Shipbucket
http://shipbucket.com/forums/

Light Attack Carrier
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5347
Page 3 of 3

Author:  Thiel [ June 20th, 2014, 2:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Light Attack Carrier

Obsydian Shade wrote:
A modernized A-4 would be superior to the Hawk in about every regard, by virtue of the A-4 being designed as a carrier based strike aircraft from the start. No matter what capabilities are added to it, the Hawk can never escape its origins as a trainer. I love the aircraft--it's cute and sexy as hell, but it's still just a trainer that's had extra capability shoehorned in.

I once considered a fighter version of the A-4 for an AU, for a country only capable of operating small aircraft off a carrier, (I think it was going to an Essex) but never got that far on developing the idea. While a fighter A-4 would be limited, it could still with the right radar give some air coverage to the fleet. In range, it's certainly superior to the Hawk.
That's basically what the A-4AR is.

Author:  Obsydian Shade [ June 20th, 2014, 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Light Attack Carrier

shippy2013 wrote:
Just an idea but what about a navalised F5 or F16. The F16 was considered for carrier ops at one piont not sure as to.the reason it wasnt pursued probably to do with the US wanting the larger more capable F14 and F18. Not to sure about the F5. Both are small, fairly agile and can carry reasonable pay loads.
The main reason the the F-16 was not pursued was at the time, was it didn't have all weather capability, a vital quality for a naval fighter.

Edit: Also the USN favored twin engine designs, for safety reasons.

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/