Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
50% more than the Manhattan project
Parts of that cost are:
Wright Duplex-CyclonesAnd lastly tooling up to build >1,500/yr (plus you have to factor in the modification centers).
Remote control turrets
Pressurization
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.
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).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?
Well, the RAF was developing SABS (which was a tachometric bombsight similar to the Norden, though it didn't connect to the autopilot).How do you achieve reasonable accuracy from 40,000 feet? We're not drop atomic bombs here.
Kamikaze?How do you achieve reasonable accuracy from 40,000 feet? We're not drop atomic bombs here.
Wasn't the Norden mostly vapourware rubbish?Well, the RAF was developing SABS (which was a tachometric bombsight similar to the Norden, though it didn't connect to the autopilot).
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?
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.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.
Well, the finding thing was good, true.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.
Pigeons?Kamikaze?
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?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.
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?
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.Gee, Oboe and Gee-H would be useable to a much greater range with the bomber at 40,000ft vs 20,000ft.
All of them were designed for altitudes of 20k feet. Above that, scanning quality was not guaranteed.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.