Last flight of thr Skyhawks
-
speed is not everything when it comes to dogfighting.Originally posted by SBS3624G:Cannot be. The F-5 has top speed of M1.6, and I fancy that the tiger eyes can fly faster as they are lightly loaded. Skyhawk was sub-sonic, so even if you up-grade, how much can the speed increase? F-5 also feature more advanced aerodynamics like area-ruled fuselage, making it a more efficient flyer. However, the skyhawk was never built for speed. It was built as small as possible and for heavy-loads, so we can't really compare to the F-5, which was built for agility and low cost.
if you talk about agility, the A4 beats the F5 hands down.
and we are talking about sidewinders only not super missiles like aim 120.
when the two had a dog fight just after the upgrade, they said that the A4s was so agile, with all the tight turns and loops that the F5s had to go after burners just to keep up with it.Finally within 10 mins of dog fighting, the F5s were both "shot" and had to return to base for refueling. ccording to what i heard, the A4s still had 30 mins of flying time and they were still flying around , playing some mock dogfights with each other.
Dun ask me where i got this info. I just knew it. -
it is not the only the planes that matters, also the skills & experince of the pilots in their respective planes.
i've heard tales of singapore A-4SU 'gunning down' amercian f-16s as well.
-
Super Skyhawks fly high for one last time
If you spotted a Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) A4-SU Super Skyhawk flying overhead on 31 Mar morning, you had actually witnessed a part of history.
After 31 years of operations, the RSAF withdrew its fleet of Super Skyhawks from operational service on 31 Mar.
The RSAF's 142 Squadron has been flying these fighter planes since 1974, and was the first RSAF squadron to be equipped with the upgraded A4-SU Super Skyhawks.
To mark this significant milestone, a special flypast was conducted over Tengah Air Base. Twelve A4-SU Super Skyhawks took to the skies for one final flight over Singapore.
Flying with the pilots were some of the top brass of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), including Chief of Defence Force, Lieutenant General (LG) Ng Yat Chung, and Chief of Air Force, Major-General (MG) Lim Kim Choon.
Speaking at a simple ceremony after the flight, MG Lim called the fleet of Super Skyhawks "a faithful friend", one that had accomplished many missions and achieved much throughout its nearly 300,000 hours of operational flying.
The A4-SUs' achievements included flying directly from Singapore to the Philippines, incorporating the RSAF's first air-to-air refuelling mission in 1986, as well as the excellent aerobatic display of the 'red and white' Super Skyhawks flown by the RSAF Black Knights during Asian Aerospace 1990.
Thumbs up for a good flight! Chief of Defence Force, LG Ng Yat Chung (right) and MAJ Theng Fai Yew, take to the skies in a Super Skyhawk for one final time.
Commanding Officer of 142 Squadron, Lieutenant-Colonel (LTC) Tay Boon Chong, who flew with MG Lim, was also full of praise for the aircraft he has been flying since 1992.
He likened the planes to a Singapore "icon" for their many appearances at National Day Parades through the years.
"I think they have a place in the hearts of Singaporeans and I am sure they have inspired many to join the RSAF to become fighter pilots," said LTC Tay.
In recent months, the Super Skyhawks had continued to perform exceptionally, participating in various exercises and even coming out tops in a competition among the six RSAF fighter squadrons in February.
Said LTC Tay: "I am glad we are ending on a high note." - CyberPioneer -
That's one reason why the A-4 has always been the USAF's choice as an Aggressor platform for their pilots to match wits against.It's a very agile plane, and subsequently, the F-16 has taken over its mantle as a premier dogfighter.Originally posted by epImetheus:it is not the only the planes that matters, also the skills & experince of the pilots in their respective planes.
i've heard tales of singapore A-4SU 'gunning down' amercian f-16s as well. -
It is very sad to see the Skyhawks go as they are indeed superb aircrafts for what they are worth.
The Israelis were quite happy with them and the Argentines used them with mixed results during the Falklands War against the Brits.
During the Falklands War, Argentine suffered heavy losses of abbout 10 aircrafts but they delivered the heaviest blows to the British Royal Navy, sinking three ships with... IRON BOMBS!!! Keep It Stupid n Simple.
But it is great news that they will be replaced by F-16s and that the F-16s will in place be replaced by better aircrafts.
Cool!!! -
Actually read some Magazine b 4, Amercian refer to Sky hawk as Scooter , it is one of the most liked and agile fighter bomber ever built , it has done its job well in vietnam and israel. It probably has accomplished more mission than the likes of F 16, F14.
-
So sad that this is true.
The A4 skyhawk was the first real RSAF plane I saw in the sky way back when I was in kindergarden. Remembered that there was a loud noise and I looked out of the classroom door, saw 2 skyhawks flew past. And that was almost 30 years ago. Believe it or not, I was already plane crazy back then. At that time, I had this book where I paste pics of planes(both civilian & mil) cut out from newspapers back then and I can also id them all. 
-
i will miss the super skyhawk. but for the safety of our servicemen, maybe it's really time to let them go. there is only so much servicing can do.
-
so the question now is, with no A4s and F16As which aircraft is going to displayed as the black knights acrobatic team this year?
-
F-16C?Originally posted by CenturionMBT:so the question now is, with no A4s and F16As which aircraft is going to displayed as the black knights acrobatic team this year? -
thunderbirds two in the making?Originally posted by LazerLordz:F-16C? -
then use F-5s loh
-
Thanks for pointing this out. But the F-5 was not designed for air-superiority. Rather it was a economical intercepter, with short range only. The A-4 is quite long-range, and is designed for fairly heavy loads too. Hence, we cannot really compare them, like wat I said.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:speed is not everything when it comes to dogfighting.
if you talk about agility, the A4 beats the F5 hands down.
and we are talking about sidewinders only not super missiles like aim 120.
when the two had a dog fight just after the upgrade, they said that the A4s was so agile, with all the tight turns and loops that the F5s had to go after burners just to keep up with it.Finally within 10 mins of dog fighting, the F5s were both "shot" and had to return to base for refueling. ccording to what i heard, the A4s still had 30 mins of flying time and they were still flying around , playing some mock dogfights with each other.
Dun ask me where i got this info. I just knew it. -
F-5 is a light fighterOriginally posted by SBS3624G:Thanks for pointing this out. But the F-5 was not designed for air-superiority. Rather it was a economical intercepter, with short range only. The A-4 is quite long-range, and is designed for fairly heavy loads too. Hence, we cannot really compare them, like wat I said. -
The F-5 was also an aggressor platform stimulating MIG-21 attacks.Originally posted by LazerLordz:That's one reason why the A-4 has always been the USAF's choice as an Aggressor platform for their pilots to match wits against.It's a very agile plane, and subsequently, the F-16 has taken over its mantle as a premier dogfighter. -
Yup. It can carry external stores that are more thans its own weight.Originally posted by SBS3624G:The A-4 is quite long-range, and is designed for fairly heavy loads too.
A really wonderful aircraft. -
Off topic.....Originally posted by tvdog:It is very sad to see the Skyhawks go as they are indeed superb aircrafts for what they are worth.
The Israelis were quite happy with them and the Argentines used them with mixed results during the Falklands War against the Brits.
During the Falklands War, Argentine suffered heavy losses of abbout 10 aircrafts but they delivered the heaviest blows to the British Royal Navy, sinking three ships with... IRON BOMBS!!! Keep It Stupid n Simple.
But it is great news that they will be replaced by F-16s and that the F-16s will in place be replaced by better aircrafts.
Cool!!!
The combat performance of A-4s is something I've been following closely, both from the armchair ploughing through books and walking the flightline at various place and talking to people.
The Argentine air force and navy Skyhawks were operating almost at the limit of their combat radius.
It would have been a different story if:
1) They recognised their fuzing problems early. Many bombs were dropped too low. Several bombs that hit their targets were not armed and failed to explode on impact, example the one that hit the Type 21 frigate HMS Antelope. The UXB exploded when it was being disarmed. Those that exploded did so with devastating effect, example: the sinking of Type 42 destroyer HMS Coventry.
2) The A-4s carried more bombs per sortie. Because of the extreme range, many A-4s flew with only one 1,000Ib bomb on the centreline pylon.
3) On a related point, if the A-4s had enough fuel to make more than one pass in San Carlos water, i.e. bomb alley, for strafing runs.
4) The A-4s had better close range AAMs for self defence. It's no contest between early model AIM-Bs versus all-aspect AIM-9Ls on the "black death" Sea Harriers.
5) There was more better coordination between Argentina's air and naval forces.
6) A-4s worked with Airborne Early Warning support.
Again off topic, I'm not sure the F-16 can best replace the Scooter in the CAS role... but that is my personal opinion.
Apaches are optimised as tank-busters when operating in concert with A-10s. That should be the ideal mud mover mix, and this again is my personal 2 cents opinion. -
We had the most powerful A-4 in the world
-
I am always amazed how the team at Douglas managed to roll out sth half the govt requirement for weight, carry more than required, and still have more range than expected! Really, the skyhawk is a neat aircraft.Originally posted by dettol:Yup. It can carry external stores that are more thans its own weight.
A really wonderful aircraft. -
Tribute must go to the Argentine pilots who were very determined and attacked at very low level to drop "iron" bombs at very close range. Which is why many of the fuzes was not armed.Originally posted by ChineseJunk:Off topic.....
The combat performance of A-4s is something I've been following closely, both from the armchair ploughing through books and walking the flightline at various place and talking to people.
The Argentine air force and navy Skyhawks were operating almost at the limit of their combat radius.
It would have been a different story if:
1) They recognised their fuzing problems early. Many bombs were dropped too low. Several bombs that hit their targets were not armed and failed to explode on impact, example the one that hit the Type 21 frigate HMS Antelope. The UXB exploded when it was being disarmed. Those that exploded did so with devastating effect, example: the sinking of Type 42 destroyer HMS Coventry.
2) The A-4s carried more bombs per sortie. Because of the extreme range, many A-4s flew with only one 1,000Ib bomb on the centreline pylon.
3) On a related point, if the A-4s had enough fuel to make more than one pass in San Carlos water, i.e. bomb alley, for strafing runs.
4) The A-4s had better close range AAMs for self defence. It's no contest between early model AIM-Bs versus all-aspect AIM-9Ls on the "black death" Sea Harriers.
5) There was more better coordination between Argentina's air and naval forces.
6) A-4s worked with Airborne Early Warning support.
Again off topic, I'm not sure the F-16 can best replace the Scooter in the CAS role... but that is my personal opinion.
Apaches are optimised as tank-busters when operating in concert with A-10s. That should be the ideal mud mover mix, and this again is my personal 2 cents opinion.
But we must also realized that if the ships have more simple close-in AAs like optical aimed 20mm cannons or 12.7 HMG, the Skyhawks will have a harder time.
If i am not wrong the Coventry was sailing with a Type 22 class frigate and in a way depending on the Type 22's Sea wolf SAM for protection, but the sea wolf's FCS hung confused and went to a reset which is why the 2-3 skyhawks can swopped in and bomb the Coventry. -
2 more factors
the british had the lack of AA guns or ciws
and from what i have learnt recently, the brtish ships used then were constructed mainly of a light aluminium alloy. Hence just a blast and the ship goes down. -
anyway, welcome back. how's the new MN these days?Originally posted by ChineseJunk:Off topic.....
The combat performance of A-4s is something I've been following closely, both from the armchair ploughing through books and walking the flightline at various place and talking to people.
The Argentine air force and navy Skyhawks were operating almost at the limit of their combat radius.
It would have been a different story if:
1) They recognised their fuzing problems early. Many bombs were dropped too low. Several bombs that hit their targets were not armed and failed to explode on impact, example the one that hit the Type 21 frigate HMS Antelope. The UXB exploded when it was being disarmed. Those that exploded did so with devastating effect, example: the sinking of Type 42 destroyer HMS Coventry.
2) The A-4s carried more bombs per sortie. Because of the extreme range, many A-4s flew with only one 1,000Ib bomb on the centreline pylon.
3) On a related point, if the A-4s had enough fuel to make more than one pass in San Carlos water, i.e. bomb alley, for strafing runs.
4) The A-4s had better close range AAMs for self defence. It's no contest between early model AIM-Bs versus all-aspect AIM-9Ls on the "black death" Sea Harriers.
5) There was more better coordination between Argentina's air and naval forces.
6) A-4s worked with Airborne Early Warning support.
Again off topic, I'm not sure the F-16 can best replace the Scooter in the CAS role... but that is my personal opinion.
Apaches are optimised as tank-busters when operating in concert with A-10s. That should be the ideal mud mover mix, and this again is my personal 2 cents opinion. -
The US Navy flew the A6 Intruder for 34 years. The Intruder was finally retired in 1997 but they continue to fly a ECM version called the A6 Prowler.
The A10 Warthog is another long-serving aircraft.
I guess some things are hard to replace. -
Woohoo, the EA-6A/B Prowlers!Originally posted by tvdog:The US Navy flew the A6 Intruder for 34 years. The Intruder was finally retired in 1997 but they continue to fly a ECM version called the A6 Prowler.
The A10 Warthog is another long-serving aircraft.
I guess some things are hard to replace. -
This in fact only affected the Type 21 frigates [Antelope and Ardent] that were lost, as these had aluminium used in their superstructures - this class was originally a private sector venture, and the aluminium useage was shown as an example of weight-saving on an 'economy' hull design.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:2 more factors
the british had the lack of AA guns or ciws
and from what i have learnt recently, the brtish ships used then were constructed mainly of a light aluminium alloy. Hence just a blast and the ship goes down.
The Type 21's were then commisioned for the Royal Navy as a stop-gap measure while the Type 42 and Type 22's were beng developed and the Leanders [Type 12] and Type 82's replaced and cancelled respectively.
The rough seas of the South Atlantic had initially caused enough damage to the structural integrity of the ships, and cracks were observed on the hull, and although alot was made of the aluminium content of these ships at the time, not one subsequent report pointed to this as a major contributing factor to the ships losses.
Aluminium useage in the construction of any RN ships was ceased post-war anyway, with only the Type 21's ever having significant amounts of aluminium used in them.