Douglas A-4E Skyhawk

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

Aircraft: Douglas A-4E Skyhawk

 

Classification: Single-engine, carrier-based attacker

 

Visuals:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description: The Douglas A-4E Skyhawk was a lightweight, high-performance, carrier-based attack aircraft that was simultaneously versatile in flight performance and attack capability. The original Skyhawk would go on to be produced in many different variants, continuously upgraded and retrofitted with newer technologies and better engines for increased performance. With production spanning around 25 years, the Skyhawk represents one of the USN's most successful aerial attack platforms ever produced. 

   

The A-4E sported the same low-mounted delta wing with a quarter chord sweep of 33 degrees as earlier Skyhawks. There was no need for folding wings due to the aircraft's overall diminutive size. Leading edge slats were incorporated into the wings to improve handling at low speeds and high AoA. The engine was mounted in the rear to simplify the maintenance and replacement process, which in turn reduced the complexity of the aircraft's design.

 

The A-4E was a revision of the Skyhawk, with a significantly more powerful and efficient J52-P-6A engine which yielded greater range and performance. Installing it in the Skyhawk airframe, however, required new fuselage and inlet ducting leading to a minor change in the A-4E’s dimensions. While earlier fighter-bombers and attackers such as the F-86H, FJ-4B, and earlier Skyhawks such as the A-4C were designed around nuclear bombing operations, the A-4E’s role was revised to be an attacker with more conventional ordnance. As such, an additional pair of hardpoints were installed on the outer wings, bringing the maximum load to ~8200 lbs.

 

The first A-4Es were delivered in 1962 and the type would see immensely successful service both at home and abroad until the type’s replacement by the LTV A-7 Corsair II, a heavily revised attack platform roughly based on the high-performance Vought F-8 Crusader.

 

Fuel and Oil Data:

Internal Fuel Capacity: 800 gallons (560 gal in wing, 240 in fuselage)

Oil Capacity: 5.0 gallons

 

Engine Data:

Manufacturer: Pratt & Whitney

Designation: J52-P-6A

Type: axial turbojet    

Compressor Stages: 12-stage axial-flow compressor

Combustion Chamber: cannular

Turbine stages: single-stage

Fuel Grade: JP-4 or JP-5

 

Power Data:

Military Power: 8500 lbf @ 11650 RPM

Normal Power: 7500 lbf @ 11400 RPM

 

Dimensional Data:

Length: 41.3 ft

Height: 15.0 ft

Wing Span: 27.5 ft

Wing Area: 260 sq. ft

Wing Loading: 62.1 lbs/sq. ft @ combat weight

 

Weight Data:

Empty Weight: 9624 lbs

Combat Weight: 16135 lbs
Takeoff Weight for clean condition: 13792 lbs

Maximum Takeoff Weight (combat): 24500 lbs

Fuel Weight: 3264 lbs under clean, combat condition; 5440 lbs under clean, takeoff condition

 

General Performance Data:

Max Speed (clean condition): 585 knots (1083.4 kph) @ SL

Power-off, flaps-up Stall Speed (t/o weight, combat condition): 113 knots (209.3 kph)

Takeoff Distance (combat condition): 1950 ft

Service Ceiling: 42700 ft

 

Maximum Speeds (clean condition, military power):

At SL: 585 knots (1083.4 kph)

At 10000 ft: 573 knots (1061.2 kph)

At 20000 ft: 556 knots (1029.7 kph)

At 30000 ft: 537 knots (994.5 kph)

At 38300 ft: 516 knots (955.6 kph)

 

Rate of Climb (clean condition, military power):

At SL: 10250 ft/min (52.1 m/s)

At 10000 ft: 7650 ft/min (38.9 m/s)

At 20000 ft: 6250 ft/min (31.8 m/s)

At 30000 ft: 5000 ft/min (25.4 m/s)

At 40000 ft: 2000 ft/min (10.2 m/s)

 

Time to Altitude (takeoff loading condition, clean):

To 20000 ft: 2.9 min

To 30000 ft: 4.9 min

 

Armament:

 

Guns: 2x Colt Mk.12 Mod 0 20mm cannon (200 rounds total, 100 RPG)

 

Bomb/Rocket Ordnance: (spoilered below due to the sheer wealth of options and configurations possible for the A-4E. Note that only conventional bombs and rockets are listed here)

Spoiler

 

Sources:

[1] Standard Aircraft Characteristics: Navy Model A-4E Aircraft, NAVAER 00-110AA4-4, 1 July 1967

[2] NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model A-4E/F Aircraft, NAVAIR 01-40AVC-1, 15 November 1968, Changed 1 March 1977

[3] Supplement to NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model A-4E/F International Model A-4G Aircraft, NAVAIR 01-40AVF-1, 15 June 1971

 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Aquilachrysaetos

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

Open for Discussion.

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

2 hours ago, Aquilachrysaetos said:

Bomb/Rocket Ordnance: (spoilered below due to the sheer wealth of options and configurations possible for the A-4C. Note that only conventional bombs and rockets are listed here)

  Hide contents

 

 

If I were you, I'd wait next year to have hopes for it.

 

But a solid +1 for tier 6.

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

39 minutes ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

 

If I were you, I'd wait next year to have hopes for it.

 

But a solid +1 for tier 6.

 

It's not even close to Tier 6 performance.

 

Ordnance is limited by balance anyway, so that isn't a valid concern since this is an attacker rather than a strategic bomber.

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

11 hours ago, Aquilachrysaetos said:

 

It's not even close to Tier 6 performance.

 

Ordnance is limited by balance anyway, so that isn't a valid concern since this is an attacker rather than a strategic bomber.

 

If you want this plane for the sake of having a real jet attacker in the U.S tech tree, from a rough quick look point of view, you're gonna have to add the missiles and the bombs of the non-conventional type (e.g cluster and fire bombs) because it seems that's what it mostly relied on in the attacker role and I don't think Gaijin would go that far and... deleting 60%+ of its historical ordnance just to make it more fitting in the game. Only not adding for example the two AIM-9 sidewinders of the F9F-8 is okay, because it's only 1 ordnance option and that thing is a fighter anyway, but not adding most of an attacker's ordnance? I don't think Gaijin would do that. This is all how I imagine Gaijin would look at it.

 

I love that bird too, and I really want it in the game, but if you want it without tier 6 your best hopes should be directed to the A-4A.

 

Performance alone will not define a tier 6 plane, weaponry will also be taken into account. If performance alone will define a tier 6 plane, and supersonic performance that is (because I imagine that's probably what you're thinking), we would already have the Hunter F.6, MiG-17F, F-86H, G.91Y, Folland Gnat, Scimitar and all of those jets of that class in the game.

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by EpicBlitzkrieg87

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

51 minutes ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

If you want this plane for the sake of having a real jet attacker in the U.S tech tree, from a rough quick look point of view, you're gonna have to add the missiles and the bombs of the non-conventional type (e.g cluster and fire bombs) because it seems that's what it mostly relied on in the attacker role and I don't think Gaijin would go that far and... deleting 60%+ of its historical ordnance just to make it more fitting in the game. Only not adding for example the two AIM-9 sidewinders of the F9F-8 is okay, because it's only 1 ordnance option and that thing is a fighter anyway, but not adding most of an attacker's ordnance? I don't think Gaijin would do that. This is all how I imagine Gaijin would look at it.

 

I love that bird too, and I really want it in the game, but if you want it without tier 6 your best hopes should be directed to the A-4A.

 

Performance alone will not define a tier 6 plane, weaponry will also be taken into account. If performance alone will define a tier 6 plane, and supersonic performance that is (because I imagine that's probably what you're thinking), we would already have the Hunter F.6, MiG-17F, F-86H, G.91Y, Folland Gnat, Scimitar and all of those jets of that class in the game.

 

 

I'm aware of the ideology behind ordnance and "Tier 6" performance.

 

Did you just choose to ignore the other half of conventional bombs that this plane can also mount? The idea behind the A-4E suggestion is a Skyhawk with a more powerful engine that can carry much of the same ordnance as earlier A4D-1 and A-4C variants. Can it carry more advanced munitions that presumably have no place or hope of making it into the game? Yes. But so can earlier Skyhawks.

 

If I were to stretch your "logic", must we assume that the FJ-4B shouldn't have been added just because nuclear bombing was a huge motivation behind its creation? Or that because the game might not be ready for Zuni rockets, the FJ-4B was a mistake to add because it could carry 4 pods on its hardpoints?

 

No, we do not.

 

Rather, we implement the plane based on its performance capability, and balance the ordnance around its placement, BR, and presumed meta. In the FJ-4B's case, we have a fighter-bomber that presents attack capability on a fast, agile platform that represents an improvement over other options currently in the US tree. There is no reason why we can't apply the same line of reasoning to the A-4E , as for WT's purposes it could merely represent an improvement in performance while carrying the same munitions as earlier Skyhawks.

[SkyEye 857]

14 hours ago, Aquilachrysaetos said:

 

It's not even close to Tier 6 performance.

 

Ordnance is limited by balance anyway, so that isn't a valid concern since this is an attacker rather than a strategic bomber.

it is Tier 6 performance if they stick with higher level sub/transonics dont really understand the obsession with supersonic fight and missiles Teir 6 doesn't NEED any of that i'd be fine with Scimitars,A7s,Alpha jet's,etc.

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

6 minutes ago, SkyEye said:

it is Tier 6 performance if they stick with higher level sub/transonics dont really understand the obsession with supersonic fight and missiles Teir 6 doesn't NEED any of that i'd be fine with Scimitars,A7s,Alpha jet's,etc.

 

Did you read the listed speeds and RoC for clean condition? It's worse/comparable to the Hunter/MiG-15/MiG-17/Vautours/CL-13...

[SkyEye 857]

11 minutes ago, Aquilachrysaetos said:

 

Did you read the listed speeds and RoC for clean condition? It's worse/comparable to the Hunter/MiG-15/MiG-17/Vautours/CL-13...

but its flight performance more then makes up for it( agility, flight characteristics at high/low altitude and speed, acceleration ) it doesn't need to be the best climber nor speed demon. thanks to its hydraulically boosted/ operated control surfaces it will handle better then all of the current top teir at all attitudes and speeds.

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

1 hour ago, SkyEye said:

but its flight performance more then makes up for it( agility, flight characteristics at high/low altitude and speed, acceleration ) it doesn't need to be the best climber nor speed demon. thanks to its hydraulically boosted/ operated control surfaces it will handle better then all of the current top teir at all attitudes and speeds.

 

Guess the Zero should be moved to Tier 5 then!

[SkyEye 857]

6 hours ago, Aquilachrysaetos said:

 

Guess the Zero should be moved to Tier 5 then!

But have you actually looked at the performance of the aircraft you listed? The A4E's performance compared to them not far off, even outperforming them and the areas that they do have the advantages in very minor at best.

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

 

1 hour ago, SkyEye said:

But have you actually looked at the performance of the aircraft you listed? The A4E's performance compared to them not far off, even outperforming them and the areas that they do have the advantages in very minor at best. 

 

So because the performance of the A-4E is comparable to other 9.0s, it's somehow...unbalanced?

 

 

 

[SkyEye 857]

1 hour ago, Aquilachrysaetos said:

 

 

So because the performance of the A-4E is comparable to other 9.0s, it's somehow...unbalanced?

 

 

 

No but the way you keep pharsing your responses made it seems as it'd be some free exp pinyata for the existing top teir aircraft like something like the A-10 would be.

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

54 minutes ago, SkyEye said:

No but the way you keep pharsing your responses made it seems as it'd be some free exp pinyata for the existing top teir aircraft like something like the A-10 would be.

 

Nothing I've said has implied that at all.

 

I am refuting the erroneous notion that it belongs in some purported Tier 6 by you and others.

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

I'd prefer an earlier model myself so long as we only have five ranks for aircraft.  Maybe the A-6E can come along if and when we see rank 6 aviation.

[swpixy 1,220]

Gib.

+1

[AnelToro089 70]

ah the skyhawk would fit perfect afther the FJ.4B so many skins I could do for it

[Querulous1 3,276]

Yes please, good to see above the battlefields

[VodouDragon 30]

I think it would make a great addition to the game, providing a fast, light attacker that should be a lot of fun, especially in sim if they ever introduce modular bases where you could do a fast strike and take out a couple of buildings, whicl haveing the ability to dump ordinance and switch to a fighter role. I can appreciate the concern about the aircrafts flight performance when clean but that could be countered by having it in game as a dedicated attacker without the option to take no ordinance, preventing a clean airframe and so limiting flight performance.

[kev2go 5,112]

sure 

 

but id prefer seeing A4C getting added first, instead of skipping straight to the A4E.

 

Edited August 18, 2018 by kev2go

[TyphoonCro 6,833]

On 24/06/2018 at 07:25, Aquilachrysaetos said:

Manufacturer: Curtiss-Wright

Designation: J52-P-6A

 

Uuuuuh...

Mate, manufacturer is wrong

Its Pratt & Whitney J52

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

4 hours ago, TyphoonCro said:

 

Uuuuuh...

Mate, manufacturer is wrong

Its Pratt & Whitney J52

 

Yeah, you're right. I use a template for my suggestions and sometimes get careless with changing the info. 

 

Amended.

[TyphoonCro 6,833]

4 minutes ago, Aquilachrysaetos said:

 

Yeah, you're right. I use a template for my suggestions and sometimes get careless with changing the info. 

 

Amended.

 

Sorry to be annoying.. But..

I mean.. Yeah

On 24/06/2018 at 07:25, Aquilachrysaetos said:

Manufacturer: Curtiss-Wright

Designation: Pratt & Whitney

 

[ekg98 596]

+1. Gateway to better jets. 

[RanchSauce39 397]

 

+1

 

sure would be nice to have. I would think that the A4E at this point would be more desirable than the A4C given the addition of tier 6, and the new meta.

 

A4E has option to equip aim9B's,  2 more hard points and A2G mapping radar ( if gajin ever models advanced mechanics), making it able to better fed for itself in top tier.

 

LAter in life A4E's were basically brought to A4F standards by haing the "hump back" retrofitted allowing fitting of Electronic radar jammers, Flares/Chaff dispensers, and  APR25  Warning  system( albeit no RWR  scope display, very rudimentary).

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ubDgAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=a-4e+radar+warning+receiver&source=bl&ots=zC3IASwt1f&sig=8Iby7H27qr6c2B8SAjwHemY2S3w&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=a-4e radar warning receiver&f=false

 

"The A-4E had a little more room and was better able to accommodate the ALQ-51 as well as a rudimentary missile warning system. This gave an aural tone ('oodle, oodle, oodle') and a visual warning of a SAM launch in the form of a flashing red light marked 'SAM'.

 

 

 

This   model also allows possibility for carrying AGM45 Shrike Anti radiation missiles.

 

 

 

 

A4E

 

 

 

 

 

 

A4E "late"  circa 1967-68 with humpback ( retrofitted to A4F standards)