be willing to supply them is another matter. However, the British Government hay not have wanted to supply warships to Brazil either regardless of how much the Brazilian Government offered for them.

The UK has plenty of Hunters and Canberra's it can provide plus early mark Lightnings. We could even send some Vulcan or Valiant B1.

Selling refurbished Hunters and Canberras was a "nice little earner" for Hawker Siddeley and BAC in the 1960s so I can see some being sold to Brazil if the British Government allowed it.

However, I suspect that the only Lightings that might and I repeat might be for sale in 1963-64 would be the survivors of the 47 F Mk 1 & Mk 1A that were built. I'll have to check my sources to see when the squadrons that used the Mk 1 and Mk 1A converted to later marks.

The RAF had 6 squadrons of Valiants in 1963-64 so it's highly unlikely that any would have been for sale.

The RAF formed 3 Vulcan B.1 squadrons 1958-59 and conversion of these squadrons to the Vulcan B.2 didn't begin until late 1965 so none of the 45 Vulcan B.1 aircraft that were built would have been for sale in 1963-64.

Only a few years later the UK supplies the Niteroi class frigates so the above should be quite feasible.

For what it's worth the 6 Niteroi class were ordered on 29.09.69 according to Conway's 1947-95. Brazil also purchased 3 Oberon class submarines. That is two in 1969 and one in 1972.

However, Brazil wasn't preparing to fight a war with one of the UK's closest allies in 1969 and in this "version of history" that's exactly what Brazil was doing in 1963-64. I think the British Government would try to be neutral and if that wasn't possible would have supported France. So no arms sales to Brazil in 1963-64.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I can't see why Brazil would want a new aircraft carrier, as the NAEL Minas Gerais was already in service at the time. It is the most modern of the Colossus/Majestic class aircraft carriers.
The main problem was to find a proper naval air group, despite the obstacles put in the way by the FAB.
Peharps F9F-8 Cougar, or Sea Hawk/Gannets, A-4B Skyhawk...
View attachment 706931View attachment 706932

Because Minas Gerais carried about 20 aircraft while Clememceau & Foch carried about 40 each.

Therefore, the Brazilians were outnumbered four-to-one. That is, provided that the French can provide their ships with full-strength air groups, both ships are available at the same time and the Marine National has the tankers to maintain both carriers off the Brazilian coast at the same time.

But even if the French can only provide one full-strength air group, only one carrier is available at a time and the Marine National only has enough tankers to maintain one aircraft carrier at a time off the Brazilian coast the Minas Gerais is still outnumbered two-to-one.

However, I think it's unlikely that Brazil can obtain another aircraft carrier at short notice. I think we'd have to go back to at least 1960 and have Brazil purchase a second Colossus class ship from the UK and have her refitted in the Netherlands to the same standard as Minas Gerais in her 1957-60 refit. If the ship takes as long to refit as Minas Gerais (3½ years) she'd be in service before the middle of 1964.

 

[carvalho2008]

Because Minas Gerais carried about 20 aircraft while Clememceau & Foch carried about 40 each.

Therefore, the Brazilians were outnumbered four-to-one. That is, provided that the French can provide their ships with full-strength air groups, both ships are available at the same time and the Marine National has the tankers to maintain both carriers off the Brazilian coast at the same time.

But even if the French can only provide one full-strength air group, only one carrier is available at a time and the Marine National only has enough tankers to maintain one aircraft carrier at a time off the Brazilian coast the Minas Gerais is still outnumbered two-to-one.

However, I think it's unlikely that Brazil can obtain another aircraft carrier at short notice. I think we'd have to go back to at least 1960 and have Brazil purchase a second Colossus class ship from the UK and have her refitted in the Netherlands to the same standard as Minas Gerais in her 1957-60 refit. If the ship takes as long to refit as Minas Gerais (3½ years) she'd be in service before the middle of 1964.

Again, where does anyone think the scenario would be for an oceanic war away from the mainland, if the contested territory was within 20 miles of the coast?

In addition, even if there was a confrontation, the continental air force would act in conjunction with the air force on board.

So, even in a hypothetical exercise, it would be better to imagine what the positions of the French and Brazilian fleets would be, considering the exact location of the conflict, its objectives (isolate the area of foreign exploration), as well as the location of the Brazilian air bases.

 

[BlackBat242]

Part of Post 10 again.

Of course (as you often say) the aircraft carrier that Brazil would want to buy from the UK in 1963 was Centaur. Except, that she didn't pay off until the end of 1965 in the "Real World" and unless the Brazilian Government was prepared to pay an absurdly high price for her in this "version of history", she wouldn't have been for sale.

Centaur was built to operate 30,000lb aircraft and in that condition she and her sisters Albion & Bulwark could operate 38 aircraft, i.e. 16 Sea Hawks, 8 Sea Venoms, 8 ASW Gannets, 4 AEW Skyraiders and 2 SAR helicopters.

Centaur had her two hydraulic catapults replaced by two steam catapults in her 1956-58 refit.

By 1963-64 Centaur was operating an air group of 24 aircraft consisting of 12 Sea Vixens, 4 helicopters for ASW & SAR and 4 AEW Gannets.

However, her half-sister Hermes which normally operated 28 aircraft (a mix of 16 Buccaneers, Scimitars & Sea Vixens, 8 ASW helicopters and 4 AEW Gannets) could operate more aircraft and on two occasions that I know of did. In the late 1960s she operated (if I remember correctly) about 36 aircraft consisting of 12 Sea Vixens, 12 Buccaneers, 8 ASW helicopters and 4 AEW Gannets for several months in the late 1960s. And during the Falklands War her peak air group was (if I remember correctly) a mix of 37 Sea Harriers, RAF Harriers, Sea Kings and Wessexes.

Therefore, it may have been possible for Centaur to have operated an air group of up to 24 Sea Vixen & Scimitar sized aircraft plus 8 ASW helicopters & 4 AEW Gannets. It depends upon how much difference the position of her forward lift (which was on the centreline) makes. The forward lift of Hermes was a deck-edge unit. This might have allowed Hermes to have a larger deck park than Centaur. Furthermore, Hermes might have had a longer hangar than Centaur due to the different position of the forward lift. Can anyone confirm or refute that?

HMS Centaur
Hangar = 274 x 62 x 17.5ft with a 55ft extension forward of the fwd lift
Lifts = 54ft long x 44ft wide (fwd lift) with a 37,000lb capacity & 54ft long x 44ft wide (aft lift) with a 40,000lb capacity

HMS Hermes
Hangar = 356 x 62 x 17.5ft with a 55ft extension forward of the fwd lift
Lifts = 54ft long x 45ft wide (side lift) & 54ft long x 44ft wide (aft lift) both with a 40,000lb capacity

Steam Catapults
(BS=Mitchell-Brown)
Type Run Length Capacity Classes
BS4 104ft 151ft 40,000lb@78kt, 30,000lb@101kt Hermes 1959 both, starboard 1966

BS4C 130ft 165ft 35,000lb@99kt, 30,000lb@110kt Centaur 1958

BS4A 145ft 175ft 50,000lb@87kt, 30,000lb@120kt Hermes (port 1966)