Carrier capable bomber: you are in charge

[andy2012]

Is there really a good plane of there era that was effective at both, Maybe the Grumman TBF? It had a range of 1000 miles

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Is there really a good plane of there era that was effective at both, Maybe the Grumman TBF? It had a range of 1000 miles

Yep, it's actually been said a couple of times on this thread that the TBF was indeed THE Gold Standard and could do both reasonably well. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been some improvement. The fighter as dive torpedo bomber idea was followed in reality by at least two successful examples: the Douglas AD-1 Skyraider and the Blackburn Firebrand (seen below) but their torpedo carrying days were numbered by the end of WW2. Both these aircraft had big engines and so certainly belong in the second catagory of later aircraft, but neither saw operational use in WW2 so they don't count... There are probably other examples that are contemporary but I don't know them. I am assuming the size of the engine is probably an indication of the engineering trades that had to be made to make the single engine 'fighter' type solution work.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

What I think is most intriguing about Tomo's thread is the recognition that there appears to be a missing developmental generation between the TBD and TBF. Then there is the very question you and others are pondering. Was there a missed generation of fighter-torpedo-dive bomber between the TBF and AD that didn't require the development of a Wright 3350 cubic inch or Bristol 3279 cubic inch class engine. closest might be of course the previosly mentioned SB2C Beast. But the beast didn't last... It was less able to grow into different roles. That or maybe politics killed it. That's always a possibility. I have an admitted bias toward anything with a Grumman stamp.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Vought/Consolidated TBY comes to mind as a plane to represent late war 'missed' generation.
Bomb bay ( yet the hull seem thinner/lower than of Avenger) , R-2800 aboard (so the plane ought a be good ), good performance. Plagued by mishaps, the production started by the time the war was ending.

 

[wuzak]

And it wasn't in service before V-E day either.
The answer to a multi-role 43/44 carrier aircraft is the Firefly.

There is no reason that the Sea Mosquito could not have been evolved by 1943/4 had the requirement for such development been thought of earlier.

 

[nuuumannn]

Gee, Tomo, don't ask much of a specification, do you?

Was there a missed generation of fighter-torpedo-dive bomber between the TBF and AD that didn't require the development of a Wright 3350 cubic inch or Bristol 3279 cubic inch class engine.

I suspect it is because of the changing requirements of the war; it's interesting seeing how the roles of carrier aircraft changed in that time period; dive bombers practically disappeared altogether despite wreaking havoc on Japan's carriers at Midway and the torpedo bomber became a single seater. Aircraft like the Skyraider, F4U, Firebrand, Wyvern and even Sea Fury became effective carrier based strike aircraft post war.

I'm liking Old Crow's single seater ideas, although the Firebrand, as impressive as it was, was a bit of a dud and seriously disliked in service, nevertheless, the Wyvern powered by the RR Eagle, which was similar in concept (and complexity) to the Napier Sabre is a serious contender for this role. For a common airframe for all these roles, my choice is a Skyraider like aircraft, and even though the AD wasn't in service in wartime, such an aircraft's continued use post war would have been guaranteed had it entered service during the war.

 

[Shortround6]

I am not sure there are missed generations. It takes several years to design and build a new aircraft. If the replacement you propose is only a small improvement, although cheap and low risk, on the plane going into service it may very well be obsolete in a matter of months when a plane that took just a bit long to design shows up. For a plane to be in service in the Summer of 1941, pen or pencil would have had to been put to paper in the summer of of 1939. The R-2600 AND the R-2800 AND the R-3350 were all being offered for current or future delivery in the summer of 1939 (at least behind closed doors).

The later aircraft benefited from real combat experience vs inter war theory. And once again, do you design an R-2800 powered TBF or try to hang a torpedo off a stretched F6F or do you design a "new" airplane with a number of years of life to it instead of 1 or 2 years?

 

[davparlr]

How long was the torpedo carrying aircraft go into the post war years. Certainly the AD could carry torpedoes and it lasted thru the Vietnam War but did it have a torpedo mission all that time. It would seem a sitting duck to later antiaircraft defenses. The Harpoon did not appear until the late 70s. Was their a gap in anti-ship attacks from the air or did the Navy depend on dumb bombs during this period?

oldcrowcv63, in the AF old crow is an EW guy. Is that what you did, probably on an EA-6?

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Actually old crow is generic for EW. Crosses service boundaries.

Association of Old Crows - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Torpedoes were probably kept in the aerial weapon magazines of carriers maybe through the Korean War. Maybe even a bit longer but I don't have any idea of when they disappeared except that their importance and training in their use dropped off pretty quick after WW2. Of course ASW torpedoes remain in vogue. They are typically the preferred armament for a real sub hunt. Training was continuous in their use through to the present era and AFAIK, it continues. I don't know whether the Mrk 46 aerial torpedo with its exploding fart warhead has been replaced. Actually the Walleye AGM-62 guided munition appeared in Vietnam but wasn't that widely used. Blue water operations (jargon for antishipping ops) were rare and training for same was even rarer. Training for dive bombing however was always in vogue. New and improved ways were developed and the competiton to put a bomb on target would have made Wade McClusky, Dick Best and Wally Short very happy. The USN dive bombing culture was so ingrained that even the EW community had its wags who claimed the best jammer on earth was a Mark 82 on target.

The AD was just a great iron bomber in the tradition of the SBD. It also did virtually everything else including shooting down 2 migs over Vietnam. It replaced the AEW version of the TBF for a while until the advent of the E-1 and was an early predecessor and almost contemporary to the EA-6B. Like I said in a previous post I would have been happy to see Ed Heinemann design every bomber of whatever type the USN flew, but Leroy Grumman didn't do so bad either.

I think Heinemann saved the best for last when he designd the 'ford.' I think the F4D is one of the most beautiful aircraft of its day, the jet age Spitfire of Naval Aviation and its successor F5D (in photo above), a really awesome fighter in a class with the F-8 Crusader if what I've read is true.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I thought I had read of an aerial torpedo attack on a dam during the korean war. from wikipedia: Hwacheon Dam

After B-29s failed to neutralize the dam, on 30 April, Skyraiders fired Tiny Tim rockets at and dropped a pair of 2,000-pound bombs on the dam, puncturing one spillway gate.[10] On 1 May, Air Group 19 assaulted the dam with eight Skyraiders that were equipped with Mk 13 torpedoes and escorted by twelve Corsairs. Seven of eight torpedoes struck the dam and six exploded. The attack alleviated the dam as a flood threat, destroying one sluice gate and damaging several others.[11] One of the participating U.S. Navy squadrons, VFA-195 was renamed from Tigers to Dambusters.[7] This raid constitutes the last time globally that an aerial torpedo was used against a surface target,[12][13] and was the only time torpedoes were used in the Korean War.[14][15]

also on aerial torpedo wikipedia: Aerial torpedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After World War II, anti-aircraft defenses were sufficiently improved to render aerial torpedo attacks suicidal.[20] Lightweight aerial torpedoes were disposed or adapted to small attack boat usage. The only significant employment of aerial torpedoes was in anti-submarine warfare.[20]

 

[davparlr]

View attachment 192636


Crosses service boundaries.

Hmmm, I suspected as much. I ran into Old Crows on my work on the B-2. I suspected you guys had some sort of secret society with a special handshake and when you met you put on robes and sat around a boiling cauldron throwing in chicken heads!

Blue water operations (jargon for antishipping ops) were rare and training for same was even rarer.

I guess that after the war there really was not a blue water threat for several decades except for subs.

Training for dive bombing however was always in vogue. New and improved ways were developed and the competiton to put a bomb on target would have made Wade McClusky, Dick Best and Wally Short very happy. The USN dive bombing culture was so ingrained that even the EW community had its wags who claimed the best jammer on earth was a Mark 82 on target.

I would guess that the HUD with it various modes of weapon delivery aiming significantly improved accuracy. However, it appeared about the time smart bombs came into being.

Iron bomb deliveries - very dangerous.

I think Heinemann saved the best for last when he designd the 'ford.' I think the F4D is one of the most beautiful aircraft of its day, the jet age Spitfire of Naval Aviation and its successor F5D (in photo above), a really awesome fighter in a class with the F-8 Crusader if what I've read is true.

I agree whole heartedly (these planes were certainly a leap over the atrocious F7U and the under-performing F3H). Growing up on the approach end of east landing r/w of Sherman field in Pensacola in the fifties, I was immersed in Naval aviation. My favorite, and the one plane I would have selected without hesitation, was the F8U. Unfortunately, by the time I was old enough to fly, all services had gone to the very powerful, but less...exciting than the single seaters, F-4. Anyway, I ended up in transports.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Yes, boiling chicken heads indeed! YUM!!

Yes, I recall a blue water training mission (which was a fiasco) as Vietnam was winding down... The USN wanted to get back to its roots with a newer Soviet navy ascendent. Made me appreciate the problems experienced at Midway and the other battles of 1942. Even with RADAR there was no finding the target (A US cruiser, the Truxton, CGN-35)!

The over-the-shoulder delivery was a favorite. Fun and minimal danger. you pull up at high target approach speed and release. then keep the loop going until you roll out heads-up at the top. Unless you're delivering a nuc, you don't get fragged by the explosion.

The F7U, AKA the flying toaster, with a GE engine so underpowered one of the companies toasters would have provided better service.

Yes at Sherman field you'd have been entertained by weekly blue angel shows when they were in town.

Hey! Transports is still flying and depending on the weather, taking off with a full load and a full bag can be quite exciting as I am sure I don't have to remind you.

Were you a Northrop or Grumman Guy? or working for an avionics subcontractor when doing the B-2?

 

[davparlr]

Yes at Sherman field you'd have been entertained by weekly blue angel shows when they were in town.

Right over my head. I have very fond memories of sitting in the back yard and watch their performances. The earliest I remember is the F9F Cougars. I do remember running into the house, scared of the low flying SNJs.

Hey! Transports is still flying and depending on the weather, taking off with a full load and a full bag can be quite exciting as I am sure I don't have to remind you.

Yep, but the C-141A was a modern and powerful aircraft and that is always nice but still a max load take-off from a Navy 8000 ft r/w was always a bit exciting.

Were you a Northrop or Grumman Guy? or working for an avionics subcontractor when doing the B-2?

I was the B-2 technical manager for avionics controls and displays for Northrop. As such I interfaced with all aspects of the aircraft including EW. As a high level stealth platform, the B-2 had unique EW requirements. All, of course, highly classified and I had no need to know, except, of course, for any C&D issues.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Well from every thing I've heard about the Spirit, you guys did a great job... I did IR stealth analysis for about 10 years at a beltway bandit outfit and can appreciate what you did to lower observables across the board.

You also get major props for hanging out in the ice box that was the 141. Froze my butt off in one off those babies flying back home from McChord AFB to McGuire AFB to get married in February, 1972.

As Sasha Baron Cohen would say Respec!

 

[davparlr]

Well from every thing I've heard about the Spirit, you guys did a great job... I did IR stealth analysis for about 10 years at a beltway bandit outfit and can appreciate what you did to lower observables across the board.

We had some outstanding talent in the LO world. I was just responsible for cramming a four man workload into two. We had a major request for information at the Critical Design Review on the cockpit. We ran user crews through the simulator for six months and their basic comment was that the mission was boring, and only wanted one change to the symbology.

You also get major props for hanging out in the ice box that was the 141. Froze my butt off in one off those babies flying back home from McChord AFB to McGuire AFB to get married in February, 1972.

You should have dropped in and said hi. I was based at McGuire from Apr '71 to Oct '74. I don't understand your comment on temperature though, we always kept the cockpit comfortable.

As Sasha Baron Cohen would say Respec!

Thanks. What were you doing in that time period?

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I was stationed at NAS Whidbey Island at the EA-6B RAG (Replacement Air Group) VAQ-129. The -6B was just being introduced to the fleet. We had all of 4 aircraft on station and had to train pilot and NFOs (USAF WSOs or GIBs) for a number of squadrons who had no aircraft of their own. That was supplemented by a couple of tired old A-6A's from the neighboring squadron VA-128, the west coast A-6 RAG. Those were the fun-buggies.

I shouldn't say 'we' since I was on my frst tour of shore duty and untrained in the aircraft, working in the squadron maintenance department at the time. I'll never forget the humbling experience I had ealry days on the job. I walked by one of our birds and saw a Chief with his entire shop standing on the wing out near the wing tip. I asked if it wasn't potentially damaging to the aircraft. He looked at me with all the patience of someone who had lived a life time tolerating the questions of fools and said simply, "It holds up 60,000 pound of airplane, it shouldn't have a problem with a few hundred pounds of bodies" What did I know, I'd only worked around engines 'til then, I knew nothing about airframes.

 

[davparlr]

I was stationed at NAS Whidbey Island at the EA-6B RAG (Replacement Air Group) VAQ-129. The -6B was just being introduced to the fleet. We had all of 4 aircraft on station and had to train pilot and NFOs (USAF WSOs or GIBs) for a number of squadrons who had no aircraft of their own. That was supplemented by a couple of tired old A-6A's from the neighboring squadron VA-128, the west coast A-6 RAG. Those were the fun-buggies.

When did you become an Old Crow? Did you pull some tours in Vietnam? On board the Kittyhawk?

"It holds up 60,000 pound of airplane, it shouldn't have a problem with a few hundred pounds of bodies" What did I know, I'd only worked around engines 'til then, I knew nothing about airframes.

We've all been there! That wing was probably tested to failure to much more than that but I do hope they were standing on a walk way!

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I suppose about 1973-74. Finally was trained and went to sea on the Hawk in spring of 74 meeting the ship in the PI. There was the post winter '73 cease fire in effect (Saigon had not yet fallen) so we just cruised the South China Sea waiting to see what would happen. Nothing happened beyond some snooping by Soviet Navy Sverdlov CG (probably the Senyavin) and a Kashin DDG and one of the Sverdlov's Kamov Ka-25 choppers. I think there was a thin strip of non-skid laid down near the wing root, but I believe the air frames shop placed a layer of paper over the surface when walking around on it. Hard to remember now, its been almost 40 years.

 

[bowfin]

In either time frame, for the Japanese, carrying the Long Lance torpedo would be paramount. In fact, I would build the aircraft around that particular piece of ordnance. The Aichi B7A Ryusei could carry that torpedo, but by the time it came out, there were precious few aircraft carriers in the IJN.

 

[tomo pauk]

Long lance weighted 2,8 tonnes, so I guess one would need at least a 4-engined bomber to take it in the air.