Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
"a round trip of 850 miles..." would alude to being 425 miles each way, but maybe it depends on how you define the term "round trip".
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"a round trip of 850 miles..." would alude to being 425 miles each way, but maybe it depends on how you define the term "round trip".Spit VIII had much better range than a Spit V. But if I'm reading that right, "a round trip of some 850 miles taking 4.5 hours." wouldn't quite cut it to Rabaul from Guadalcanal. Maybe 2/3 of the way there and back.
Unless he means 850 miles each way.
"a round trip of 850 miles..." would alude to being 425 miles each way, but maybe it depends on how you define the term "round trip".
Well we keep thinking both guns and maneuverability are over, but we have learned several times we were wrong. I assume you have read about what happened in Vietnam which led to the creation of the Top Gun school, and the re-introduction of the gun to the F4 Phantom etc.
I would also note that several modern jets fighters - F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Grippen, Su-30 are all considered highly maneuverable or even 'hyper-maneuverable'. I think the Chinese J-20 as well though I am not as familiar with Chinese types.
Agility in a jet fighter can still help (I think) with evading missiles, with nap of the earth flying and for air combat when the missiles are used up.
I know we have an F-15 pilot on the forum maybe he can chime in on this?
Now days another element is in the mix - human control (or not). I suspect that will last longer than people think as well.
I never said guns were passe. I said that missiles made both speed and maneuverability less important.
Google maps is your friend.
It is about 360-370 miles from Darwin to Cape Lore in Timor in a straight line.
I don't know were the aircraft were based out of, but some where near Darwin makes sense and allows for a few dog legs.
Again look at a map. the Darwin vicinity is one of two points on Australian (not including Islands) that are closest to East Timor and since there a number of bases/airfields around Darwin not much else makes sense.
I mean, I understood it pretty well I think. And I was pointing out that this was a debate in aircraft design through the 20th Century and right into today.
For example this plane...
View attachment 726946
... was proposed already in the late 1950s as jet which had a long loiter time and could just fly around carrying a lot of missiles.
The notion that missiles kind of made everything else obsolete was the basis for this proposed design, but we don't seem to have gotten there yet.
I'm not any kind of expert on jet fighters, so this is not me trying to claim I can fully encompass the issue, it's just my take on it.
yesYou referring to the Spit VIII trip?
The F35A has an internal gun, the B&C do not IIRC. It will be interesting to see if an old lesson becomes a new one…Well we keep thinking both guns and maneuverability are over, but we have learned several times we were wrong. I assume you have read about what happened in Vietnam which led to the creation of the Top Gun school, and the re-introduction of the gun to the F4 Phantom etc.
I would also note that several modern jets fighters - F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Grippen, Su-30 are all considered highly maneuverable or even 'hyper-maneuverable'. I think the Chinese J-20 as well though I am not as familiar with Chinese types.
Agility in a jet fighter can still help (I think) with evading missiles, with nap of the earth flying and for air combat when the missiles are used up.
I know we have an F-15 pilot on the forum maybe he can chime in on this?
Now days another element is in the mix - human control (or not). I suspect that will last longer than people think as well.
The F35A has an internal gun, the B&C do not IIRC. It will be interesting to see if an old lesson becomes a new one…
The thing I wrestle with is why do we need a very expensive stealth fighter to do CAS? With a gun pod. That is VTOL.
Personally I would want the gun, it is reliable, un-jamable, and provides instant gratification / feedback.
There is a big difference in the maneuverability of modern missiles and old missiles.I never said guns were passe. I said that missiles made both speed and maneuverability less important.
If you are carrying a gun, maneuverability I would think, goes hand in hand. Also, as mentioned missiles can be defeated via countermeasures and or maneuvering. I would want a maneuverable fighter, but realize speed can help when trying to defeat a missile. Get launched on by an adversary, do a big check turn, speed up or turn around and go "out". The faster you go, better you accelerate, the closer your enemy can be when you can turn and run successfully.I 100% agree about very (very) expensive Stealth fighter for CAS. I bet a lot of people in the USMC agree too.
As far as why you might need a gun, or to turn well, one scenario i can imagine happening is that countermeasures for missiles improve a lot. I mean, that's part of the point of Stealth right? These things don't typically remain static anyway.
Another scenario which seems like an obvious possibility is that you were simply outnumbered.
What is your take on maneuverability in modern fighters? Necessary? Helpful? or un-needed?
There is a big difference in the maneuverability of modern missiles and old missiles.
Missiles, in theory, are easier to design because you don't have provide a pressurized, temperature controlled environment that won't squash the guidance system (pilot) like a bug in a high G maneuver.
However trying to generate enough G forces with tiny control surfaces was a bit more difficult than they thought and the common alternative, thrust vectoring using vanes that stuck into the rocket efflux degraded propulsion. Propulsion itself took quite some time to sort out. Solid fuel often gave two choices. High thrust for a short time or low thrust for a long time.
You could use high thrust for a short time to get up to speed ( mach 2 or better) with a low thrust sustainer (stretch the coasting) but that was not adjustable by the pilot or guidance system. Common techniques in the early days of forcing the missiles to make several sharp turns exhausted the missiles propulsion envelope even if the missile had a seeker that would allow for re=engagement.
Much better rocket motor technology allows for not only more speed, endurance but for higher G turns.
I think we are in the age of throttle-able missiles according to Aviation Week.There is a big difference in the maneuverability of modern missiles and old missiles.
Missiles, in theory, are easier to design because you don't have provide a pressurized, temperature controlled environment that won't squash the guidance system (pilot) like a bug in a high G maneuver.
However trying to generate enough G forces with tiny control surfaces was a bit more difficult than they thought and the common alternative, thrust vectoring using vanes that stuck into the rocket efflux degraded propulsion. Propulsion itself took quite some time to sort out. Solid fuel often gave two choices. High thrust for a short time or low thrust for a long time.
You could use high thrust for a short time to get up to speed ( mach 2 or better) with a low thrust sustainer (stretch the coasting) but that was not adjustable by the pilot or guidance system. Common techniques in the early days of forcing the missiles to make several sharp turns exhausted the missiles propulsion envelope even if the missile had a seeker that would allow for re=engagement.
Much better rocket motor technology allows for not only more speed, endurance but for higher G turns.
Also, the greater the speed of the missiles, the less G they will need to pull at end game as even a super maneuverable plane won't be able to move enough to change the outcome.
Of course it's ~425 miles each way. I've never suggested otherwise. That raid is just a data point for use in evaluating the Mk VIII's range. Allied mission planners tended to be very conservative about mission range, and so the standard 1/3 range to target, 1/3 range over target, 1/3 range return is a typical plan. The IJN didn't think that way, and were prepared to make a much smaller allowance for time over the target and even order one way missions, where the aircrew would plan to ditch their aircraft! However, even the IJN and the Zero's designer thought that the ~560nm/645mile range from Rabual to Guadalcanal was stretching the Zero's range to the maximum:"a round trip of 850 miles..." would alude to being 425 miles each way, but maybe it depends on how you define the term "round trip".
The Imperial Navy faced immense problems prosecuting a successful air offensive against Guadalcanal, many of its own making. The nearest fully operational airfields to the target remained the cluster of bases around Rabaul: Vunakanau Field (Rabaul West) for the bombers and the fighter strip at Lakunai (Rabaul East) set beneath a massive volcano. All lay at least 560 miles from Guadalcanal, entailing strike missions of eight hours or more. The auxiliary field at Buka, 400 miles from Guadalcanal, was used only sporadically for lack of support facilities.
The extremely long and fatiguing missions down the "Guadal Highway" (Gadaru Gaitō), as the Japanese nicknamed the Slot, adversely effected the Zero fighter escorts. To save fuel many pilots fought with their belly tanks attached, which reduced combat performance. Even so the fighter leaders set a maximum of 15 minutes over Guadalcanal. Most of the Rabaul Zeros, clipped-wing A6M3 Model 32s with 20 percent less range than the A6M2 Model 21s, could not even reach Guadalcanal and return. Work had only begun on the vital airstrip at Buin on southern Bougainville opposite Shortland Island and 300 miles from Guadalcanal. Until its completion set for late September, no Zero 32s could be used, and crippled aircraft enjoyed no refuge short of Buka. (First Team V2)
And when you look at the losses suffered by the Japanese you really need to wonder if the range they had was worth it, I've posted this before but the Japanese would regularly suffer double digit losses on their missions, on another thread their losses were proven to be 50%, that's simply unsustainable.Consequently provision was made for an alternate ditching point and landing strip for A6M2-21's that couldn't make it back to Rabual. The IJNAF also stripped the radio's and radio masts from the A6M2-21 to lighten it further and stretch out every bit of range possible and these kinds of mods would not be considered in most other AFs.
a half a dozen bulldozers may have made a significant difference to Solomon's campaign.And when you look at the losses suffered by the Japanese you really need to wonder if the range they had was worth it, I've posted this before but the Japanese would regularly suffer double digit losses on their missions, on another thread their losses were proven to be 50%, that's simply unsustainable.
And when you look at the losses suffered by the Japanese you really need to wonder if the range they had was worth it, I've posted this before but the Japanese would regularly suffer double digit losses on their missions, on another thread their losses were proven to be 50%, that's simply unsustainable.
a half a dozen bulldozers may have made a significant difference to Solomon's campaign.