R.I.P Skyhawks
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Brazil Gives Up Modernization Plans for Aircraft Carrier Sao Paulo, Prepares for Decommissioning 15 Feb 2017
Brazil Gives Up Modernization Plans for Aircraft Carrier Sao Paulo, Prepares for Decommissioning
"According to Brazilian daily newspaper Estado, the Brazilian Navy (Marinha do Brasil) has just decided to decommission its sole aircraft carrier Sao Paulo (hull number A12) acquired from France in 2000. Brazil has long been considering a modernization plan for the aircraft carrier with French naval shipbuilding group DCNS, but according to Estado, "modernization costs were considered excessive by the admiralty".
Modernization plans included the replacement of the entire propulsion system, catapults and combat system. According to Estado, the modernization would have cost in excess of 1 Billion Brazilian Reals ($324 Million USD approx.).
The decommissioning process is set to begin immediately and will only be completed by 2020. The three-step procedure would require 10 years of work. The remaining A-4 Skyhawk fighters of the Sao Paulo airwing will continue to operate from the Sao Pedro da Aldeia Base...."
Modernization plans included the replacement of the entire propulsion system, catapults and combat system. According to Estado, the modernization would have cost in excess of 1 Billion Brazilian Reals ($324 Million USD approx.).
The decommissioning process is set to begin immediately and will only be completed by 2020. The three-step procedure would require 10 years of work. The remaining A-4 Skyhawk fighters of the Sao Paulo airwing will continue to operate from the Sao Pedro da Aldeia Base...."
Interesting (but not surprising) decision on the Sao Paulo. Thanks for posting Spaz. Likely the end of South American carriers for the foreseeable future. I don't see any new build or surplus cat and trap carriers coming on the market, perhaps a STOBAR carrier but no one really would want those after the poor showing in the med this year would they? Any surplus or new build STOVL carrier would require the air wing to go with it , leaving second hand Harrier II's or the too expensive F-35B.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conrad Waters in his "Navies of the 21st Century" (a good read) suggests that whilst "real" carriers will probably be restricted to the USA, China & India in the foreseeable future there is a whole range of vessels avalable that can operate various combinations of fixed wing, STOBAR, STOVL & helicopters ranging from the QE's through the Kuznetsov to the Japanese "helicopter carrying destroyers" and the various assualt ships such as Juan Carlos and even the Karel Doorman.
You get what you pay for but you could see quite a few operating small numbers of F-35's - at least for a short while - which maybe all you need. Horses for courses
You get what you pay for but you could see quite a few operating small numbers of F-35's - at least for a short while - which maybe all you need. Horses for courses
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,809
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
NATO 'partners' buying a few F-35s could get them off the 2% of GDP hook 
Conrad Waters in his "Navies of the 21st Century" (a good read) suggests that whilst "real" carriers will probably be restricted to the USA, China & India in the foreseeable future there is a whole range of vessels avalable that can operate various combinations of fixed wing, STOBAR, STOVL & helicopters ranging from the QE's through the Kuznetsov to the Japanese "helicopter carrying destroyers" and the various assualt ships such as Juan Carlos and even the Karel Doorman.
You get what you pay for but you could see quite a few operating small numbers of F-35's - at least for a short while - which maybe all you need. Horses for courses
You get what you pay for but you could see quite a few operating small numbers of F-35's - at least for a short while - which maybe all you need. Horses for courses
Agree that we will see a variety of interesting aviation capable ships, and a few smaller carriers operating F-35B's. Beside the US and UK operating the B as STOVL, I would not be surprised with Japan getting a few B's for those nifty new "destroyers".
Will the ski jump on Canberra prove too tempting not to use?
Looks like Italy is making moves towards making their STOVL carrier B capable but politics seem to continue on the A/B mix, while Spain seems to be biding their time.
I was more commenting that the two South American countries that have operated carriers will likely be out of the fixed wing carrier borne business entirely. Doubt they could afford the F-35B, or a new or second hand carrier and air-wing of any type.
Agree that we will see a variety of interesting aviation capable ships, and a few smaller carriers operating F-35B's. Beside the US and UK operating the B as STOVL, I would not be surprised with Japan getting a few B's for those nifty new "destroyers".
Will the ski jump on Canberra prove too tempting not to use?
Will the ski jump on Canberra prove too tempting not to use?
I was more commenting that the two South American countries that have operated carriers will likely be out of the fixed wing carrier borne business entirely. Doubt they could afford the F-35B, or a new or second hand carrier and air-wing of any type.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sandiego
You are right - the cost of any form of new conventional carrier is eye watering. Most of the older vessels now retiring were hand-me-downs from the western navies stock built in the 50's or 60's (or even older)
I think Waters point is that there are more options now - and you don't have to commit to (say) the F-35 right now - you buy a Mistral and it will last you 40 years - if, in the future you can afford the F-35 or there are some early models coming free then you can change your mind.
For someone like Brazil it probably makes more sense to spend their $$ on the SSBN programme right now
You are right - the cost of any form of new conventional carrier is eye watering. Most of the older vessels now retiring were hand-me-downs from the western navies stock built in the 50's or 60's (or even older)
I think Waters point is that there are more options now - and you don't have to commit to (say) the F-35 right now - you buy a Mistral and it will last you 40 years - if, in the future you can afford the F-35 or there are some early models coming free then you can change your mind.
For someone like Brazil it probably makes more sense to spend their $$ on the SSBN programme right now
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'Davef68' said:
Exactly the opposite is said because the Oz LHDs were designed by Spanish as per JCI to operate F-35Bs. Sure deck coating and minor mods needed in light of new info but nothing dramatic nor expensive - however it won't happen because no interest at moment - if ever - to put RAAF F-35Bs temporarily on Oz LHDs.
"...Will the ski jump on Canberra prove too tempting not to use?...
They [I presume the OzGubmnt] have said on a couple of occasions that the infrastucture on the ship would need to be completely redone to operate F35s....
'Davef68' said:
Exactly the opposite is said because the Oz LHDs were designed by Spanish as per JCI to operate F-35Bs. Sure deck coating and minor mods needed in light of new info but nothing dramatic nor expensive - however it won't happen because no interest at moment - if ever - to put RAAF F-35Bs temporarily on Oz LHDs.
Exactly the opposite is said because the Oz LHDs were designed by Spanish as per JCI to operate F-35Bs. Sure deck coating and minor mods needed in light of new info but nothing dramatic nor expensive - however it won't happen because no interest at moment - if ever - to put RAAF F-35Bs temporarily on Oz LHDs.
But defence officials conceded to a Senate estimates committee late last year that the jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'Davef68' I'm glad this thread about RIPing the Skyhawks (a new one?) has been overtaken NOT BY ME (the notorious thread jacker) for 'yet another moan about Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs'. The AFR article cited tells an outright lie:
And yet the JCI was designed (many years ago granted) to operate the F-35B with info known at that time.
I get that a lot of ADFers do not want Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs. My view in a nutshell would be IF the RAAF have a role for some F-35Bs ashore (it has been mentioned in passing recently by an RAAF AVM) then a few RAAF F-35Bs could be embarked on our LHDs - IF REQUIRED for Fleet Defence and then disembarked when not required. Yep embarked for the odd training session, whilst the F-35B is a piece of cake to fly onboard in STOVL mode by all pilot accounts, it should be a doddle for any RAAFie CHAPpie.
But hey I don't want to derail this thread about SKYHAWKS. I happen to have participated in the Fleet Defence A4G era when four A4Gs were embarked on the ASW carrier HMAS Melbourne from 1969 - 1971 (I was late 1971 to early 1972). We were at the back of the bus. Later when ten more Skyhawks arrived to flesh out the numbers/roles onboard then - when the threat went away - the A4Gs of VF-805 took on other roles.
Modifications mentioned for embarking F-35Bs on LHDs are not expensive in the overall scheme of things. Ships are modified during refits quite a bit, as MELBOURNE demonstrated to enable operation of the A4Gs & S2Es early on - then modified again because first deck mods were not good enough <sigh>. Having F-35B H8ters exaggerate their claims 'why things cannot be done' is not new. Look at the long running thread here about the F-35. And yet IF the F-35B IS required on Oz LHDs it will be made so - and without much fuss.
______________________
The 'politicians' at that time 2015 were significant - the now former PM and now former DefMin.
"...The Spanish Navy's version of the troop transport assault ship, which utilises the same underlying design as the Royal Australian Navy's troop assault ship, is equipped to carry Harrier jump jets...."
I get that a lot of ADFers do not want Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs. My view in a nutshell would be IF the RAAF have a role for some F-35Bs ashore (it has been mentioned in passing recently by an RAAF AVM) then a few RAAF F-35Bs could be embarked on our LHDs - IF REQUIRED for Fleet Defence and then disembarked when not required. Yep embarked for the odd training session, whilst the F-35B is a piece of cake to fly onboard in STOVL mode by all pilot accounts, it should be a doddle for any RAAFie CHAPpie.
But hey I don't want to derail this thread about SKYHAWKS. I happen to have participated in the Fleet Defence A4G era when four A4Gs were embarked on the ASW carrier HMAS Melbourne from 1969 - 1971 (I was late 1971 to early 1972). We were at the back of the bus. Later when ten more Skyhawks arrived to flesh out the numbers/roles onboard then - when the threat went away - the A4Gs of VF-805 took on other roles.
Modifications mentioned for embarking F-35Bs on LHDs are not expensive in the overall scheme of things. Ships are modified during refits quite a bit, as MELBOURNE demonstrated to enable operation of the A4Gs & S2Es early on - then modified again because first deck mods were not good enough <sigh>. Having F-35B H8ters exaggerate their claims 'why things cannot be done' is not new. Look at the long running thread here about the F-35. And yet IF the F-35B IS required on Oz LHDs it will be made so - and without much fuss.
______________________
"...Separately, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has mentioned the possibility of a further Super Hornet order, apparently without much conviction, while also suggesting the F-35B...
...The service [RAAF] seems to still harbor hopes of an all-Lightning fighter and strike force. In a little-noticed address to an ASPI meeting in July, the head of the RAAF, Air Marshal Leo Davies, listed the candidates for Australia’s next combat-aircraft program as Super Hornets, F-35As and F-35Bs.
Davies did not explain the merits of the third, quite surprising option, the F-35B. But an obvious possibility is that Australia has begun to wonder about the survivability of its northern airbases in the face of attack by Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles...." 21 Oct 2016 http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircr...-super-hornets
FULL TEXT HERE: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic....thical#p354900
...The service [RAAF] seems to still harbor hopes of an all-Lightning fighter and strike force. In a little-noticed address to an ASPI meeting in July, the head of the RAAF, Air Marshal Leo Davies, listed the candidates for Australia’s next combat-aircraft program as Super Hornets, F-35As and F-35Bs.
Davies did not explain the merits of the third, quite surprising option, the F-35B. But an obvious possibility is that Australia has begun to wonder about the survivability of its northern airbases in the face of attack by Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles...." 21 Oct 2016 http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircr...-super-hornets
FULL TEXT HERE: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic....thical#p354900
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 19th Feb 2017 at 09:47. Reason: text errors again
