Best non-Skyhawk replacement for HMCS Bonaventure’s Banshees?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The A-4 is really small. The office is tiny. The Kiwi ones had their avionics equipment shoehorned in all over the place and the radar unit was modified specifically to enable it to be able to fit. The benefit is that it can nearly carry its own weight in stores, and they were affordable for small air arms...
...Which leads us to this statement, which doesn't necessarily point to the fact that A-4s were expensive, but that the Canadians might not have been able to afford the offer being made to them, taking into account the continuing costs of operating a carrier and its associated air wing. Douglas offered the RNZAF its A-4s at an extremely low price - its competitors were the F-5 and F-4, neither of which the RNZAF could realistically afford.
If you're over six feet tall, it borders on "cruel and unusual punishment". My pilot said: "If you were a Naval Aviator, you would never fly one of these tinker toys. If you had to eject from the front seat of this thing, you'd leave your kneecaps on the windscreen bow. How tall are you, anyway?"
"Six five"
"Ouch! Good luck back there. They did brief you that this one's a rebuilt single seater with no command ejection, right? If you're not gone by my third 'EJECT' call, you're pilot in command!"
- Thread starter
- #45
Admiral Beez
Major
I figured the offer to Canada was for brand new A-4s, which in 1962 were advanced aircraft and must have been expensive compared to USN-surplus Cougars or other types being retired.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It looks really cramped. How bad is the forward view obstructed?
Yup, I'm 6'2 and I couldn't close the canopy properly without my head hitting the top if I had a bone dome on. Your anecdote reminded me of something similar I heard with the RAF; the reason why the RAF introduced the Meteor T.7 to its training syllabus is because the Vampire T.11s were too small for taller pilots and they were likely to lose their knees ejecting!
It isn't great without the HUD, the front windscreen is tiny, but the canopy provides good visibility. On the ground - I never got to fly in one - the view is not great and non existent forward with its nose high attitude.
Glider
Captain
This is more common than most people realise. A number of pilots were unable to fly Lightnings due to restrictions on the pilots height
Yup, although wider, the Lightning cockpit is about the same size as the A-4's, which is odd considering the size of the thing. There's an whole lot more aeroplane around you when seated in a Lightning. That heavily framed canopy makes visibility bad as well, but better over the nose. I got to sit in a lightning years ago and you are a fair way off the ground. These were taken of the Tangmere aviation museum's Lightning, which I didn't sit in, but illustrate the size of the thing.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,994
- Jun 25, 2013
A friend from college is 6 ft 3 in (191 cm) tall. When in AFROTC, he told me they gave him a ride in a T-33. The first thing the pilot told him was don't bother try to eject; the control panel would take off his legs were he to do so.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
While I was somewhat randomly surfing yesterday, I came across a reference to Exercise Pipe Down in 1957. It was a joint exercise, part of which involved the USN and RN operating their aircraft off of the other nation's carrier. There are some interesting photos of the exercise, including the following from the IWM:
This is the Ark Royal. I do not know which Mark of catapult she was fitted with at this time, or what Mark the Bonaventure had during the period we are talking about. But I suspect the Bonaventure could have easily been upgraded if necessary?
This is the Ark Royal. I do not know which Mark of catapult she was fitted with at this time, or what Mark the Bonaventure had during the period we are talking about. But I suspect the Bonaventure could have easily been upgraded if necessary?
Admiral Beez, you should look at the Etendard IVB.
It's the highest performing option, on par with the F11F (IVB climb rate: 19,000 fpm, Mach 1.01-1.08 at 30-40K ft, time to 40K ft 4m20s,). And the only option that was specifically designed to operate off British light carriers with their short 103ft catapults. Was offered to Australia and India... so I'm sure the Canadians would have been welcome.
It had a British Avon engine, a low approach speed thanks to blown flaps (113kts), good legs (2,000nm ferry and 4hr10m endurance. Most of all it was flying in prototype form in 1959/60... here's pic from the land-based carrier trials at RAF Bedford in the UK:
It's the highest performing option, on par with the F11F (IVB climb rate: 19,000 fpm, Mach 1.01-1.08 at 30-40K ft, time to 40K ft 4m20s,). And the only option that was specifically designed to operate off British light carriers with their short 103ft catapults. Was offered to Australia and India... so I'm sure the Canadians would have been welcome.
It had a British Avon engine, a low approach speed thanks to blown flaps (113kts), good legs (2,000nm ferry and 4hr10m endurance. Most of all it was flying in prototype form in 1959/60... here's pic from the land-based carrier trials at RAF Bedford in the UK:
- Thread starter
- #53
Admiral Beez
Major
Nice. IIRC, the Argentines had to pull their Super Etenards from their carrier due to incompatibility with their carrier's catapult. Would the Canadians have more luck?
The Aussies had problems with their catapults failing as well.
| The Australian War Memorial
Interesting video showing trials with HMAS Melbourne's catapult with a wheeled device nicknamed Chloe being hurled off the ship's deck...
| The Australian War Memorial
Interesting video showing trials with HMAS Melbourne's catapult with a wheeled device nicknamed Chloe being hurled off the ship's deck...
Yeah, but the Argies were offered Harrier GR.1s, early production models, which were optimised for attack and were to receive only six of them, whereas the RN had radar-equipped Sea Harriers optimised for air interception, to say nothing of the superior training the RN pilots had, which was the deciding factor during the war.
To be honest you're not going to get a cheaper deal. Yes, new-build A-4s would be expensive, but overhaul and modification of F9Fs or F-11s would also be costly. Bear in mind the Argentinians did not receive new-build A-4s, all of their first A-4s were ex-US Navy and Marine A-4D-2s and A-4Es overhauled by Douglas, and they got theirs at a competitive rate, primarily to steal interest away from the Harriers that Hawker Siddeley was offering. Bear in mind also that the F9Fs Argentina operated were not compatible with Argentina's earlier carrier.
That is a good suggestion, the Etendard IVB was a viable alternative and the issue for Canada becomes one of cost; whether or not it is cost-effective to overhaul older types or buy a newer type brand new. I suspect that if Canada considers A-4s to be too expensive, buying the Etendard might be out. Nevertheless, it's a good airframe. Having to deal with French product support can be dicey, though...
Not true, the navy had only received the first aircraft in October 1981 and there were only five that had arrived before the invasion, therefore the aircraft and crews were still in the work-up phase. Intensive work saw the crews ready for operations in a very short time in April 1982, but not one had operated from a carrier at that point. There was a plan to embark them to Stanley Airport (Puerto Argentino) on the islands but this never took place because of the Vulcan raids - lucky, too, because they would have wreaked havoc had that happened. After the war ended the Super Etendard was successfully operated from the carrier, in its first cruise the aircraft made more than 160 catapult take-offs and arrested landings without mishap. To be fair, I learned this from a book on Super Etendard operations I bought when I was in Argentina, and the common belief is the same as yours, Admiral.
- Thread starter
- #56
Admiral Beez
Major
Speaking for Canada, I'm not suggesting that cost is the sole or primary driver to disregard the A-4 for HMCS Bonaventure. To be honest, I can't think of a good reason not to join the RAN choosing Skyhawks. But perhaps it's fleet air defence, where the A-4 might not shine. With this in mind, the supersonic F-11F looks good, though without radar it's still lacking.
How about Grumman Cougar followed by Sepcat Jaguar?
Last edited:
Firstly you have to ask what the RCN can afford versus what it wants, these are two different things, apparently. If the RCN wants a radar-equipped interceptor it has to spend large. The US Navy interceptor at the time was the F-4, in the RN it was the Sea Vixen, then the F-4. Canada could realistically afford second-hand F3Hs if it wants radar. If it is a low-spec interceptor the F-11 looks like a reasonable bet. The problem then becomes product support. There were only 200 built and these were replaced aboard carriers fairly quickly in the early 60s with better types. While the A-4 isn't optimised for interceptor ops, it is capable of carrying AAMs and it is a quite nimble airframe, being able to take on an F-4 and win in a dogfight in the right hands. Its sheer versatility because of its load-carrying capability is definitely in its favour compared to the F-11.
Regarding the Cougar, the issue becomes one of buying refurbished Cougars or refurbishing the existing Banshees. You're not really getting much more bang for considerable investiture in an airframe that is past its prime, in both cases. Honestly, replacing a 1940s-era airframe with a slightly more evolved 1940s-era airframe doesn't look like a sound investment going forward. As for the Jaguar, that Dassault lobbied hard for the navy to buy the Etendard instead of the mixed lineage Jag meant it was dead in the water before it could be considered for foreign procurement. The Etendard is at this stage an attractive option, to be frank (if A-4s are not on the table), it serves in the strike fighter role, being able to carry AAMs and it was quite manoeuvrable. It doesn't possess advanced sensors but for a nation like Canada it represents a good investment.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Wouldn't a modern, still in production jet trainer fill the role better than a rehashed '50s design? What does the USN use? France has non F-35 carrier aviation, right?
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
The OP is for a replacement that would enter service by the early- to mid-1960s (I think). The Jaguar pictured above did not fly until 1968. So it depends on how far down the timeline we require for the service entry date with the NZ navy.
- Thread starter
- #60
Admiral Beez
Major
Keep in mind we're looking for a fighter to replace the Banshees when they retire in 1962. So, what's modern at the time?
de Havilland Sea Vixen might be an option. It's all weather, radar guided missile capability would be useful for fleet air defence. Though I don't know if any of the Colossus/Majestic class could operate it or if the lifts will fit. HMS Hermes operated the type, but the Centaurs are faster.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrBFoEYQlmo
Last edited:
