A4 Skyhawk
Thread Starter
A4 Skyhawk
Did the Fleet Air Arm ever seriously consider the A4?
Argentina and I believe Brazil managed to operate them from British built WW2era carriers so they would seem an obvious choice.
Argentina and I believe Brazil managed to operate them from British built WW2era carriers so they would seem an obvious choice.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of us junior pilots tried to persuade our seniors that lots of A4s would be better than a bunch of Scimitars etc that couldnt get airborne with a real weapon load in the tropics. Laughed out of court.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1948. RAF chose to leap-frog 2nd. generation fastjets (MiG-15/F-86) to favour Medium Bombers and their base defenders for 1955. RN chose to leave Majestic/Colossus classes as Reserve/sale and to seek budget for Light Fleets (Centaur class) and Fleet carriers, Victorious in protracted refit, Ark and Eagle in slow build. No budget. Pic. in ad. in Jane's 1950 of Eagle, Bulwark and Centaur (+ an abandoned) idle on stocks at Harland, labour on higher priority commercial exports. Orphan status for experimental Hawker+ Supermarine Nene/DH Ghost types, unwanted by RAF, unaffordable for RN. USN apace on Banshee, Cougar, Cutlass, Skyray.
6/48 Berlin Airlift, 8/49 founding of NATO, 6/50 Korean War. UK's Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement, 1/50: cascades of $ to build anything, pronto! Logically, as Dr.Jekyll implies, some of USN's flood should have operated off friendly flat-tops, and Banshee (RCN), A-4 did, off Majestics. But US/NATO declared some UK types as Standard, intended for many Forces. UK/France/Italy industrial capacity were seen as valued supplements to over-stretched US resources: so, Attacker, Sea Hawk, Sea Venom (some for RAN, others licenced as Sud Aquilon; many with US A.I). (To be) Buccaneer, Scimitar and Sea Vixen were all in design at Korean Armistice, July,1953; $-flow dried, so RN had no means of buying USN types. Crusaders, Skyhawks, Super Tigers sat in the desert while we tried to operate inferior kit.
6/48 Berlin Airlift, 8/49 founding of NATO, 6/50 Korean War. UK's Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement, 1/50: cascades of $ to build anything, pronto! Logically, as Dr.Jekyll implies, some of USN's flood should have operated off friendly flat-tops, and Banshee (RCN), A-4 did, off Majestics. But US/NATO declared some UK types as Standard, intended for many Forces. UK/France/Italy industrial capacity were seen as valued supplements to over-stretched US resources: so, Attacker, Sea Hawk, Sea Venom (some for RAN, others licenced as Sud Aquilon; many with US A.I). (To be) Buccaneer, Scimitar and Sea Vixen were all in design at Korean Armistice, July,1953; $-flow dried, so RN had no means of buying USN types. Crusaders, Skyhawks, Super Tigers sat in the desert while we tried to operate inferior kit.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EvansB
Hi.
Just wondering about the wonderful photo that you posted of the A4's on HMAS Melbourne's deck some time ago. Terrific!
May I ask the difference in the models please as evident in the photo.
Was on the same RAAF course as a few mids in the late 60's. Long gone now..
Cheers
JO
Just wondering about the wonderful photo that you posted of the A4's on HMAS Melbourne's deck some time ago. Terrific!
May I ask the difference in the models please as evident in the photo.
Was on the same RAAF course as a few mids in the late 60's. Long gone now..
Cheers
JO
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
judge, details here History of the Australian Skyhawk
B.A.
