Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ayup, and if that WWII Z-730 night fighter had a couple of Vulcans mounted in shock absorbing wobble mounts, it might even score a few hits, even with the primitive radar it had. That's assuming it was real close to its target. I don't think I'd want be that close behind a target I can't see, especially if I'm about to start causing it to shed pieces of airplane.That's why I shot trap: one of them BBs hit the bird 91% of the time
With day fighting you would generally fire and then walk the rounds onto the target. At night that would probably not work unless you had tracers that were fairly dim.You're right, the radar can give you the range, azimuth, and elevation of your target, but not precisely enough to land your rounds on target with the technology of the time.
I've never fired a gun at all.You clearly haven't done much shooting in the real world.
Well, it's about time you learned. I bet your local Police Department or Sheriff offers a firearms safety course, or can refer you to one. In today's gun-saturated world, everyone should know and understand about guns and how to handle them safely, even if they're not interested in shooting for sport. Like it or not, a gun is apt to touch your life someday in some way you'd never expect. You're safer if you have some idea what they're about and know how to deal with them wisely. Just a thought.I've never fired a gun at all.
With day fighting you would generally fire and then walk the rounds onto the target. At night that would probably not work unless you had tracers that were fairly dim.
TrueNot for the "better" pilots.
Well, at night it would allow you to track the position of the plane continuously and compute lead to plunk rounds on target from a greater distance. The issue is that you'd lose situational awareness to other aircraft.You would not want a gun layer in a fighter with fixed guns. It has no advantage, and several disadvantages, over an AI radar in such an application.
That does raise a few questionsA tracking radar can indeed give you AZ, EL, and Range to the target, but so can an AI radar. But the tracking radar (at least until the advent of TWS, Track While Scan) can only track one target at a time. The APG-1/2 could only track one target at a time, meaning you lost all SA to other aircraft, targets or friendlies, that might be in the area.
For some reason I thought you had one scope for elevation, one for azimuth...
That time period almost exactly coincides with the era of the gunless missile-only fighter. Do you suppose there's a reason?While it might not have been called a TWS, the radar used on the F3D did have such a capability: Why did later aircraft seem to lose this capability until the F6D and F-14?
For some reason I thought you had one scope for elevation, one for azimuth...
[The Mk. IV display system consisted of two 3-inch (7.6 cm) diameter cathode ray tubes connected to a common timebase generator normally set to cross the display in the time it would take to receive a signal from 20,000 feet (6.1 km). The displays were installed beside each other at the radar operator's station at the rear of the Beaufighter. The tube on the left showed the vertical situation (altitude) and the one on the right showed the horizontal situation (azimuth)./QUOTE]
The United States first started looking into guided missiles either right at the end of WWII or post WWII. This applied to both the USAAF/USAF and the USN. The bulk were generally designed to destroy bombers in both cases (Ironically the AIM-4 was designed as a bomber-defense weapon, but they decided they'd use it against bombers instead), and it seems many radar developments were built around tracking targets at long-range and guiding missiles into them, then gunnery.XBe02Drvr said:That time period almost exactly coincides with the era of the gunless missile-only fighter. Do you suppose there's a reason?
Well, at night it would allow you to track the position of the plane continuously and compute lead to plunk rounds on target from a greater distance. The issue is that you'd lose situational awareness to other aircraft.
That does raise a few questions
- Why did the USN use the APG-1 on night-fighters then?
- While it might not have been called a TWS, the radar used on the F3D did have such a capability: Why did later aircraft seem to lose this capability until the F6D and F-14?
For some reason I thought you had one scope for elevation, one for azimuth...
In the mid to late 50s USN was very concerned by the Soviets doctrine of compensating for their lack of carriers by equipping fast long range bombers with standoff missiles to take out carrier task forces. The F4D Skyray was essentially a point defense interceptor and the F3H Demon had neither the speed nor the reach that this new development required.The USN could essentially be facing anything from nuclear-equipped bombers, to reconnaissance and fighter aircraft: Early on this would have encouraged the need for guns instead of just rockets.
Okay, though I should point out the P-61 was more a bomber-sized aircraft than a fighter-sized one (it just maneuvered very well for its size), the F4U and F6F's carried their radars in either a pod in the wings or underneath the fuselage in a modified bomb-pod or drop-tank (forgot which).Lets not lose track of the timeline here. When I said "You would not want a gun layer in a fighter with fixed guns. It has no advantage, and several disadvantages, over an AI radar in such an application." I was talking about what was available at the time of the SCR-720 or the APG-1 and that could be put in a fighter size aircraft.
From what I remember the P-61's entered service in 1944, and so did the USN's night-fighters. I don't know when the P-61B's were tested with the gun-laying radar, but the impression I always got was that it was at some point during the P-61's test program or around the time the P-61B's were entering service.The APG-1/2, as far as I can tell, had no computation ability. Later system, late in the war, did have such ability.
The F6F-N variants used the APG-1 far as I know...I was not aware the USN ever used the APG-1 in night-fighters?
It seemed the F2H-2N (had just guns), F4D (guns/rockets/missiles), and F3H (guns/missiles) all had radars that provided gun-laying capability, but it seems none had the ability to do both functions.Not sure what you mean by later aircraft losing the capability. Many aircraft between the F3D and the F-14, assuming their roles called for it, had similar capability.
The F4D and F3H took a considerable amount of time to enter service due to the J40 engine. While I'm not sure how the SFC of the J57 compared to the J40, there were complaints about the range of the F4D. I'm not sure if this had to do with a change in the desired intercept radius, whether the engine bay modifications ate into some fuel-space, and/or the J40's SFC (or listed SFC) figures were quite low. The aircraft was fitted with a pair of streamlined supersonic drop-tanks.In the mid to late 50s USN was very concerned by the Soviets doctrine of compensating for their lack of carriers by equipping fast long range bombers with standoff missiles to take out carrier task forces. The F4D Skyray was essentially a point defense interceptor and the F3H Demon had neither the speed nor the reach that this new development required.
The F4H and XF8U-3 were both designed with aerial combat in mind to some extent. Interception was the primary role, but it was expected to engage in aerial combat.Enter the F4H Phantom, designed above all else to go far, get there quick, and detect and destroy inbound intruders as far from the ship as possible. In-close dogfights were not part of this picture, as the attackers would be far outside the range of any possible escort fighters. Hence no gun.
I'm not sure if I'd say unheard of, but it was pretty impressive. The F-106A had similar absolute range, but I could be wrong (the F-106A underwent numerous modifications), but the F-4B had better engagement ranges.Navy F4s had a prodigious powerful radar with a detection and tracking range unheard of for an AI set at the time, designed to function without surface or airborne intercept control or support.
I'm not totally sure about that: The XF8U-3 could carry a blister underneath the rear fuselage that would have made a gun-pack possible. I'm also not entirely sure why we couldn't build something that could read the enemy's IFF.It wasn't until Vietnam forced a number of different aircraft to function outside their original design missions that the need for those extra features and the miniaturization to make them feasible was recognized and incorporated in the F-teens generation fighters.
Okay, though I should point out the P-61 was more a bomber-sized aircraft than a fighter-sized one (it just maneuvered very well for its size), the F4U and F6F's carried their radars in either a pod in the wings or underneath the fuselage in a modified bomb-pod or drop-tank (forgot which).
From what I remember the P-61's entered service in 1944, and so did the USN's night-fighters. I don't know when the P-61B's were tested with the gun-laying radar, but the impression I always got was that it was at some point during the P-61's test program or around the time the P-61B's were entering service.
The F6F-N variants used the APG-1 far as I know...
It seemed the F2H-2N (had just guns), F4D (guns/rockets/missiles), and F3H (guns/missiles) all had radars that provided gun-laying capability, but it seems none had the ability to do both functions.
So the system was connected to an additional computer that provided lead computation and so on.The P-61 may have entered service in mid 1944 (I don't know the date of entry to service), but it is a pre-war program. And the 6 P-61B-25-NO aircraft that were fitted with the APG-1/2 were, I believe, ordered in 1942.
Yeah, you'd take the data and project it onto a reflector site so you could simply put the reticle on target.You either need to develop a sight that works with the computer and radar to predict lead
True enough, and I guess that's a fire-control radar.I think you are missing a key point here, gun laying radars are generally part of a turret / moving gun system.
Then why was track while scan so big a deal? If these designs could both search and track simultaneously, isn't that the whole point?Unless I have lost track of what is being said, are you saying these aircraft had gun laying radars (lets call them by their correct term, Fire Control Radars, FCR) but no ability to search? I am pretty sure that is not correct. They may not all have had radars capable of both search and track at the same time, but they did have radars that could both search and track.
You're just not getting it. Your basic AI radar right up to the advent of the F-teens generation fighters could search and could track (lock), but couldn't do both simultaneously. The difference is due to the antenna designs. Conventional AI radars had antennas that projected a radar "beam" from the center axis of the antenna dish and swept the sky ahead in a pattern of azimuth and elevation not unlike the scan pattern of an old CRT TV. This was accomplished by swinging the entire dish side to side and up and down while the operator watched for a momentary blip on the screen when the beam swung across a target. If a target was spotted the operator could take manual control of the antenna and its beam, focus it on the target and lock it on. Once locked on, the beam is no longer scanning, hence blind to any other targets out there, but does provide illumination of the target for the benefit of a radar guided missile. It's the signal generated by the locking (tracking) and illumination functions of the beam that sets off the missile warning alarms in the target's ECM gear.Then why was track while scan so big a deal? If these designs could both search and track simultaneously, isn't that the whole point?
When I was in, there were still pilots around who remembered the F3H, and called it "Delta Oscar Golf! Yeah, it was supersonic....balls-to-the-walls downhill with a tailwind. And by the time you got 1.01 on your machmeter you better be pointed towards homeplate, cause you're bingo fuel."The F3H as originally designed was pretty impressive, but as time went on, the changes to make it into an all weather plane did exact some penalty in performance
When the F4H was in development, the shorter range air superiority (gun) fighter role was already being addressed by the F8U. The Phantom was intended to deal with long range mid ocean standoff missile attacks of the 4Bs variety (Beagle, Badger, Beauty, Blinder), as well as the nuclear delivery mission. Dogfighting just wasn't in the picture.The carriers mobility allows it's aircraft to be greatly more effective for their size, but it also means that you're closer to the enemy too, and you are not just within range of the longest range bombers with/without cruise-missiles, but shorter ranged aircraft including fighters.
It had to do with the Soviets being more adept at intelligence and data collection than they were with electronics technology. While they weren't as advanced in raw technology, they were very good at copying and countering ours. They recorded and analyzed all kinds of electronic emissions and figured out how to ape them and fox them. Many a controller, suspicious of a transatlantic airliner that appeared on his scope a few minutes too soon, sent interceptors out to discover a Bear or a Backfire squawking the airliner's code and flying the airliner's flight planned route and speed. Once the bomber was intercepted and directed to squawk standby, the airliner's transponder would become visible a few miles in trail.Unfortunately, they couldn't read the enemy IFF. I'm not sure if this had to do with newer Soviet IFF,
The F106, while it had impressive radar range for a land based interceptor, was quite a different beast entirely. It was designed to operate in a totally GCI environment under SAGE control, so had narrower field of view in both elevation and azimuth, and its maneuvering gimble limits were tighter. Because the pilot had to fly both the airplane and the radar, task saturation had to be taken into account when laying out the operating options of the radar set. Again, the intended target was heavy bombers.The F-106A had similar absolute range, but I could be wrong
Then why was track while scan so big a deal? If these designs could both search and track simultaneously, isn't that the whole point?
In this way, multiple beams could be generated tracking multiple targets while still having a functioning scan.
I misinterpreted several different things that seemed to be contradictory.XBe02Drvr said:You're just not getting it. Your basic AI radar right up to the advent of the F-teens generation fighters could search and could track (lock), but couldn't do both simultaneously.
While this is totally off topic -- it's kind of amazing how complicated and fast acting the technology was needed just to create a workable TV. I mean taking an image, and then turning that into a signal that includes the basic data and transmitting it to a device that turns that into a whole bunch of lines that vary in light level and color across their widths about 24-30 times every second (old analog) in reliable detail.a pattern of azimuth and elevation not unlike the scan pattern of an old CRT TV.
That I getThis was accomplished by swinging the entire dish side to side and up and down while the operator watched for a momentary blip on the screen when the beam swung across a target. If a target was spotted the operator could take manual control of the antenna and its beam, focus it on the target and lock it on. Once locked on, the beam is no longer scanning, hence blind to any other targets out there, but does provide illumination of the target for the benefit of a radar guided missile. It's the signal generated by the locking (tracking) and illumination functions of the beam that sets off the missile warning alarms in the target's ECM gear.
So it was supersonic in a very limited perspective...When I was in, there were still pilots around who remembered the F3H, and called it "Delta Oscar Golf! Yeah, it was supersonic....balls-to-the-walls downhill with a tailwind. And by the time you got 1.01 on your machmeter you better be pointed towards homeplate, cause you're bingo fuel."
Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that the decision to use the F8U for close in combat was more of a decision based on the limits of the F4H? Regardless, I remember being told that the idea was to have the F4H's used (even in that case) to blow away a whole bunch of aircraft; then let the F8U's go in with their missiles and guns and cut-apart whatever was left?When the F4H was in development, the shorter range air superiority (gun) fighter role was already being addressed by the F8U. The Phantom was intended to deal with long range mid ocean standoff missile attacks of the 4Bs variety (Beagle, Badger, Beauty, Blinder), as well as the nuclear delivery mission. Dogfighting just wasn't in the picture.
Actually I'm not sure that's true regarding the NSA, unfortunately I'm not sure if they told policy makers what they found (it seems to have little value to collect information when you have no intention to give it to the policy makers to make decisions based on).It had to do with the Soviets being more adept at intelligence and data collection than they were with electronics technology.
Like how if I didn't know the exact details how something worked but if I knew that "if I do this, then that and this -- this happens?"While they weren't as advanced in raw technology, they were very good at copying and countering ours. They recorded and analyzed all kinds of electronic emissions and figured out how to ape them and fox them.
So they were jamming the airliner, then duplicating it and rebroadcasting it as their own? Not cool that it was done to us, it was pretty awesome in creativity.Many a controller, suspicious of a transatlantic airliner that appeared on his scope a few minutes too soon, sent interceptors out to discover a Bear or a Backfire squawking the airliner's code and flying the airliner's flight planned route and speed. Once the bomber was intercepted and directed to squawk standby, the airliner's transponder would become visible a few miles in trail.
Like for reconnaissance operations? Smart...Also, it was not unheard of for US intelligence assets to use Soviet IFF codes.
That decision was based on the start of the Vietnam War. Prior to that, the premise was BVR would be allowed for fighters too. Unfortunately, we couldn't read their IFF: If I recall, starting in 1962, we couldn't read the Cuban's IFF's (which is why I wondered if it was an export or communist block variant of the IFF, as I don't recall the F-106 drivers having any trouble).Definitely not the scenario the F4 was designed for. BVR Verboten!
I'm not entirely sure about the gimbal limits, but I do remember the F-102 did have a terrain contour mapping feature as a navigation aid which seems to indicate it can aim at the ground.The F106, while it had impressive radar range for a land based interceptor, was quite a different beast entirely. It was designed to operate in a totally GCI environment under SAGE control, so had narrower field of view in both elevation and azimuth, and its maneuvering gimble limits were tighter. Because the pilot had to fly both the airplane and the radar, task saturation had to be taken into account when laying out the operating options of the radar set. Again, the intended target was heavy bombers.
Sorry, I misread...Token said:Read what I posted again, I did not say these could search and track at the same time, what I said was "They may not all have had radars capable of both search and track at the same time, but they did have radars that could both search and track".
Is that why the F3H's had a beam-emitter separate from the radar to guide missiles (the AAM-N-2 was a radar-beam rider, and was slaved to the optical sight).I also mentioned that the few who could do both simultaneously generally did this using multiple radars, not a single radar.
Which means it would be rapidly switching from search to track and back and forth at such an incredibly fast rate that to the human brain it would seem like it was all happening simultaneously.Even after single radar TWS and phased array, most radars really don't really do booth simultaneously, although they may appear to. See below for what I mean by that.
You end up divvying up power to produce the multiple beams?It was not until the advent of AESA that multiple simultaneous beams really became a thing. And even then there are disadvantages to doing such.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I was going to get into an analogy of chopped scan/alternate scan on an Oscope, but decided my complexity quotient was already getting out of hand. You made it clear and concise. Thanks.It is generally still preferred to hit your potential targets with all you have to give, and rapidly sequence through them.