High Altitude Heavy Bomber for RAF

[wuzak]

50% more than the Manhattan project

Parts of that cost are:

Wright Duplex-Cyclones
Remote control turrets
Pressurization
​

And lastly tooling up to build >1,500/yr (plus you have to factor in the modification centers).

The Griffon is less of a technical challenge for RR; and if you stay with manned turrets, the cost is a lot less. And you're replacing a significant portion of 7,500 Lancasters/5,000 Halifaxes/2,000 Short Stirlings.

How much of the cost of the B-29's remote turrets were in the mechanical computer system used for targeting?

I could see a cheaper remote gun system being adopted - such as was trialled on the Vickers Windsor, with its guns mounted at the rear of the inner nacelles.

 

[Zipper730]

It's late 1940, the Battle of Britain has come and gone and the newest British bombers, the Manchester, Halifax and Stirling are about to enter service.

Barnes Wallis has proposed a 10 ton (22,000lb) penetrating bomb for attacking mines, dams and the like. Ideally the bomb would be dropped from 40,000ft.

To carry the bomb, Wallis has proposed the 6 engine "Victory" bomber.

The MAP isn't impressed with a single use bomber.

What if the MAP likes the idea of the bomb, but would like more flexibility with the bomb load?

Actually, Wallis did propose a version of the plane which had a more versatile bomb-loads. The problem was that he did this after the earlier idea was rejected. If I recall the range was around 4000 miles (unsure what load), and able to carry around 32000 lb. of bombs (all out).

 

[GrauGeist]

The figures for the Manhattan Project bounce around depending on source, but the official summary and cost breakdown can be found here:
The Costs of the Manhattan Project

And of the B-29 program's overall 3 billion cost, 53 million of that was for the Silverplate conversion program.

So in actuality, the B-29 program (for conventional bombers) was not that far beyond the Manhattan program's cost.

 

[Admiral Beez]

How do you achieve reasonable accuracy from 40,000 feet? We're not drop atomic bombs here.

 

[Zipper730]

How do you achieve reasonable accuracy from 40,000 feet? We're not drop atomic bombs here.

Well, the RAF was developing SABS (which was a tachometric bombsight similar to the Norden, though it didn't connect to the autopilot).

 

[muskeg13]

During the Christmas holiday season in late '41, over a late lunch with his Air Ministry counterpart, the US Air Attaché in London was discussing technical problems both countries were experiencing. On learning of the seemingly unobtainable performance specifications for a bomber to deliver the Wallis Wonderbomb, the Attaché asked if his lunchmate would accept a phone call from a prominent and innovative US aircraft designer who had just been put under contract to develop a new bomber for the USAAF. Several days after agreeing, the telephone rang, and the voice on the other end of a very long distance call said, "Hello, my name is Jack Northrop."

 

[SaparotRob]

How do you achieve reasonable accuracy from 40,000 feet? We're not drop atomic bombs here.

Kamikaze?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well, the RAF was developing SABS (which was a tachometric bombsight similar to the Norden, though it didn't connect to the autopilot).

Wasn't the Norden mostly vapourware rubbish?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, the RAF was developing SABS (which was a tachometric bombsight similar to the Norden, though it didn't connect to the autopilot).

That's hardly a recommendation, given USAAF "accuracy" over Germany.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wasn't the Norden mostly vapourware rubbish?

Under ideal circumstances it could deliver good results for the time period. The problem was that the real world rarely delivers ideal circumstances. Simple things like clouds (who'd have thought there might be clouds in the sky?!), winds varying through altitude, a bombardier stressed by, you know, 88s exploding all around ... not so ideal.

Tested over Utah, in clear weather, with no shootback, pretty good. Tested over Europe, with clouds, varying winds, and big cannons shooting back -- not so good.

 

[GrauGeist]

Keep in mind, that the high-altitude bomber concept was a product of the 1930's and would soon be revealed as impractical.

The B-17 was supposed to protect American shores by flying out to meet the enemy and bomb their ships from high-altitude.
We saw how well this idea worked at Midway.

 

[SaparotRob]

The B-17 was supposed to protect American shores by flying out to meet the enemy and bomb their ships from high-altitude.
We saw how well this idea worked at Midway.

But it did find the ships. It was good at finding ships. So it did meet that mid-thirties requirement. Granted other planes did do it better. Especially the hitting part.

 

[GrauGeist]

But it did find the ships. It was good at finding ships. So it did meet that mid-thirties requirement. Granted other planes did do it better. Especially the hitting part.

Well, the finding thing was good, true.

But the whole idea was to bomb the eff out of the enemy and make them regret their decision to invade - this, they did not accomplish.

 

[yulzari]

Kamikaze?

Pigeons?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Keep in mind, that the high-altitude bomber concept was a product of the 1930's and would soon be revealed as impractical.

The B-17 was supposed to protect American shores by flying out to meet the enemy and bomb their ships from high-altitude.
We saw how well this idea worked at Midway.

Develop the GB-4 or equivalent and the B-17s will be up to that task. The challenge is we're seeing high altitude bomber aircraft being proposed or developed independently of the weapon. What was the point of Germany's Amerikabomber program if all you're going to get is a few aircraft dropping about 3 mt of bombs over a vast country?

 

[Shortround6]

In the late 1930s a lot of developments were occurring at the same time.
Radios (and radio navigation), engines/props, bombsights, airframes and so on.
Somethings took a little longer than others but if you wait to design your big bomber until you have a working wonder bombsight you may have to wait 3-4 years for the airframe and engines. Of course having a great bomb sight doesn't do much good if your engines keep catching fire while climbing to altitude.
Sometimes the airframes took less time to develop than the 'extra' stuff like bomb sights and heated suits and good oxygen equipment. Getting a number of 'systems' to all be ready at once was not easy. Mistakes were going to be made.

 

[bf109xxl]

What part of the route would the bombers pass at 40k feet if the H2S radar used for navigation was designed for an altitude of 20k feet? Would it be worth it to waste a lot of fuel to reach 40k feet?

 

[wuzak]

What part of the route would the bombers pass at 40k feet if the H2S radar used for navigation was designed for an altitude of 20k feet? Would it be worth it to waste a lot of fuel to reach 40k feet?

Gee, Oboe and Gee-H would be useable to a much greater range with the bomber at 40,000ft vs 20,000ft.

That's why Mosquitoes were employed as pathfinders - they flew at around 30,000ft.

Also, US bombers with the H2X radar flew much higher than 20,000ft, and the British H2S Mk III was equivalent.

 

[bf109xxl]

Gee, Oboe and Gee-H would be useable to a much greater range with the bomber at 40,000ft vs 20,000ft.

Neither Gee nor Oboe could replace H2S in raids deep into the Reich. In the second half of 1944, the H2S was the primary navigational aid for long-range bombers.

Also, US bombers with the H2X radar flew much higher than 20,000ft, and the British H2S Mk III was equivalent.

All of them were designed for altitudes of 20k feet. Above that, scanning quality was not guaranteed.

 

[buffnut453]

All of them were designed for altitudes of 20k feet. Above that, scanning quality was not guaranteed.

Can you please provide a little more detail on what you mean by "guaranteed" scanning quality?

Inherently, H2X offered a (roughly) 3-times improvement in resolution at a given altitude compared to H2S, due to its wavelength being one-third the length of the H2S system. Increasing the altitude will reduce radar resolution but H2X will still offer a substantive improvement over H2S.

Given the operational history, H2X offered a sufficient improvement for it to be used at higher altitudes…or am I missing something?