Flying wing, piston engined bombers big planes: what are the benefits?

[FLYBOYJ]

The production Ho 229 was to have been made of a sandwich ply with a graphite impregnated particle board material (formholz) between the outer and inner ply. DeHaviland used Ecudorian Balsa for this on the Mosquito something the Germans clearly found unobtainable. The presecence of the graphite would have produced some absorbtion as opposed to reflection or transmission(which leads to reflection from inner metallic parts like undercarriage)

The National Geographic channel failed to note that for the larger production versions of the Ho 229 this material was to be used. The NG tt was based around a test bed Ho IX which used ordinary ply. The aircraft had to be enlarged since due to an unexpected accessories gearbox change the wing had to be thickened at the roots but this would have caused earlier shock wave formation so the solution on the planned production version was enlarged chord to keep the wing thin.

Reiner Horton moved to Argentina and in 1955 we have a record of him speaking to their aviation institution there of the benefits of wooden aircraft construction in providing "radar camaflauge" this was his term.

One of Reiners brothers died in a mine laying opperation in a He 111, presumably at night, and his rage at this it is said was the catalyst for the idea of radar camaflauge.

It should have been possible to put a jaumann absorber into the lesding edges of a Horton style flying wing without too much trouble. A 20 reduction of reflection from the absorber plus say about 4 to one from the flying wing shape and lack of prop gives a worthwhile reduction of around 60 to 80.

It would translate to about 3:1 reduction in detection range but would greatly enhance jamming and chaff.

In addition, I believe nothing was done to reduce RCS to the air intakes (they were still made from aluminum I believe), cockpit canopy and exhaust and this would have produced a huge reflection. Additionally it seems that "radar creep" was not known to the Hortens and any door or access panel would have also given off a signature. Compared to their WW2 aircraft, the 229 was definitely stealthy and the 3:1 reduction sounds about right, but it still was "trackable." Its speed would have enhanced its effectiveness, but as many late war Nazi designs, too little, too late.

 

[davebender]

Stealth features reduce radar effectiveness but the aircraft is still trackable. Unless someone has invented a Klingon cloaking device.

3:1 reduction means the aircraft is detected at 50 miles rather then 150 miles using WWII era radar. That's a huge advantage for an attacking force cruising @ 200 mph. Enemy interceptors have 15 minutes to take off and climb to altitude rather then 45 minutes.

Fast bombers such as the Mosquito, Me-410 and Ju-288 would be detected only 10 minutes out. You almost need the Me-163 (climb = 31,500 ft / min) to reach altitude in time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Stealth features reduce radar effectiveness but the aircraft is still trackable. Unless someone has invented a Klingon cloaking device.

In terms of modern stealth, it is almost invisible. During the Gulf war F-117s might have well had a Klingon cloaking device.

3:1 reduction means the aircraft is detected at 50 miles rather then 150 miles using WWII era radar. That's a huge advantage for an attacking force cruising @ 200 mph. Enemy interceptors have 15 minutes to take off and climb to altitude rather then 45 minutes.

Fast bombers such as the Mosquito, Me-410 and Ju-288 would be detected only 10 minutes out. You almost need the Me-163 (climb = 31,500 ft / min) to reach altitude in time.

Combine that with chaff, and ECM and there's your Klingon cloaking device.

 

[davebender]

Aren't chaff and ECM the opposite of stealth? Employing them is almost guaranteed to get enemy attention. So you use them only after being detected.

 

[bobbysocks]

iirc when we crossed ghadaffi's "line of death" back in the mid 80s....they had a device that mirrored the radar signal elsewhere or ecms showed our ac to be somewhere completely different on the map. so the libya air defenses were actually chasing ghosts.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Aren't chaff and ECM the opposite of stealth? Employing them is almost guaranteed to get enemy attention. So you use them only after being detected.

NO! It depends where and when you're using them. If you jam radar in front of the "stealth" aircraft, you're creating a "curtian" of clutter where enemy radar operators can't see anything. They may know something's coming but have no way or knowing from where. Chaff would be the crudest way for ECM but could work to distract operators.

During the Gulf war EF-111s went out first and jammed the crap out of Iraqi radar. The 117s were able to take out the rest of their radar cabability undetected.

 

[davebender]

Different situation. Flak suppression aircraft intentionally get enemy attention so they can jam or destroy air defenses.

 

[drgondog]

NO! It depends where and when you're using them. If you jam radar in front of the "stealth" aircraft, you're creating a "curtian" of clutter where enemy radar operators can't see anything. They may know something's coming but have no way or knowing from where. Chaff would be the crudest way for ECM but could work to distract operators.

During the Gulf war EF-111s went out first and jammed the crap out of Iraqi radar. The 117s were able to take out the rest of their radar cabability undetected.

The Apaches also took out many of the network air defense radars on the opening strikes, the Weasels followed to hit the SAM sites and the 111's jammmed SAM and gun laying and air defense command and control radars (derivatives of the BARLOCKs taht first surfaced in north Vietnam). It was a very busy night for 'the Lads'....as a matter of historical note Chuck Horner was a Thud jockey w/388th in Vietnam as a both strike and weasel jockey out of Korat and well understood the nature of the tactical problem.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Different situation. Flak suppression aircraft intentionally get enemy attention so they can jam or destroy air defenses.

Point is, a blanket of chaff combined with some ECM and 25 Ho 229s flying at sea level "could have" been a very difficult intercept.

The Apaches also took out many of the network air defense radars on the opening strikes, the Weasels followed to hit the SAM sites and the 111's jammmed SAM and gun laying and air defense command and control radars (derivatives of the BARLOCKs taht first surfaced in north Vietnam). It was a very busy night for 'the Lads'....as a matter of historical note Chuck Horner was a Thud jockey w/388th in Vietnam as a both strike and weasel jockey out of Korat and well understood the nature of the tactical problem.

Very true!

"Even before the fighters struck Iraqi targets, three USAF MH-53J Pave Low special operations helicopters from the 1st Special Operations Wing (SOW) led nine Army AH-64 attack helicopters from the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) on a mission into southern Iraq. Shortly before H-Hour, the helicopters, organized as Task Force (TF) Normandy, completed the long, earth-hugging flight and sighted the assigned targets, two early warning radar sites inside Iraq. This mission was possible because of technological advances in night- and low-light vision devices, precise navigational capability resulting from space-based systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites, and highly trained crews."

CHAPTER VI - THE AIR CAMPAIGN