Are HVAR and RP-3 usable in air to air combat against bomber?

[PierreDeveaux]

Dear ThomasP : Aaah... Computer crashes and the like... We had a server in the basement (website + "library" backup); my main data (and working copy of our website) was on a separate HD; my friend had a copy of both on his laptop and his website
- Early 2021, a burglar visited the basement...
- my friend & partner Guido passed away during the Summer while I was absent (3-month motorbike travel);
cybeguido64 website extinguished and various computer equipment put for sale by family (and my share of webcoins...)
- my external HD broke down early in 2023 (bye bye the library...)
- main laptop soon after ...
Well, Guido away, investors bankrupted, 69 since this Summer and no more than a single heart attack., I still ride a bike and fancy of aircraft matters
Thanks for this 2nd document : interesting reading indeed ! All the best, Pierre

Bf109XXL: your reminder about the Su-7A is consistent with what I had gathered but for one detail: the initial design appears to have included a "belly box" (similar to the Matra 101 ? just a guess of mine). Unlikely to have been installed on the first protype which suffered from a very early crash anyway. If ever part of the initial design, the idea was obviously soon abandoned. As a comparison : the French Mysteres (IV, SMB2) did have such a contraption. If ever installed (my lack of photographic evidence) in production airframes, these were soon relinquished. The same happened with the HF-24 Marut : photographic evidence of at least one installation; obviously soon discarded.

I had read lines about this Su-7 belly pack only being a legend. Only original drawings of the initial design (re: pre-assembly of the S1 crashed prototype) would clear the matter once and for good. Thanks for your input Bf109XXL !

 

[bf109xxl]

Bf109XXL: your reminder about the Su-7A is consistent with what I had gathered but for one detail: the initial design appears to have included a "belly box" (similar to the Matra 101 ? just a guess of mine).

The Su-7 had several aliases (S-1/-2, S-41, S21-1/-2/-3), however the designation "Su-7A" was never used. I never encountered any mention of a "belly box" or any other internal rocket launchers in any source. And there was no internal space to place them - even for ammunition for the HP-30 cannons there was not much room.

Unlikely to have been installed on the first protype which suffered from a very early crash anyway. If ever part of the initial design, the idea was obviously soon abandoned.

The S-1 crashed during the 89th flight. By this time, the S-2 was being tested intensively. There was no any principal difference between the S-1 and the S-2.

I had read lines about this Su-7 belly pack only being a legend. Only original drawings of the initial design (re: pre-assembly of the S1 crashed prototype) would clear the matter once and for good. Thanks for your input Bf109XXL !

When creating the Su-7, the factor of maximum speed was of crucial importance, so engineers tried to improve the aerodynamics of the aircraft as much as possible by reducing the frontal section. If, at least at the earliest stage, internal launchers had been planned, they would have been mentioned in the sources, but I have not come across such references so far.

 

[PierreDeveaux]

Thanks Bf109XXL. Definitely a red herring then

 

[bf109xxl]

Thanks Bf109XXL. Definitely a red herring then

I realized where the legend about built-in rocket launchers on the S-1 came from - such launchers were supposed to be on the P-1 interceptor (8):

 

[PierreDeveaux]

Unexpected... But let's call that progress ! Thank you

 

[PETERTHEEATER]

Define serious?

Missile bay doors on the F-102
View attachment 850116
12 Rockets total which is not very serious given the lack of accuracy of these things.
English Electric Lightnings had an option for 44 2in (51mm) rockets but they went in the area that the missile electronics went.
View attachment 850117
Doors either side of the nose gear. This supposed to be a Saudi MK 53. The rockets in the doors are a different size than the rockets in the pods?

DH 110 Sea Vixen had 14 round launchers each side of the nose gear on the MK I version.

Some others may have had them.
I don't know who had them last.

That Lightning is a Mk 53K in Kuwait Air Force markings.
The Mk 53 of the Royal Saudi Air Force had capability to carry the 2 inch Rocket Pack (Unguided A/A or A/G), or Firestreak Pack or Red Top or Photo Recce Camera pack all with a ventral gun pack (2 x 30mm ADEN). One underwing pylon under each wing could carry a single 1000 lb bomb or a single Matra 155L 68mm rocket launcher.

 

[Shortround6]

Apparently, R4M rocket increased the combat effectiveness of German Me-262 by over 3 times
View attachment 849651View attachment 849652

US and UK also put rocket on their fighters, most notably the HVAR and RP-3 rocket, but it seem like they are only used in air to ground role. Is this because German simply doesn't have enough bomber or fighter escort for these rocket to be used? or these rocket simply can't be used in air to air role like R4M?
View attachment 849653
View attachment 849654

Going back to the original post the you need 4 things for a successful air to air rocket.
1 Velocity
2 Range
3 Accuracy
4 Destructive power.

Velocities, for the 3 rockets we have the following
German R4M....................525m/s
American HVAR..............420m/s
British RP-3......................230m/s

Ranges for Air to AIr are going to be a lot shorter than air to ground.
How far can the target aircraft move in time it takes for the rocket to get to the target?
230m/s is 515mph/828kph. A 250mph bomber is going fly 1 meter for every 2 meters the slow rocket travels........except................the rockets slow down. The old rockets had a burn time of just a few seconds (if that) then they coasted. The American HVAR is going go around 4 meters for every 1 meter the target aircraft moves. faster aircraft are going to be a real problem. German rockets flew roughly the same trajectory as the 30mm MK 108 gun so they could use their gun sights. British and American pilots are going to need a lot of guess work. Rockets coasting have more drag that cannon shells and slow down faster.

Accuracy, how far with rockets veer off course or how many rockets will stay inside of a 3-4 meter circle at 300 meters (or what ever distance you chose). These rockets were not very accurate by this measure and that is why they often fired a lot them. Having only 6-10 rockets means a poor chance of getting a hit with one rocket, Especially if they ripple fire them.

Destructive power, Yes if you hit a plane with 50+/60lb HE warhead you are going to destroy it
The early postwar 2.75in FFAR had a speed of about 600m/s and they spent a lot of time and effort working on fire control computers (fancy gun sights) that would allow for ring from the side or forward arc of the bombers instead of tail chase because the rockets were not fast enough the catch bombers before their fuel/momentum ran out unless they were fried from very close (within range of cannon on the bombers).

 

[PierreDeveaux]

Besides (non exhaustive list) the F-86D[24xFFAR], F-89D[102], F-94C[48] and F-102A[24],and F-8C[32], boarding FFARs for air-to-air combat also involved the Sea Vixen Mk1 (UK), the CF-100 Mk5[58] and the Mystere IVN (Matra 101 [55x68mm]).

Other designs incorporating built-in FFAR launchers had more to do with air-to-surface warfare : SE2140 Grognard[32], Mystere.IVA (Matra 101[55]), Vautour (2xMatra 104[112@]), Super-Mystere SMB2 (Matra 105[35]), Etendard IV (Matra 106[35]) and Bréquet 1100 (Matra 107 [40]), not forgetting the HF24 Marut (Matra 103[50]), EE Lightning Mk53 and FFA P-16 (Matra 10?[44]) - If I missed mentioning any design [no doubt I did...], all corrections, additions or suggestions are most welcome

Then remained a "mystery" : did early design of the Sukhoi Su-7 ... [EDITION: false mystery apparently solved]

Thanks Shorround6
To the above "non exhaustive list", I need to add a recent personal discovery : the Canadian CF-100 Canuck Mk4[48] with air-to-air intent as the Canuck essentially was an interceptor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5PKKx3Ven8&t=80s) A Mk2 (#18112 ?...) allegedly upgraded to Mk4 standards for testing purposes but where the 8xAN/M3 fuselage gun pack was replaced with a retractable FFAR tray.

This short summary of mine failed to mention a couple of non-operational designs (mea maxima culpa), still with air-to-air combat intent:
Convair FY-1 Pogo [2x23 in wingtips pods), Lockheed FV-1 (2x24 in wingtips pods) and the F2Y-1[?x?? in retractable tray(s)]. I guess more details available within my archives but these "out of reach" for the time being. All the best, Pierre Deveaux

 

[Dimlee]

Going back to the original post the you need 4 things for a successful air to air rocket.
1 Velocity
2 Range
3 Accuracy
4 Destructive power.

Velocities, for the 3 rockets we have the following
German R4M....................525m/s
American HVAR..............420m/s
British RP-3......................230m/s

Ranges for Air to AIr are going to be a lot shorter than air to ground.
How far can the target aircraft move in time it takes for the rocket to get to the target?
230m/s is 515mph/828kph. A 250mph bomber is going fly 1 meter for every 2 meters the slow rocket travels........except................the rockets slow down. The old rockets had a burn time of just a few seconds (if that) then they coasted. The American HVAR is going go around 4 meters for every 1 meter the target aircraft moves. faster aircraft are going to be a real problem. German rockets flew roughly the same trajectory as the 30mm MK 108 gun so they could use their gun sights. British and American pilots are going to need a lot of guess work. Rockets coasting have more drag that cannon shells and slow down faster.

Accuracy, how far with rockets veer off course or how many rockets will stay inside of a 3-4 meter circle at 300 meters (or what ever distance you chose). These rockets were not very accurate by this measure and that is why they often fired a lot them. Having only 6-10 rockets means a poor chance of getting a hit with one rocket, Especially if they ripple fire them.

Destructive power, Yes if you hit a plane with 50+/60lb HE warhead you are going to destroy it
The early postwar 2.75in FFAR had a speed of about 600m/s and they spent a lot of time and effort working on fire control computers (fancy gun sights) that would allow for ring from the side or forward arc of the bombers instead of tail chase because the rockets were not fast enough the catch bombers before their fuel/momentum ran out unless they were fried from very close (within range of cannon on the bombers).

And if your air-to-air rocket is Wfr. Gr. 21 or alike, a distance calculation instrument is required since the detonation distance is preset.