Draken Intl A-4 crash @ Nellis
 

Pilot ejected, with minor injuries thankfully...

Fighter Jet Crashes After Military Weapons School Exercise | Military.com

What can a Weapons School student getting a 'PhD in flying' possibly learn from a TA-4?

(You could put the ECM on anything....a 737 could probably handle 4-6 hours worth of students)

Was it an ex-RAN TA-4G converted by the Kiwi's to a TA-4K

737s probably aren't too good at playing Red Air... I imagine they were using the Skyhawk to provide DACT, simulating something from a little further east.

Both of the Draken TA-4K's are original RNZAF K's. Of the TA-4G's one was lost in RNZAF service and the other was returned to the RAN for the Fleet Air Arm Museum after the Draken deal was concluded.

frodo,

Maneuvering against an aircraft with the renown, but outdated capabilities of the A-4 is RTU level stuff. (We had F-5 & A-4 adversaries for F-16 RTU in the 80s, as well as Eagle targets)

If you get to the Weapons School without already being able to kill a MiG-17 with an F-16, F-22 or F-35, I 'spect you missed something earlier and know somebody or have pictures.

One would suspect, the 'PhD in flying' involves more gizmo awareness and less 'turn & burn'. 737 can carry a whole bunch of gizmos. Call them Jade Air.

I'm aware - we use Hawk T1 still on our side of the pond. But the guys on the course at Nellis could well have just come from a few months doing CAS over Iraq and Syria. I'm not a patch-wearer (QWI over here) but I imagine their course starts in a similar way to ours; the ability to max-perform your aircraft, and do (and more importantly be able to brief/instruct/debrief) the basics to an excellent standard before you move on to the advanced warfighting bits...

Surely the reason these companies use the likes of the Skyhawk, the Hunter and the L.39 is because they are inexpensive to operate?

Small, (relatively) inexpensive and quite different to what most people are flying these days = disimilar...............

the point isn't to replicate the latest Russian/Chinese kit - it's to make you think about how to get the best out of your own in unfamilair situations

It's my impression that the tricked out A-4Ks are primarily APG-66 calibre surrogates without the mx intensive digital FCS and messy hydrazine, however with J-52s instead of more efficient GE or PW fans, and indeed they cost less to operate than F-16s. The contractor claims 1/5 the cost per hour and labels the A-4K as a Mach 1.2 aircraft on the website. Really?

However, in 2015 the ANG utilized A-4K support (5) at Volk during 'Northern Lightning' while at approximately the same time USAF was utilizing A-4Ks at Nellis. I would think that when these mutual requirements arise, one could eliminate the 'middleman' for an even greater cost savings since the ANG & USAF 'expensive' training sorties are going to be flown anyway.

With USAF, ANG & potentially USN & USMC going contract, why don't they just get on the phone and cooperate. No matter how inexpensive and 'dissimilar' the A-4s are to operate, the cost is further reduced when they sit on the ground, like the 30 MiG-21s that nobody really wants to utilize.

In any case, I understand that in a so-called 'saturation scenario', the more APG-66s, the merrier. However the contractor only operates 10 or 11 as force multipliers.

I got the impression (maybe incorrectly) the accident flight was a sortie utilizing a single TA-4 (do the TA-4s even have the radar?). So my question stands, what is a Weapons School student going to learn from a TA-4?

Watch Top Gun:)

What's the Point?
 

Not sure what a 30 year old film has to do with this discussion.

I tend to agree with OK465!

Shell

I for one appreciated the levity, not all appearantly.

An assumption, I assume.

A-4 Skyhawk was until 2003, one of the main aggressor / adversary aircraft simulating say Mig 17 and 19 at the then Naval Fighter Weapons School (Top Gun) the Strike Warfare Center (Strike), both now NSFWC at Fallon. The A-4 was seen as close enough to manouverability to the Migs which the USAF, USN, USMC were up against in South East Asia.

Also they were in the various adversary squadrons on the West Coast and East Coast both active and reserves. There was one unit which not only provided adversary tactics but had a dual role of defending Gitmo Bay . This was- Fleet Composite Squadron 10 or VC-10 'Challengers and their Skyhawks were armed with AIM-9L Sidewinders not a lot different to our BAe Hawk T1 of the Red Arrows and Anglesey's finest which in wartime they can be armed with Aden canon and AIM-9L to supplement our air defence from the Cold War days.

In 2003, the last adversary A-4 and last surving A-4 wre retired as Fleet Composite Squadron 8 was deactivated with the up and coming closure of NAS Roosevelt Roads on Puerto Rico.

So as a result of the poor air to air during the Vietnam War, Ault report, and help (though not recognised nor acknowledged till recently) from our Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm fast jet crews, Top Gun was created and one of the first aircraft to be used as an aggressor was the A-4 Skyhawk.

The film depicts how a bunch of F-14A crews did the Top Gun course with the school's A-4 Skyhawk being their 'tutor ' lol of advance ACM training

cheers

Today, 13 years post A-4 adversaries, now + APG-66s and assorted ECM, this concept actually brings to mind a different movie, 'Heartbreak Ridge".....

.....where the Recon Platoon was instructed to perform an ambush at a specific location by the ambushees themselves.....presumably to assure ultimate success for the ambushees. :}

TBH, does it matter ? - the A-4 has done a pretty good job as an adversary for 4 decades be it in Navy service or now in contractor service - be it Draken International, Discovery Air Services (which also owns Top Aces and ATSA ), Air USA. There are other types being used across these companies such as Aero Vodochody L-159, L-39 Alpha Jet, even our Hawk (sadly one crash at Yuma of Air USA whch killed a Marine on the ground) and the real mccoy - Mig 21 and Mig 29

Discovery Air Services has a few A-4N based in German , contract primarily with Budneswehr and NATO. Heres the link to my photos from ILA Berlin

cheers

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...efence-4n.html

AIN Preliminary Report

"18-AUG-16 14:40:00Z
N140EM
LAS VEGAS NEVADA
DOUGLAS/NOT RECORDED
ACCIDENT SUBSTANTIAL
0
AIRCRAFT, EXPERIMENTAL R&D DOUGLAS TA-4K, CRASHED INTO A RETAINING WALL LOCATED ON THE AIRFIELD, THE 1 PERSON ON BOARD EJECTED PRIOR TO IMPACT, NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, NEAR LAS VEGAS, NV"

Aircraft was ex New Zealand, serial NZ6251.

First flight from Douglas factory at Long Beach on 05 December 1969.
Arrived at Auckland aboard the helicopter carrier USS Okinawa on 17 May 1970 and towed by road to Whenuapai.
Test flown at Whenuapai on 23 May 1970 before being ferried to No.75 Squadron, Ohakea.
To No.2 Squadron, Ohakea in 1985.
Canopy inadvertently jettisoned in flight on 05 February 1997.
Repaired and returned to service on 14 July of that year.
Flown from Ohakea to storage at Woodbourne on 19 October 2001.
On arrival it had completed 6558.0 airframe hours.
Sold to Draken International in 2012 and registered in the USA as N140EM on 01 March 2013.

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/galler..._as_N140EM.jpgFor the E/F models the max permissible indicated is 1.1 at 34,000, dropping lower both above and below that altitude, but the graph also gives a max dive speed of 1.22 at 30,000, it too dropping away above and below that altitude. K don't know specifically.

I wonder if they have much difficulty holding it below 1.22. :)

for chopper,

I have great respect for the A-4 as an adversary....In the 80s, I was given a substantial portion of semi-annual humility training in an F-4 by an A-4 Mongoose driver.

In training in the F-16...also in the 80s, against various adversaries (A-4 & F-5 included), I was asked by my RTU instructor, "Why do you always want to use the gun when a Lima will do?"

After years of being beaten up on by these guys in my old junk, my answer was, "Because I can." :}

I have read (in the RFI thread on this forum) that those MiG-21s aren't turning a wheel and the contractors are looking to upgrade to F-16As. Certainly USAF requirements dictate what adversaries are relevant and balance this against budget constraints. Those folks are smarter than I am and if they're happy, then I certainly am. How many A-4 drivers does it take to change a light bulb?

If the aircraft hit a retaining wall at the base on recovery, then it could have been part of a multi-ship gaggle and I retract my question. It's reminiscent of the contractor Kfir that hit the building on recovery at Fallon, no ejection, but that was winter weather related.....there's always good wx at Nellis in August....clouds have a hard time forming at 120F.

edit: BTW Spaz, have you ever been supersonic with two wing tanks?