The Navy of Brazil

[Obi Wan Russell]

Sounds a bit like the Argentina or RN of the 1980s with that carrier group obviously replacing in RN case replacing A-4, SuE with Sea harriers and harriers and trackers Sea kings AEW ASW. Brazil main issue is with Escorts as they are old and some have been withdrawn. The Carrier is of questionble usefulness its as old as the hills with roughly 4 airworthy Sky hawks with aircrew who haven't operated on the carrier for at least a year.

I have yet to see a complying reason why for their next vessel they don't go the Helo carrier route because they seem to lack the doctrine (other than the Prestige of being the only Latin American nation with a carrier). It took them till 2000 to even practice carrier strike. Its a crew and Maintenance as hog. The crew for San Paulo could be use to recommission some the the T-22 they have layed out and replace the T-21 with something modern. They still have a Garcia in commission the escorts are more important than the sole carrier if its EEZ protection they are looking for rather than Power Projection

they have a defensive Doctrine I'd have a hard time imaging they going to use it to bomb fellow Latin American nations or any others for that matter.

You underestimate the importance of national prestige in South America. True the Brazilian Naval air force is at a low ebb right now, but that is simply a funding issue. Once that has been resolved overhauling the rest of the Skyhawk fleet to make it operational again won't be too difficult, and the pilot issue will resolve itself once the aircraft are flying again. Pilots are probably still being trained in the US at this time, to maintain their currency. Argentina hasn't had an operational carrier since the late 80s, yet has carrier qualified pilots and sqns still.

The need for a prestigious and capable navy for Brazil (and indeed other South American countries) is not about attacking their neighbours. They want to be seen as 'players' on the world stage, in the UN especially. UN operations are where they want to be, to be seen to be participants, like 'first world' nations and not in need of rescue like 'third world' nations. Helicother carriers would not give them the same prestige as a strike carrier, even if they were more useful in a joint UN type operation. I think in the next decade Brazil may well move towards adding a large deck amphib such as a variant of the French Mistral class to their fleet in addition to Sao Paolo. The Brazilian Navy has spent decades trying to acquire CVA capability. I see no prospect of them giving it up any time soon.

 

[F40Racer]

I think the Sao Paulo, being a relatively large carrier with catapults, has high potential for improvement despite its age.

I'm wondering, with plenty of upgrades(early warning aircrafts, better radars, better fighters, etc), could it match the Russian carrier Kuznetsov in overall capabilities? I'm not talking about carrier battlegroups, just the carriers themselves. The Sao Paulo may not be as big as the Russian carrier but it does have catapults, which is a major advantage.

 

[bd popeye]

I think the Sao Paulo, being a relatively large carrier with catapults, has high potential for improvement despite its age.

I'm wondering, with plenty of upgrades(early warning aircrafts, better radars, better fighters, etc), could it match the Russian carrier Kuznetsov in overall capabilities? I'm not talking about carrier battlegroups, just the carriers themselves. The Sao Paulo may not be as big as the Russian carrier but it does have catapults, which is a major advantage.

I believe the Sao Paulo if fully operational would be more capable than the ADM"K". With catapults she can launch aircraft with a full weapons load. And with the factors you mentioned she would have an advantage over the Russian CV.

The ship has to be in some sort of state of disrepair because of lack of use. Only after a major overhaul will she be ready to put to sea fully operational.

 

[harryRIEDL]

You underestimate the importance of national prestige in South America. True the Brazilian Naval air force is at a low ebb right now, but that is simply a funding issue. Once that has been resolved overhauling the rest of the Skyhawk fleet to make it operational again won't be too difficult, and the pilot issue will resolve itself once the aircraft are flying again. Pilots are probably still being trained in the US at this time, to maintain their currency. Argentina hasn't had an operational carrier since the late 80s, yet has carrier qualified pilots and sqns still.

The need for a prestigious and capable navy for Brazil (and indeed other South American countries) is not about attacking their neighbours. They want to be seen as 'players' on the world stage, in the UN especially. UN operations are where they want to be, to be seen to be participants, like 'first world' nations and not in need of rescue like 'third world' nations. Helicother carriers would not give them the same prestige as a strike carrier, even if they were more useful in a joint UN type operation. I think in the next decade Brazil may well move towards adding a large deck amphib such as a variant of the French Mistral class to their fleet in addition to Sao Paolo. The Brazilian Navy has spent decades trying to acquire CVA capability. I see no prospect of them giving it up any time soon.

Have they ever used it for any UN ops not exes

In regards to San Paulo I read a while ago thales was trying to sell the S-1850 an upgraded Search radar.

 

[adeptitus]

IMO the primary purpuse of an AC is to carry aircraft. The A-4 is an old reliable, but not going to perform well against modern supersonic fighters and strike aircraft.

Speaking as the armchair admiral, I'd probably chose the Rafale-M. Why the Rafale? I found this interesting note:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"1993 : the Foch was modified to be able to test the Rafale M : a small ski jump placed at the end of the bow catapult and a OE-82 system were installed."

"The first Rafale M landing was made on the flagship in April 1993 and the first catapulting the following day. In January 1994, from the Foch, the first Rafale M with a full load of external tanks and munitions stores was catapulted and made few landings."

So the ship was originally used to test the Rafale-M and already had the experience/capability to deploy it on deck. The Rafale-M is a very expensive aircraft, and Brazil might only be able to afford 8-12. But it'd give the Brazilian Navy a modern aircraft that's competitive with her regional neighbors (vs. F-16, Su-30's, etc.).

In the future, they could look into procuring more modernized versions of Rafale-M, or even F-35C. Other aircraft, such as AEW and ASW, will also need to be considered.

 

[montyp165]

The Rafale-M is one of the lighter modern carrier planes available, and considering the age of the Sao Paulo, would be better than a Super Hornet.

 

[Ambivalent]

The Rafale-M is one of the lighter modern carrier planes available, and considering the age of the Sao Paulo, would be better than a Super Hornet.

My recollection is that Rafael was tested on Clemenceau, so it would be able to operate from her sister, but testing is different from long term operation. We don't know if those ships cats and A-gear would have required significant upgrading to operate that fighter in all wind and sea states, year in and year out. Remember those ships were already scheduled to strike, so a little extra unusual wear and tear at the end of their service lives was nothing. Sustaining that wear is something entirely different.
I seriously doubt something as heavy as a Super Hornet could operate routinely from Foch. That is a big heavy aircraft, almost 30,000 kg at take off. The cats and A-gear were never designed for such a heavy aircraft. They were designed for the 13,000 kg Crusader and the 11,500 kg Super Entendard. There is a huge difference in the stresses involved. Also, don't ignore the stress on the flight deck when those things land. It is significant. The shock can be felt when they land. I also wonder what the elevators are rated for. Could one handle a fully loaded Super Hornet?
Boeing is trying to sell the Indians on the Super Hornet, claiming it can do STOBAR. THIS I want to see!

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

My recollection is that Rafael was tested on Clemenceau, so it would be able to operate from her sister, but testing is different from long term operation. We don't know if those ships cats and A-gear would have required significant upgrading to operate that fighter in all wind and sea states, year in and year out. Remember those ships were already scheduled to strike, so a little extra unusual wear and tear at the end of their service lives was nothing. Sustaining that wear is something entirely different.
I seriously doubt something as heavy as a Super Hornet could operate routinely from Foch. That is a big heavy aircraft, almost 30,000 kg at take off. The cats and A-gear were never designed for such a heavy aircraft. They were designed for the 13,000 kg Crusader and the 11,500 kg Super Entendard. There is a huge difference in the stresses involved. Also, don't ignore the stress on the flight deck when those things land. It is significant. The shock can be felt when they land. I also wonder what the elevators are rated for. Could one handle a fully loaded Super Hornet?
Boeing is trying to sell the Indians on the Super Hornet, claiming it can do STOBAR. THIS I want to see!

Foch/Sao Paolo and Clemenceau were fitted with British BS5 Catapults, identical to those fitted in the bow position on Eagle and Ark Royal. They were designed to launch the Buccaneer and Sea Vixen fully loaded, and could also launch the F4 Phantom in most wind conditions. All three of these aircraft were heavier than the Hornet, the Vixen had an empty weight of over 13,000kgs, 17,000kgs loaded whilst the Phanton and Bucc were much heavier. Operating the F-8 and the SEM probably meant less wear and tear compared to their British counterparts and thus a longer life.

 

[Ambivalent]

Max TO on a Phantom is 28030 kg and max TO on a Buccaneer was 28123 kg. Still not quite as heavy as a Super Hornet, but certainly heavier than a Rafael. It's a moot point, the Clemenceau and Foch elevators were only rated for 15,000 kg. Also, those catapults do not use a launch bar but instead the old fashioned bridle. Hornets can't be launched that way. RN Phantoms used the bridle but not USN Phantoms, and they had different nose gear as a result. Not sure about the Rafael. It was tested on Foch but if you look at videos of it on Charles de Gaulle it uses a modern launch bar. I wonder if the prototype was specially configured for Foch? Can anyone find any vids or photos of the tests on Foch? I can't.

 

[bd popeye]

RN Phantoms used the bridle but not USN Phantoms,

Oh yes they did.. I saw a many launched on the Midway and JFK..

VF-111 Sundowners F-4 Phantom on a bow cat of the USS Coral Sea CVA-43 circa 1970