Fighter: Flop or Not

[Zipper730]

This rather ignores geography. The US Navy had floating air bases (called carriers) that could bring it's aircraft reasonably close to targets anywhere in the world.

Correct

The USAAF had to base it's aircraft either in the US, it's territories, or in countries of varying "friendliness". Some might permit nuclear weapons, some might not.

True

In fact the method used to refuel the Lucky Lady II (A B-50) in it's round the world non-stop flight in 1949 that resulted in the USAAF being selected over the US Navy as the Nuclear deterrent force was unusable by fighter aircraft.

Wait, that's what gave them the leg-up? I thought it was the B-36? Still, I'm surprised that the USN didn't notice the refueling methods and say "that system's a piece of crap, you need fighter escorts and you can barely fuel a bomber!

Flying night fighters might work from Europe or Turkey

Correct, and as in-flight refueling: It became possible so long as the distance from refueling to refueling left the plane with fuel.

I would also note that the F-94C was so different from the F-94B that it was originally called the F-97 and was only changed to the F-94C in an attempt to secure funding from Congress (successfully) by making them think it was a continuation of the F-94 program. the F-94C used a different wing, a different fuselage, a different engine, different horizontal stabilizer/elevator system and the different armament and fire control system and probably a few other differences.

I didn't know the differences were that extensive, but in politics, the excuse matters more than the facts.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I mentioned somewhere that the F3D could turn inside a MiG-15, and you commented the F-89 or F-94 might have been able to, so I asked a question to verify this, and you said it might have, and it depended on circumstances. So...

NO - you asked if a MiG-15 could turn inside an F-94. My response was "WITH OR WITHOUT TIP TANKS."

 

[swampyankee]

All other things equal, i.e., same airfoil, same wing loading, same flaps, same effective aspect ratio, same thrust, the straight-winged aircraft will be able to turn more tightly, as the wing will hang in until greater lift coefficients. When that straight wing starts getting drag rise, the surplus thrust will drop and sustained maneuverability will get worse, but slow, straight beats sweep, all else being equal.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Fortunately, the Tu-4 wasn't all that agile, but what about the Tu-16 and Mya-4?

Those two weren't in the picture when the F-89 was being designed. When they showed up the Scorpion was already cast in stone. While faster than the TU-4, neither of them was a gold medal contender in gymnastics.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Wait, that's what gave them the leg-up? I thought it was the B-36? Still, I'm surprised that the USN didn't notice the refueling methods and say "that system's a piece of crap, you need fighter escorts and you can barely fuel a bomber!

There was more to it than that. A-bombs of the time were big and heavy, the AF had the B-36 about to become operational, the B-47 in prototype form and the B-52 on the drawing board. What did the Navy have? The pathetic AJ-1 Savage, the paper Skywarrior, the paper Seamaster, and dreams of a future probe and drogue aerial refueling system that the AF rightly pointed out could never handle the large quantities of fuel needed for an intercontinental nuclear mission. To this day, it's a "buddy pack" top-off system only.
The Navy was never a credible player in the deterrence game until Polaris came along. (Which the AF fought tooth and nail, BTW) And now it was USAF's turn to look foolish in the public eye for self-servingly opposing an obvious win-win solution.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Shortround6]

A lot of these programs were multi year. Meaning that they knew it would be 3-5 years from first sketch to squadron service and then a numbers of years of squadron service. Planning and building aircraft to combat what the Russians (also working on multi year plans) had flown in the last May Day fly over is going to get you caught with your pants down even more often than really happened. Once they had the TU-4 some sort of jet bomber was going to be a few years behind. You estimate your defense needs on what you think you can build several years in the future and adjust somewhat based on what you think the enemy can do. If you have swept wing multi engine jet bombers in prototype form and in the last stages of paper design you better be planing that the enemy is only a few years behind and not that he will never get there.

As to the Air Force vs Navy battle.

A class of 5 of these Super Carriers to carry nuclear capable bombers had been planned but the 1st was canceled 5 days after the Keel was laid (in 1949) and the Air Force given the Mission. At least one Admiral resigned in protest and several others were fired or punished for opposing the secretary of defense. The Korean war broke out 6 months later, Navy Carriers provided air support to the ground troops Both the Secretary of defense and his right hand man in this decision, the secretary of the Navy wound up resigning.
Nuclear bombs and the planes needed to carry them got smaller very quickly and more conventional carriers could accommodate them.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Nuclear bombs and the planes needed to carry them got smaller very quickly and more conventional carriers could accommodate them.

The Navy's carriers were never more than a DINO (Deterrent In Name Only), mere bee stings in the Russian bear's thick hide. Knock-out blows had to wait for the SSBNs.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Shortround6]

True but in the days of the "Davy Crockett"

If you didn't have a nuclear weapon in your command you weren't "Legit"

 

[XBe02Drvr]

So that's where the RPG design came from! BINO! (Bazooka In Name Only?) (And a 2.5 mile lethal radius, right?)

 

[swampyankee]

In hindsight, the admirals missed the boat. The US had been involved in dozens of armed interventions where nuclear weapons would have been worse than useless (the banana plantations would get ruined, for example), as opposed to a war with competing great powers. All the conflicts were on the periphery; the core of neither the US nor the USSR may have been with daggers drawn at times, possibly closest once, during the missile crisis, which could not have been resolved as peacefully as it was with only nukes on hand.

Rephrasing those last two sentences in something resembling English as written by a literate person:

All the conflicts between the US and the USSR were on the periphery, while the US and USSR may have been, at many times, at daggers drawn, there were only a very few incidents were direct conflict was likely, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis (I remember those circles indicating where the missiles based on Cuba would reach. I was in range). The Navy, with its ability to apply fine gradations of force, from hanging around threateningly, through blockade, to actual shooting, was probably critical in that crisis's peaceful resolution: an air force doesn't have those increments, as there's really nothing between threatening, but brief, visits, and large explosions.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Remember, the cold war was brand new, and the "rules of the game" were still working themselves out. Curt LeMay and his bomber boys were the biggest boys on the block with the biggest clubs in their hands, and drunk on the power of strategic bombing, were convinced no one would dare challenge the US in any way. "Who needs an army or a navy? Just fly over n' nuke 'em into the stone age!"
The prospect of a conventional or guerrilla war under the nuclear umbrella just didn't seem plausible. "They wouldn't DARE!!"
We downsized our armed forces so fast and so completely after War II in an attempt to save money that we left ourselves vulnerable all around the globe, and Kim Il Sung dared. The USAF had almost no presence on the Korean peninsula and had to fly long range missions out of Japan. The Navy finally managed to scrape up a carrier and started supplying close air support. The Army and Marines stripped their occupation forces of assets to try and stop the onslaught. It was nip and tuck for awhile until forces could be mobilized from stateside. Suddenly the idea of nuclear bomber as sole weapon in the arsenal didn't look so good.
Cheers,
Wes

PS: Even well into the Korean War, USAF was still publicly asserting that this "UN police action" was a one-off anomaly that shouldn't affect future defense planning.

 

[swampyankee]

Remember, the cold war was brand new, and the "rules of the game" were still working themselves out. Curt LeMay and his bomber boys were the biggest boys on the block with the biggest clubs in their hands, and drunk on the power of strategic bombing, were convinced no one would dare challenge the US in any way. "Who needs an army or a navy? Just fly over n' nuke 'em into the stone age!"
The prospect of a conventional or guerrilla war under the nuclear umbrella just didn't seem plausible. "They wouldn't DARE!!"
We downsized our armed forces so fast and so completely after War II in an attempt to save money that we left ourselves vulnerable all around the globe, and Kim Il Sung dared. The USAF had almost no presence on the Korean peninsula and had to fly long range missions out of Japan. The Navy finally managed to scrape up a carrier and started supplying close air support. The Army and Marines stripped their occupation forces of assets to try and stop the onslaught. It was nip and tuck for awhile until forces could be mobilized from stateside. Suddenly the idea of nuclear bomber as sole weapon in the arsenal didn't look so good.
Cheers,
Wes

PS: Even well into the Korean War, USAF was still publicly asserting that this "UN police action" was a one-off anomaly that shouldn't affect future defense planning.

I really don't disagree with you, although I think that we sometimes forget that the US had intervened in many countries before WW2 and even before the Russian Revolution. The newly-minted USAF seemed to have forgotten that these quasi-colonial wars had been a significant role of the US military and were the main activity of the US Marines. Nuking Haiti because a 1950s equivalent of Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam killed a lot of his political opponents would seem a bit disproportionate.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Nuking Haiti because a 1950s equivalent of Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam killed a lot of his political opponents would seem a bit disproportionate.

That would be "Papa Doc" Duvalier, n'est ce pas? He made Josef Stalin look like a choirboy with his Toutons Macoutes in place of "uncle Joe's" NKVD. Better than 50% of the population fit his definition of "political opponents". The gutters ran with blood. I was in high school at the time and remember the pictures in the news almost every night. Too bad we didn't have assassination drones back then.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[swampyankee]

That would be "Papa Doc" Duvalier, n'est ce pas? He made Josef Stalin look like a choirboy with his Toutons Macoutes in place of "uncle Joe's" NKVD. Better than 50% of the population fit his definition of "political opponents". The gutters ran with blood. I was in high school at the time and remember the pictures in the news almost every night. Too bad we didn't have assassination drones back then.
Cheers,
Wes

The Marines were sent in by Wilson because Haiti's leader had executed (in acts of judicial murder) about 170 of his political opponents and because of excessive German influence there (this was before US involvement in WW1, because Germany was gaining influence in the Caribbean and Latin America at the expense of the US. Shades of the Cold War).

 

[Zipper730]

NO - you asked if a MiG-15 could turn inside an F-94. My response was "WITH OR WITHOUT TIP TANKS."

Okay... so can it? I'm not trying to be a dick, it's an honest question!

Those two weren't in the picture when the F-89 was being designed. When they showed up the Scorpion was already cast in stone. While faster than the TU-4, neither of them was a gold medal contender in gymnastics.

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?

As for the USN vs USAF post-war budget battles & nuclear-deterrent stuff...

There was more to it than that.

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...

A-bombs of the time were big and heavy, the AF had the B-36 about to become operational, the B-47 in prototype form and the B-52 on the drawing board.

They also had the B-29 & B-50 in service as of 1949...

What did the Navy have? The pathetic AJ-1 Savage

From what it appears it was faster than the B-29, B-50, and B-36, and could pull an ultimate load of 6g at combat weight. It's service ceiling didn't seem so good if the SAC sheet is accurate. The problem with the plane if I recall had to do with the hydraulic systems.

the paper Skywarrior

Actually, the A3D was built because the USN wanted a 100,000 pound aircraft to operate off carrier-decks, and that required a special carrier for the purpose. The A3D was built to operate off Midway Class decks.

the paper Seamaster

The proposal for the P6M wasn't until 1951 if I recall...

and dreams of a future probe and drogue aerial refueling system that the AF rightly pointed out could never handle the large quantities of fuel needed for an intercontinental nuclear mission.

The proposed looped-hose and grapnel line was less capable than the probe-and-drogue, and the RAF had already tested the system in 1949 on a Gloster Meteor...

The Navy was never a credible player in the deterrence game until Polaris came along. (Which the AF fought tooth and nail, BTW)

Of course they'd fight tooth and nail... that was their business.

 

[Zipper730]

A lot of these programs were multi year.

Aren't most all defense programs multi-year?

Planning and building aircraft to combat what the Russians (also working on multi year plans) had flown in the last May Day fly over is going to get you caught with your pants down even more often than really happened. Once they had the TU-4 some sort of jet bomber was going to be a few years behind. You estimate your defense needs on what you think you can build several years in the future and adjust somewhat based on what you think the enemy can do.

Sounds logical

If you have swept wing multi engine jet bombers in prototype form and in the last stages of paper design you better be planing that the enemy is only a few years behind and not that he will never get there.

Unless you have good reasons to suspect that they are further behind (or ahead)

As to the Air Force vs Navy battle.

A class of 5 of these Super Carriers to carry nuclear capable bombers had been planned but the 1st was canceled 5 days after the Keel was laid (in 1949) and the Air Force given the Mission.

That sounds about right, if I recall carrier #4 would have had a nuclear reactor in it. I think the design had many flaws based around the fact that they based everything around the presumption that the bomber would have a wingspan equivalent to the P2V (100 feet, roughly 16-feet short of a B-47), which lead to a flight-deck that was flush and a dependency on a command ship to do what the carrier had previously done by itself.

The Korean war broke out 6 months later, Navy Carriers provided air support to the ground troops Both the Secretary of defense and his right hand man in this decision, the secretary of the Navy wound up resigning.

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

 

[Zipper730]

The Navy's carriers were never more than a DINO (Deterrent In Name Only), mere bee stings in the Russian bear's thick hide. Knock-out blows had to wait for the SSBNs.

I'm not so sure about that when one nuke equals one city half flattened by blast, and the rest by firestorms blowing everything apart...

It's not quite the level of destruction the USAF was capable of, but nuclear weapons are unbelievable in terms of destruction: What previously required 200-750 bombers to do, one plane could now do.

Remember, the cold war was brand new, and the "rules of the game" were still working themselves out.

It's still surprising that common sense was left out. The US had been involved in loads of conflicts ranging from armed interventions to all out total-war: The USN understood that better than the USAAF/USAF.

Curt LeMay and his bomber boys were the biggest boys on the block with the biggest clubs in their hands, and drunk on the power of strategic bombing

That might be an astute observation

The prospect of a conventional or guerrilla war under the nuclear umbrella just didn't seem plausible. "They wouldn't DARE!!"
We downsized our armed forces so fast and so completely after War II in an attempt to save money that we left ourselves vulnerable all around the globe, and Kim Il Sung dared.

And damn near pushed South Korea into the water...

The USAF had almost no presence on the Korean peninsula and had to fly long range missions out of Japan. The Navy finally managed to scrape up a carrier and started supplying close air support. The Army and Marines stripped their occupation forces of assets to try and stop the onslaught. It was nip and tuck for awhile until forces could be mobilized from stateside. Suddenly the idea of nuclear bomber as sole weapon in the arsenal didn't look so good.

And yet the lesson they learned wasn't: Invest more in tactical air-power and start developing more CAS resources because we'll probably need it; it instead was: Use more nukes, and avoid a conventional war again

Even well into the Korean War, USAF was still publicly asserting that this "UN police action" was a one-off anomaly that shouldn't affect future defense planning.

Mheh...

In hindsight, the admirals missed the boat. The US had been involved in dozens of armed interventions where nuclear weapons would have been worse than useless (the banana plantations would get ruined, for example), as opposed to a war with competing great powers. . . .All the conflicts between the US and the USSR were on the periphery, while the US and USSR may have been, at many times, at daggers drawn, there were only a very few incidents were direct conflict was likely, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis (I remember those circles indicating where the missiles based on Cuba would reach. I was in range). The Navy, with its ability to apply fine gradations of force, from hanging around threateningly, through blockade, to actual shooting, was probably critical in that crisis's peaceful resolution: an air force doesn't have those increments, as there's really nothing between threatening, but brief, visits, and large explosions.

Yeah... the problem with independent Air Forces could be a subject unto itself... at least the RAF had the ability to apply some degree of force gradients because of their colonial operations, and their lack of a nuclear bomb until the 1950's, though they also tended to gravitate towards "bomb 'em and burn 'em 'till they quit".

I think that we sometimes forget that the US had intervened in many countries before WW2 and even before the Russian Revolution. The newly-minted USAF seemed to have forgotten that these quasi-colonial wars had been a significant role of the US military and were the main activity of the US Marines.

It is fascinating that nobody ever noticed this glitch in the air-power mind-set...

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The proposed looped-hose and grapnel line was less capable than the probe-and-drogue

Of course it was, but it was also understood that the hose and grapnel was just a temporary demonstrator. The flying boom and the probe and drogue systems were both on the drawing boards, but it was easy for the AF to persuade Congress that their system had more potential.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Okay... so can it? I'm not trying to be a dick, it's an honest question!

And I'm trying to give you a "non-Osprey Book" answer!!!

And to answer your HONEST question, you need to be SPECIFIC!!! It's possible that an F-94C without tip tanks might be able to out turn a MiG-15 at higher speeds!!!!!

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I'm not so sure about that when one nuke equals one city half flattened by blast, and the rest by firestorms blowing everything apart...

But what's one coastal city or naval base against the dispersed vastness of the Soviet Union? Given that carriers have to keep their distance off a hostile coast, and the limited fuel load possible for a heavily loaded bomber launched from the deck, and the limited additional top off they can get from a buddy pack tanker, the strike arcraft isn't going to penetrate very far inland, especially if it's a short-legged Savage. The major targets are out of reach of carrier aviation
Cheers,
Wes