Fighter: Flop or Not

[XBe02Drvr]

.
While this might sound stupid but why? They did a good job in supporting troops?

They resigned because it became evident that they had erred massively in buying lock-stock-and-barrel the USAF line on the obsolescence of conventional forces, downsizing the Army, Navy and Marines to the point of strangulation. They were both political hacks with no knowledge or experience of military or international affairs. SecDef was an accountant and former campaign finance manager worried about the national debt, and SecNav was a former campaign organizer with no naval or military experience worried about his political career. He was given the job of "putting the Navy to bed" and did as he was told. Both of them had been instrumental in Truman's razor-thin victory over Dewey in 1948. And the whole Korean War fiasco was instrumental in Eisenhower's 1952 victory.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Shortround6]

While this takes me a little off topic: What range could the 23mm cannon installed accurately hit a target the size of an F-89?

A 23mm canon fired a 175gram projectile and had roughly twice the explosive of a 20mm projectile. The Muzzle velocity was a bit low but then the interceptors pretty much had to use a tail chase pursuit.
The "idea" that one airplane or another could be armed with longer ranged guns and "hold" it's position/range seems to have been popular at times but putting it into practice was almost impossible. A TU-4 had 10 cannon and an interceptor would be in the field/s of fire of 4-6 of them most of the time. At long ranges time of flight for the shells could be between 1 and 2 seconds, and the planes were fling at hundreds of feet per second.
The question isn't so much that of accurate range of of 23mm cannon but if the interceptor (of whatever kind) could get in a firing pass and escape without getting hit badly by the defensive guns. Ad if the interceptor's guns could inflict fatal damage in a single firing pass.

Okay, I thought it had to do with the supposed ability of the B-36 to fly high enough that it would be able to turn inside fighters and the secretary of defense having once sat on the Convair board of directors...

I have no idea where this comes from, a B-36 out turning a fighter? Aside from your strange fascination with large aircraft out turning small ones the B-36 as originally conceived and built had no hope of doing such a thing. Remember the multi-year programs? The B-36 project started before Pearl Harbor. First prototype was rolled out of the factory (but not flown) on Sept 8th 1945, less than a month after the Japanese surrender. Performance of the early models was hardly sparkling. SO much so that in 1948 Convair suggested adding the underwing jet engines. Things promptly got turned on their heads when the Soviets flew Mig-15 fighters in the May 1949 fly-over. The First operational Mig 15 would not be examined by the US until late 1953. However it is highly doubtful that a B-36 without jet engines could perform any sort of maneuvers at the high end of it's altitude range that would enable it to even avoid Mig-9s or Yak-23s.
There were a number of congressional hearings about the Navy/Air Force "battle" but the idea that the B-36 was the deciding factor (or profits from it) were a deciding factor seems rather dubious when one looks at the contracts Boeing was getting (and continued to get) for the B-50, B-47 and B-52 (a 30 million dollar contact for design and construction of two prototypes in 1948?)

 

[Zipper730]

But what's one coastal city or naval base against the dispersed vastness of the Soviet Union?

While I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons: How many AJ-1's would be carried aboard the CVA-41 class? How many were proposed for the CVA-58 class? How effectively could they operate in the arctic with ice-breakers?

That being said, there were numerous coastal targets that would be quite ripe for the US Navy to use nuclear warheads on for several reasons

• There were many naval bases, shipping & transportation hubs, and submarine pens there
  
• They didn't have capacity for the 12000 pound tall-boy or 22000 grand-slam
• The ability to destroy cities was in vogue at the time as a means of killing morale: The US Navy wanted in on the action at the very least so they can say "I can blow up cities too!"

Furthermore

• Thought he USSR (and now Russia) is gigantic from east/west, from north/south is nowhere near as large. It seems about 600-900 miles from the coast to dead center.
• Moscow would likely be in striking range: The political center of gravity, and they were not well equipped to handle decapitation strikes
• The death toll caused by wiping cities off the face of the earth would far outweigh the loss of personnel on a carrier, and likely it's whole battlegroup (sociopathic as that sounds, we are talking about a no-holds barred operation where military/civilians are not distinguished from one another).
• Carriers equipped with the F2H were capable of defenses that could go up to around 50,000 feet

Given that carriers have to keep their distance off a hostile coast

What would have been the typical distance at the time?

A 23mm canon fired a 175gram projectile and had roughly twice the explosive of a 20mm projectile.

And the HS.404's were around 135g

The Muzzle velocity was a bit low but then the interceptors pretty much had to use a tail chase pursuit.

For the 20mm it's around 2900 fps at the time, and 2300 for the 23mm.

The question isn't so much that of accurate range of of 23mm cannon but if the interceptor (of whatever kind) could get in a firing pass and escape without getting hit badly by the defensive guns. Ad if the interceptor's guns could inflict fatal damage in a single firing pass.

Could 6 x 20mm do the job?

I have no idea where this comes from, a B-36 out turning a fighter?

The B-36 was not maneuverable a fighter-sized aircraft under most conditions: It's g-load capability seemed about the same as other bombers of the time; now up at high altitudes, say 45,000-48,000 feet, it retained more agility than fighter planes did at that altitude. In other words, it merely sucked less than a fighter at that altitude.

The B-36 project started before Pearl Harbor.

The B-36 started out as an ultra-long ranged bomber able to fly 12,000 miles with a 4,000 pound load; this was eventually changed for some reason to a 10,000 mile range with a 10,000 pound load. Desired speed was 450 mph, a cruise no lower than 275 mph, with self-defending armament, and a maximum altitude of at least 40,000 feet. As time went on the maximum desired altitude was bumped up to 50,000 feet and range to 10,000 nm.

The goal seemed to be to be able to fly from the US and hit Germany, and fly back; later hit both Germany and Japan.

First prototype was rolled out of the factory (but not flown) on Sept 8th 1945

Supposedly it had a structural issue that kept it on the ground for awhile.

Performance of the early models was hardly sparkling.

Early on the performance was particularly bad due to a lack of a suitable supercharger. With time, this was rectified, but the top-speed was never what they wanted. I'm not sure exactly how high the early B-36's could fly but I do remember seeing in a documentary, a nuclear weapon was released around 46,000 feet up, and an F2H at 52,000 feet successfully engaged it in mock combat. An F7U-1 also supposedly bagged one.

SO much so that in 1948 Convair suggested adding the underwing jet engines.

The B-36D...

 

[pbehn]

my eyes hurt

 

[fubar57]

my eyes hurt

Yep

 

[Shortround6]

While I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons: How many AJ-1's would be carried aboard the CVA-41 class? How many were proposed for the CVA-58 class? How effectively could they operate in the arctic with ice-breakers?[

Operate with Ice breakers in the arctic????? Please tell me you are joking.
Carriers need to do around 30 KTs to launch/retrieve these large aircraft, even with catapults. They also need to be able to steam into the wind. Being stuck in a narrow channel at a restricted speed means severely compromised operations.

That being said, there were numerous coastal targets that would be quite ripe for the US Navy to use nuclear warheads on for several reasons

• There were many naval bases, shipping & transportation hubs, and submarine pens there
  
• They didn't have capacity for the 12000 pound tall-boy or 22000 grand-slam
• The ability to destroy cities was in vogue at the time as a means of killing morale: The US Navy wanted in on the action at the very least so they can say "I can blow up cities too!"

Problem was getting close to those "coastal" targets. Lets see......
US carriers in the Black sea to hit Black Sea Coastal targets........not a good idea
US carriers in the Baltic sea to hit Baltic Sea Coastal targets........not a good idea
US carriers in the Arctic Ocean to hit all those coastal targets around Murmansk .....also not a good idea.
US Carriers in the Sea of Japan to hit Vladivostok?..........................Better?

US Navy was also working on the Loon missile (as proof of concept) and the Regulas missile to carry nuclear warheads.

Furthermore

• Thought he USSR (and now Russia) is gigantic from east/west, from north/south is nowhere near as large. It seems about 600-900 miles from the coast to dead center.
• Moscow would likely be in striking range: The political center of gravity, and they were not well equipped to handle decapitation strikes
• The death toll caused by wiping cities off the face of the earth would far outweigh the loss of personnel on a carrier, and likely it's whole battlegroup (sociopathic as that sounds, we are talking about a no-holds barred operation where military/civilians are not distinguished from one another).
• Carriers equipped with the F2H were capable of defenses that could go up to around 50,000 feet

What would have been the typical distance at the time?[

Well, if you rule out using the Arctic Ocean and Baltic Sea,etc. then the distance from "coast" becomes a lot longer. To Avoid counter strikes you would probably want to keep your Carriers even out of the North Sea, (Bombers based in East Germany), Eastern Med is about as close as you want to go to the Black sea (bombers in Romania-Bulgaria) subs, mines, torpedo boats. It is almost 1500 miles from Cyprus to Moscow. Try flying from the Arabian sea or Persian gulf? I think we can rule out flying over Siberia from the sea of Japan.

Could 6 x 20mm do the job?[

It depends, Germans figured they needed about twenty 20mm hits to take out a B-17, they also figured about a 2% hit rate for rounds fired, or 1000 rounds fired. Russian TU-4 is bigger and tougher. Maybe easier to hit? Maybe not if not flying in formation. Even if better gun sights and high velocity ammo give a 6% hit rate how long does it take the six 20mm guns to fire over 300 rounds? 5-6 seconds of firing time?

Early on the performance was particularly bad due to a lack of a suitable supercharger. With time, this was rectified, but the top-speed was never what they wanted. I'm not sure exactly how high the early B-36's could fly but I do remember seeing in a documentary, a nuclear weapon was released around 46,000 feet up, and an F2H at 52,000 feet successfully engaged it in mock combat. An F7U-1 also supposedly bagged one.
[

I don't think they ever changed the superchargers on the production planes. It was the addition of the jet engines that significantly improved performance. The later planes did get water injection which was only good for about 500hp per engine for take-off but doesn't do much of anything at altitude.
Performance of the B-36 is all over the place simply due the huge variations in weight you could run into. Without a specified weight most performance numbers don't mean a whole lot.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

an F2H at 52,000 feet successfully engaged it in mock combat.

Do you realize what maneuvering is like near an aircraft's ceiling? Imagine two wrestlers grappling while wearing 300 pound backpacks and 80 pound arm and leg weights. The thinner the air, the higher your stall speed and the lower your critical mach becomes, until at your absolute ceiling they are one and the same. This is called the "coffin corner". Maneuvering in the coffin corner near your ceiling is practically non-existent, as even the slightest change in airspeed leads to either a stall or the onset of mach tuck or mach buffet. Any attempt at ACM turns into a slow motion dance, with the victor likely the aircraft with the higher ceiling, hence the most reserve lift and power. Nobody is pulling any G in this scenario. An aircraft with a long wingspan a la B-36 has to be especially careful in turns as the airspeed differential between wingtips can be enough to get in trouble. It isn't easy fighting at altitude.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

Operate with Ice breakers in the arctic????? Please tell me you are joking.
Carriers need to do around 30 KTs to launch/retrieve these large aircraft, even with catapults. They also need to be able to steam into the wind. Being stuck in a narrow channel at a restricted speed means severely compromised operations.

Has the USN or RN ever steamed in the arctic in combat?

It depends, Germans figured they needed about twenty 20mm hits to take out a B-17, they also figured about a 2% hit rate for rounds fired, or 1000 rounds fired.

Do you have any statistics for 23mm cannon?

I don't think they ever changed the superchargers on the production planes.

No, I meant the prototypes...

It was the addition of the jet engines that significantly improved performance.

Yeah

Performance of the B-36 is all over the place simply due the huge variations in weight you could run into. Without a specified weight most performance numbers don't mean a whole lot.

True enough

 

[Zipper730]

Do you realize what maneuvering is like near an aircraft's ceiling?

You're barely flying...

Imagine two wrestlers grappling while wearing 300 pound backpacks and 80 pound arm and leg weights.

I wouldn't be able to grapple...

The thinner the air, the higher your stall speed and the lower your critical mach becomes, until at your absolute ceiling they are one and the same. This is called the "coffin corner".

That I'm aware of...

Any attempt at ACM turns into a slow motion dance, with the victor likely the aircraft with the higher ceiling, hence the most reserve lift and power. Nobody is pulling any G in this scenario.

In context, I meant any g-load above 1g (1.05, 1.1), which would occur in any form of turn as I understand it.

An aircraft with a long wingspan a la B-36 has to be especially careful in turns as the airspeed differential between wingtips can be enough to get in trouble.

Never thought about that, but it makes sense enough...

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Has the USN or RN ever steamed in the arctic in comba

Both, in nuclear subs, under the ice cap. In WWII days in surface ships it would have been suicidal. Closest thing was supply runs to Archangel and Murmansk.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

In context, I meant any g-load above 1g (1.05, 1.1), which would occur in any form of turn as I understand it.

Yes, but at or near your ceiling even that is likely to stall you or cause you to start drifting down in altitude.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

In WWII days in surface ships it would have been suicidal. Closest thing was supply runs to Archangel and Murmansk.

Did anybody other than Russia make it to Murmansk without getting killed? So, how easy would it have been from the USN to get to Murmansk from 1950-1955?

 

[pbehn]

Did anybody other than Russia make it to Murmansk without getting killed? So, how easy would it have been from the USN to get to Murmansk from 1950-1955?

Yes Zipper, my father did.
Arctic convoys of World War II - Wikipedia

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Did anybody other than Russia make it to Murmansk without getting killed? So, how easy would it have been from the USN to get to Murmansk from 1950-1955?

Read "Blind Man's Bluff". It's all about the hidden war under the waves throughout the Cold War. When it first came out the government tried to suppress it, as they thought it told a little too much. Fascinating read. My radar trainer shared quarters with an ASW test and evaluation lab, so I was somewhat aware of some of the goings-on down there, but the extent of it revealed in the book was eye-opening. Once quiet nuke boats were in service, we were literally listening at Ivan's back door 24-7. In the 1950-55 time frame you mention, it wasn't so easy as our slightly modernized WWII era diesel boats didn't have the submerged endurance to operate undetected in the Barents Sea.
Aren't we rather a long ways away from the F-89 here?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

Yes Zipper, my father did.
Arctic convoys of World War II - Wikipedia

That's actually pretty cool. It's interesting how a lot of people online don't seem to see people as people, with families, and a personal history and all that stuff, and instead just a name on a screen. Probably why people can be so awful online.

Read "Blind Man's Bluff". It's all about the hidden war under the waves throughout the Cold War.

I have the book I wasn't talking about submarine operations, though admittedly, I wasn't particularly specific

What I was thinking of had to do, in particular, with the ability of carrier battle-groups to make it there without being constantly dinged up and wrecked by icebergs. However, the ability to defend carriers against bomber attack and penetrate enemy airspace with bombers for targets inside enemy territory. That sort of had to do with the stuff about the USS United States, and a statement about how maybe the US Navy had it right, and of course their weaknesses.

When it first came out the government tried to suppress it, as they thought it told a little too much.

That I didn't know.

Aren't we rather a long ways away from the F-89 here?

Well, what I was thinking of had to do with the concept of the F-89 as a night-fighter operating both offensively (penetration) and defensively (interception).

 

[pbehn]

That's actually pretty cool. It's interesting how a lot of people online don't seem to see people as people, with families, and a personal history and all that stuff, and instead just a name on a screen. Probably why people can be so awful online..

Zipper, I really wonder about your age and attitude. You can ask questions that demand a graduates knowledge of electronic or aviation engineering, and then ask a question that shows you know nothing about Lend Lease and how it was done. Lend Lease was the method by which the war was actually won.

I am British and by no means at all unusual. My father was a stoker on HMS Highlander, a Hero or "H" class destroyer. After the arctic convoys he was in the far east until 1948, part of his job was to get ex POWs ready and fit enough to be shipped home. Post war he worked as a fireman and later a driver on the railways, and towards the end of his life was one of the few people who could actually fire a steam locomotive in British rail and "fired" both the "Flying Scotsman" and the "Sir Nigel Gresley" the two most iconic steam locomotives in UK history. The Scotsman was the first to pass 100MPH and the Gresley is an A4 Pacific named after its designer, identical to the Mallard which holds the world steam loco record.

My uncle was in Bomber Command, invalided off operations with lung problems before heated suits were introduced he served on ground crew and then at D Day as a spotter on a US gunship calling in "friend or foe" to the captain or his representative.

I never knew my father in law, but neither did my wife He volunteered and served on submarines even though he was in a "reserved occupation" as a steel worker. he died in 1962 from emphysema caused by breathing acid fumes in a sub.

There are no heroes in my family but the war was not won by heroes it was won by millions from all over the world doing their bit.


As this is an aviation forum I post you a list of RAF stations to give you an idea of the scale of total war on a small island where no point is more than 75 miles from the sea.. I can walk to five of them from my home.
List of former Royal Air Force stations - Wikipedia

My wife gets her hair cut on what was Thornaby. Middleton St George is the local airport, I raced motorcycles at Croft, I went to a wedding at Catterick which is still a military base while Danby has been supeceded and cloe=se by is the UKs early warning station of Fylingdales.

 

[Zipper730]

Zipper, I really wonder about your age and attitude.

I'll be 34 in November...

You can ask questions that demand a graduates knowledge of electronic or aviation engineering, and then ask a question that shows you know nothing about Lend Lease and how it was done.

That's more the result of the American education system... nobody's perfect you know...

My uncle was in Bomber Command, invalided off operations with lung problems before heated suits were introduced

What aircraft did he fly on?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

one of the few people who could actually fire a steam locomotive in British rail and "fired" both the "Flying Scotsman" and the "Sir Nigel Gresley" the two most iconic steam locomotives in UK history. The Scotsman was the first to pass 100MPH and the Gresley is an A4 Pacific named after its designer, identical to the Mallard which holds the world steam loco record.

Did those locomotives have auger feed? If they were shovel fed, your dad must have been some kind of superman! 100 MPH makes for a mighty hungry firebox not to mention boiler. I shovel fed a small 1890s steamer at a museumbahn in Denmark for five minutes and like to have died of heat exhaustion, much to the amusement of the elderly train crew. The fireman was 75 years old and made it look easy. "Kep zee eye on zee vaterglass, boy!" What a blast!
Cheers,
Wes

 

[pbehn]

Did those locomotives have auger feed? If they were shovel fed, your dad must have been some kind of superman! 100 MPH makes for a mighty hungry firebox not to mention boiler. I shovel fed a small 1890s steamer at a museumbahn in Denmark for five minutes and like to have died of heat exhaustion, much to the amusement of the elderly train crew. The fireman was 75 years old and made it look easy. "Kep zee eye on zee vaterglass, boy!" What a blast!
Cheers,
Wes

Both are shovel fed. I have been as a passenger with the "Sir Nigel Gresley" it is used on the "North Yorks Moors Railway". Which is a preservation society line near my home and worth a trip in anyone is visiting Northern England. Firing up a big loco requires a lot of hands, not just lighting the fire but doing other checks, lubrication etc. My father worked for the state rail company British Rail. The Scotsman and Gresley are privately owned. When travelling they obviously have a driver and fireman but don't have their own maintainance staff. His place of work, Thornaby still had all the equipment needed for a big steam loco even though British Rail no longer used steam. My father and a few others volunteered to help fire them up, since it was unpaid he was allowed the "honour" of lighting the fire. The London to Edinburg express trains had two crews because it was such hard work, there was a corridor in the tender to allow them to swap.

One of my earliest very vague memories is of being on a train my father was firing, I was about four or five years old, quite an experience when daddy is driving the engine. By the time I actually knew him to remember clearly he had long since stopped working on steam but years of stoking destroyers and trains leave a mark. He had a grip like a vice, I don't know about superhuman but it was unnerving to strangers when they shook hands with him.

 

[pbehn]

I'll be 34 in November...
That's more the result of the American education system... nobody's perfect you know...
What aircraft did he fly on?

I honestly have no idea, like many men in the war he never spoke about it, my mother told me. When we ate together at my grans house (his mother) he always appeared at exactly 12.30 just as the food was served. He couldn't bear the smell of meat cooking, it reminded him of the smell of aircraft he had cleaned out with burned crews. I only know he was a gunner because he wasn't a pilot or navigator. the only thing he ever discussed at any length was D Day. He was with another Brit doing four hour stints spotting planes and calling in fire on a US gunship. The American gunships crew were straight from the states with no combat experience or real knowledge of allied / enemy aircraft. He only saw five minutes of action but got a written commendation from the captain, who said that Johns soft deep calm Yorkshire voice kept the whole gunnery crew calm, and justified all the time spent in training and putting him on the ship. I read it, that's as best as I can remember it. John had no rank in the US navy and no authority on a US ship, his words were therefore "advice" to the captain (even if the captain wasn't there) which the gun crews were instructed to take as advice from the captain. He called friend or foe and someone else shouted fire if it was a foe.

John was the custodian of a Norman Castle one of the best examples in UK, a local historian and amateur naturalist, it never seemed important to talk about the war because he had so many other nice things he liked to talk about.
Pickering Castle | English Heritage