- Thread starter
-
- #161
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
CorrectShortround6 said: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.
TrueThe 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.
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!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.
Correct, and as in-flight refueling: It became possible so long as the distance from refueling to refueling left the plane with fuel.Flying night fighters might work from Europe or Turkey
I didn't know the differences were that extensive, but in politics, the excuse matters more than the facts.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 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...
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.Fortunately, the Tu-4 wasn't all that agile, but what about the Tu-16 and Mya-4?
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.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!
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.Nuclear bombs and the planes needed to carry them got smaller very quickly and more conventional carriers could accommodate them.
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.
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.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
Okay... so can it? I'm not trying to be a dick, it's an honest question!NO - you asked if a MiG-15 could turn inside an F-94. My response was "WITH OR WITHOUT TIP TANKS."
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?XBe02Drvr said: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.
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...There was more to it than that.
They also had the B-29 & B-50 in service as of 1949...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.
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.What did the Navy have? The pathetic AJ-1 Savage
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 Skywarrior
The proposal for the P6M wasn't until 1951 if I recall...the paper Seamaster
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...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.
Of course they'd fight tooth and nail... that was their business.The Navy was never a credible player in the deterrence game until Polaris came along. (Which the AF fought tooth and nail, BTW)
Aren't most all defense programs multi-year?A lot of these programs were multi year.
Sounds logicalPlanning 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.
Unless you have good reasons to suspect that they are further behind (or ahead)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.
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.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.
While this might sound stupid but why? They did a good job in supporting troops?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.
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...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.
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.Remember, the cold war was brand new, and the "rules of the game" were still working themselves out.
That might be an astute observationCurt 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
And damn near pushed South Korea into the water...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 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 againThe 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.
Mheh...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.
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".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.
It is fascinating that nobody ever noticed this glitch in the air-power mind-set...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.
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.The proposed looped-hose and grapnel line was less capable than the probe-and-drogue
And I'm trying to give you a "non-Osprey Book" answer!!!Okay... so can it? I'm not trying to be a dick, it's an honest question!
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 aviationI'm not so sure about that when one nuke equals one city half flattened by blast, and the rest by firestorms blowing everything apart...