Maritime patrol aircraft: you are in charge

[davebender]

Seaplanes and seaplane tenders were essential in the Pacific. It's the only way to quickly establish long range recon over an area of operation. Seaplanes were mature technology by the 1930s so you aren't limited to a specific type. American, British, German and Japanese seaplanes will all work just fine. I am not familiar with French and Italian seaplanes but they probably also had good types in service.

The Atlantic, Mediterranean, Baltic and Black Sea are an entirely different matter. You are probably futher ahead using long range land based aircraft.

Ju 88H-1

The Ju-88H is an interesting possibility for the German Navy. Historically 10 were built for Fliegerfuhrer Atlantik late in the war but there's no reason the German Navy cannot purchase them from 1940 onward and in greater numbers. Then they won't need to consider using converted Fw-200 airliners.

 

[parsifal]

Hands down, the best flying boats were of japanese origin. These are the main types to consider

Aichi E13A - Jake prewar ship borne scout recon and spotter plane. Strong and stable, rated as long ranged ( range 1300 nm)

Aichi E16A Zuiun later replacement of the Jake (from August 1943. Top Speed 273mp, range 1600 miles.


LR maritime recon - prewar. Mavis flying boat. Range 4210 miles (prewar

Lr Maritme patrol, transport and recon from 1942 Emily (range 4500 miles)

Floatplane Fighters (also recon): Prewar Pete, 235 mph, range 460 miles 3 x 7.7mm

Floatplane Fighters: 1942 Rufe 271 mph, range 1107 miles, 2 x 20mm, 2 x 7.7mm

Floatplane Fighters: 1943 Rex, max speed 305 mph, range 1050 miles, 2x 20mm, 2 x 7.7mm


Hypothetical TE recon machiune

Ki 46 Dinah. in its land plane configuration it had the following performance:

391mph max speed, range 2485 miles.

it was never used by the IJN

 

[davebender]

Why do you say that?

 

[pbfoot]

Why do you say that?

because the HK8 Emily surpassed anything else out there

 

[davebender]

H8K. Entered service February 1942.
4,440 mile range (per Wikipedia)

Do-26. Entered service during 1939.
5,592 mile range (per Wikipedia)

 

[pbfoot]

H8K. Entered service February 1942.
4,440 mile range (per Wikipedia)

Do-26. Entered service during 1939.
5,592 mile range (per Wikipedia)

well IMHO the Emily was a warbird the DO26 more like something that Ricardo Montabon met with Tatoo

 

[Shortround6]

What was the practical range of the Do 26?

That 5,592 mile range is for the lower powered, unarmed civilian version and is highly questionable even then as to normal take off vs catapult take-off and load carried. The original specification called for a crew of 4 and 1100lbs (500kg) of mail to be carried over a 3300 mile stage. With allowances for head winds the MAX range (no reserves) was the 5,592 mile figure.

The V6 is credited with a "normal" range of 2,980 miles and a MAX range of 4410 miles. Guns fitted but no bombs.

Bombs could have been fitted but then you have the extra drag cutting into the range.

 

[Shortround6]

The great combat range is essential to close the Atlantic gap (for RAF RCAF, later for USAAF), to make a dog-leg maneuver in oder to avoid Coastal Command Beaufighters like (for LW), or to cover vast Pacific areas (for all belligerents there). So a 4-engined plane makes a lot of sense.
The 2-engined plane could be acquired in greater numbers, while able to conduct low-level strikes vs. shipping. I'd go for high-low mix, ie. one 2-engined plus another 4-engined design.

Long range maritime "patrol" planes make lousy strike aircraft against ships with any real quantity of AA guns.

Good "strike" aircraft make lousy Long range maritime "patrol" planes.

It is not a question of a high and low mix but of trying to combine two rather different jobs.

In 1938-1940 even most Battleships (all the pre 1930 ones anyway) had lousy anti-aircraft batteries and even slow lumbering planes had a chance against armed merchantmen, Destroyers and even a fair number of cruisers. By 1943-44 such a plane would have been committing virtual suicide doing a low level attack against the massed batteries of 20-40mm guns most large ships carried.

 

[parsifal]

H8K. Entered service February 1942.
4,440 mile range (per Wikipedia)

Do-26. Entered service during 1939.
5,592 mile range (per Wikipedia)

Both these numbers are essentially meaningless in the context of operational range, which is what really has to be looked at. Emilys could not fly operationally 4400 miles. During the midway operation, it was planned to toeken bomb Pearl Harbour with Emily's based in Kwaj. if they had the 4500 mile range quoted for them they could have flown all the way from kwaj to Oahu and back, without stopping. not even an emily could do that. instead it was planned for the group to refuel from a tender that was to be moved to a place called "french frigate shoals". USN got wind of the operation and sank the tender. Mission had to be aborted.

Japanese floatplanes nevertheless undertook some truly amazing recon operations throughout the war. For example, emily's flew all the way from the the western carolines to the marshalls and staged back to Truk (eastern Carolines) just prior to Phil Sea. There are lots of examples like that. Nobody, allied, or axis ever came anywhere near the proficiency of the japanese in terms of their maritime recon a/c (which means floatplanes). it was the one area in the japanese inventory where aircrew standards were not allowed to frop through the floor.

Now, its all well and good to quote a 5500 range for the Do-26. On what occasions was it used at that range, except for commerical or transit flights. At that range, the germans could have maintained an eye on Panama from Western Europe. Why didnt they? The answer is they couldnt, anymore than the Japanese would have been able to.

Nobody outranged the the Japanese or outperformed them in this one specialised area throughout the war. Perhaps the VLR US aircraft like the the privateer or their late war flying Boats (Coronados I think they were called) ...maybe, but i doubt it.

 

[Juha]

Hello Parsifal
even if PB2Y Coronado had firepower and survivalability in same class as Emily, it was clearly shorter legged. You probably meant the massive Martin XPB2M-1 Mars, produced post-war as JRM-1 Mars as cargo planes. As maritime recon bomber configuration XPB2M-1 had max range of 4945 mls. But the Boeing XPBB-1 Sea Ranger had max range of 6300 mls.

Juha

 

[merlin]

Well as the heading is for Maritime patrol aircraft - I'll stick to 'Flying Boats', and as I'm British I'll stick to the RAF.
The Sunderland although classed as a Long-range Maritime recon. aircraft - the early model had a normal load range of 1780 mile, with the later Mk V going to 2,690 with a 1,668 lb bomb load.
The aircraft was based on Short "C" Class Flying Boat designed for Imperial Airways and Qantas Empire Airways. While this aircraft was for the Britain-Africa-India-Australia, something bigger was needed for the Atlantic - hence the Short "G" Class. In OTL only three were built - and taken over and militarised. Powered by four Hercules engines, span of 134 feet, weight - empty 37,700 lb., loaded 74,500 lb., range 3,200 miles with 2,000 lb bomb load.
Seems plausible that if Shorts don't build the Sunderland first more Sunderlands, second a purpose built military version of the "G" could be built and in service by 1941.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Good choices, the 4-engined planes. Would Catalina and Sea Ranger be able to skip-bomb a warship and live to talk about that (of course, with multiple plane attack)? How good would be the defence vs. Beaufighter or Ju-88 for the 2-engined types?

Think it's possible if it were done at night with a RADAR assist. Their night torpedo work (starting at Midway) was credible and got better as the war progressed. There were instances of low-atitude, horizontal- (or glide-?) bombing attacks... I have to read my recently acquired copy of Black Cat Raiders to see if a modified glide- or skip-bombing technique was ever done.

 

[davebender]

The only version which got built as Germany wasn't fighting in the Pacific. But if they were you can expect additional development and improvements.

Don't get me wrong, I like Japanese seaplanes just fine. But except for seaplane fighter aircraft I don't think Japanese seaplanes were greatly superior to those of other nations.

 

[parsifal]

Other nations did not do or achieve what the Japanese did with their maritime patrol aircraft. At least in terms of range and maritime recon. the Americans with their Black Cats and their mining efforts using PBYs achieved a lot. The Britis with their countless ASW patrol missions in the Atlantic and mnelaying activities around Europe were also significant. The best German mission I can think of were their recon missions in the far North (using BV 138s mostly). These were all very brave and very significant missions but the best seaplane missions that I know of are still by Japanese aviators. For example, E-13 Jakes during the Midway operation were catpulted from the tenders, whilst underway, flew missions to American Arctic territories, a distance of more than 800 miles, and then landed in the ice flow, in the pathway cleared by the tender which was still steaming as the aircraft landed. Thats gutsy, and you will be hard pressed to find any aircraft able to do that. For a start, there is of course the range, but also there is the strength and stability of the aircraft to attempt such a difficult landing. not many seaplanes would have the strength or the stability to do that.

Instead of just giving me opinion, or meaningless numbers, why not find the best missions the Germans undertook to compare them with some of the few anecdotal storeies I know of for the IJN. That way we really can determine things like operational range and real capabilities of aircraft.

If the germans really did have such a massively superior aircraft (in the form of the Do26, or any other aircraft) why didnt they build more of them. Saying the Germans were not enaged in the pacific is a furphy IMO, they were engaged in the Atlantic, and laboured for much of the war with inadequate equipment. The vaunted FW200 had an operational range that could just take it to a point just east of Icelend....hardly a decisive range, yet, still enough to cause the british enormous headaches. The maritime aircraft they used to lay mines and attack shipping around Britian 1939-41 were all inferior to anything in the Japanese inventory. If the Germans had possessed a decent seaplane force, in terms of quality and quantity, they could well have materially affected the course of the war. They didnt.....and saying they didnt need to because they werent engagged in the Pacific is just a non-sequita argument in my opinion

 

[oldcrowcv63]

For example, E-13 Jakes during the Midway operation were catpulted from the tenders, whilst underway, flew missions to American Arctic territories, a distance of more than 800 miles, and then landed in the ice flow, in the pathway cleared by the tender which was still steaming as the aircraft landed. Thats gutsy, and you will be hard pressed to find any aircraft able to do that. For a start, there is of course the range, but also there is the strength and stability of the aircraft to attempt such a difficult landing. not many seaplanes would have the strength or the stability to do that.

Saying the Germans were not enaged in the pacific is a furphy IMO, they were engaged in the Atlantic, and laboured for much of the war with inadequate equipment.

FURPHY! Had to look that up.

Let us not forget to mention the unheralded cruiser float plane missions flown by the SOC Seagulls during the battle of the Coral Sea. Like the IJN, the USN was using cruiser-based float planes, whith range similar to its enemy counterparts, the Mitsubishi F1M Pete and Nakajima E8N 'Dave,' for scouting and ASW patrols early on, and got equally good use out of the OS2U Kingfisher.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hey guys - everyone is talking about these long legged patrol aircraft but what kind of equipment are they carrying to FIND their targets, and IMO the primary target would be a sub (If an aircraft carrier happens to cruise by!) Brag about range and bombload, if you can't target anything you're just burning fuel!

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Hey guys - everyone is talking about these long legged patrol aircraft but what kind of equipment are they carrying to FIND their targets, and IMO the primary target would be a sub (If an aircraft carrier happens to cruise by!) Brag about range and bombload, if you can't target anything you're just burning fuel!

and boring holes...

 

[davebender]

British, German and U.S. maritime patrol aircraft carried effective ASV radar. What sort of ASV radar was carried by Japanese patrol aircraft?

 

[oldcrowcv63]

World War II Japanese radar - Naval History Forums

Mark VI Airborne Ship-search Radar
Quantity built more than 2,000 Peak power 3-6 kW
First used 1943 Pulse Length 3-10 microsecs
Maximum range 43 miles against a PRF 700-1,200
large ship
Frequencies used: 140 to 160 MHz

This can be compared to the British developed ASV systema:

ASV I mounted on Hudsons and Sunderlands (25 each by 1940)

peak power 0.1 kW, operating frequency 150? MHz, 1.5 m wavelength

Range: 10 miles on a 10,000 tone ship, 40 miles on a coastline, or a sub at 6 miles from an altitude of 6,000 feet.

Led to development of the long range ASV or LRASV demo-ed on a Whitley Bomber which could detect subs at 10-15 miles

IN operation by 1940

ASV II: mounted on Fairey Swordfish, Sunderlands, Wellingtons, Liberators, Beauforts, Warwicks Whitleys :

peak power 7 kW, operating frequency 176 MHz, wavelength 1.7 meter

Could detect vessels at 36 miles.

In operation by December 1941.

ASV III mounted on Fairey Albacore Swordfish:

peak power 10 kW, operating frequency 3000 MHz used to detect submarines, 10 cm wavelength

In operation by 1943.

Continual improvement of these systems by the British and Americans provided centimetric airborne systems by wars end:

The British Mark XI ASV and US AN/APS-2 3 providing reliable detection out to 40+ miles and +/-2 degrees in azimuth.

IN addition to RADAR there was HF/DF and some early versions of magnetic anomally detection gear for ASW. Sonobouys were also a WW2 development, First dropped by a B-18 Bolo in the Gulf. Think it was July 25, 1942. First operational squadron use was by RAF Sunderlands (wikipedia).

http://www.prc68.com/I/Sonobuoy.shtml

 

[Shortround6]

British, German and U.S. maritime patrol aircraft carried effective ASV radar. What sort of ASV radar was carried by Japanese patrol aircraft?

The Do 26 carried radar

The Do 26 was a very nice design for what it was intended for, a VERY specialized trans Atlantic MAIL plane.

The range you keep quoting is for a crew of 4 and 500kg of mail inside the plane causing NO drag. There are also no turrets or gun positions, no observation blisters, not even extensive glazing for searching using the the "Ball, eye, MK I"

The plane also achieved it's marvelous range using a catapult launch, a great technical achievement but it also means the plane could not reliably take off from the water with the design full load even with thousands of feet of "runway" (water) available. This last is why large seaplanes were so popular in the 30s, or to put it another way, why most of the largest planes in the world were seaplanes. They had, within some reason, unlimited runway length for take off compared to the land planes of the time. Needing a catapult that could handle a 20-24ton airplane rather restricts either it's range or it's deployment to a large degree.

The Do 24 was probably a better bet for a maritime patrol plane even if it's "book" range was less and it wasn't as technically "gee whiz" as the Do 26.

Many maritime patrol (not strike) aircraft carried extra crewmen as look outs/observers. Radar tells you something is there most of the time. It doesn't tell you what it is. It also had a hard time with course and speed.