I'm guessing RAND took over from 1945-1958?
RAND was, and is, not a government entity or office, it is essentially a civilian think tank, partially funded by the US Gov. OSRD and NDRC, and later DARPA, were / are government offices.
So it had to do with being able to maintain the bigger picture...
Possibly, as I said, conjecture. Given the limitations of the day I would probably opt for the AI radar myself, vs the AGL, in a fighter application.
Was this known to be a limitation as it was being developed? Because I'm just thinking about the whole turret-fighter, and it seems completely absurd without auto-track (and the limitations make auto-track less than ideally desirable).
Possibly, or maybe they thought it was something they would evolve past in short time. But again, did they know how a turret fighter would be used? Did the facts of how they were used change during the development phase of the P-61?
You can sometimes have seemingly great ideas in the early phases of a project, only to find that there are easier and less complex ways to achieve the same end goal or another end goal that is just as effective in the long run.
US military technological application during WW II was an example of risk management and logistical returns on investment. The US did not always field or go with the most advanced systems, rather tended to go with the most advanced that could be fielded in the largest numbers the quickest and for the best cost. 20,000 decent fighters by a certain date and cost often beats 1,000 outstanding fighters by the same date and cost.
Talking about fighters specifically, I think the above is what happened with the P-51 vs the P-38 in Europe. The P-38 was more capable early on, but the P-51 was less expensive and easier to make, and would be less expensive and easier to maintain. It made more sense to develop the P-51 into the long range escort fighter it would eventually become rather than to try to do the same thing with the P-38, even though there is no doubt the P-38 could have been made to get the ranges needed.
You wrote in reply #112
"Between the Rad Lab, Bell Labs, and Western Electric they moved pretty quick.
From very early 1941 on auto tracking radar was a done deal, it was just a matter of refinement, so planning for an auto tracking radar in the P-61 in late 1940 / early 1941 was ambitious, but not beyond reason or even particularly risky, although the final form would not yet be known. Planning for one in early 1942 was very safe, the techniques had already been proven and were now ready for production in another system, essentially all that had to be done was trim down the equipment for use in an aircraft. At this point a fairly clear picture of what the equipment on the aircraft would eventually look like had to exist."
I figured, what you said in reply #112, that they basically had a fairly clear picture of what the radar-equipment would look like.
What I wrote in #112 had to do with generalities, how the system would basically function and that the process was possible. To standardize, modularize, etc, you need a deeper understanding.
Look at where I said " although the final form would not yet be known". You can't standardize if you have no concept of the final form. I also said "At this point a fairly clear picture of what the equipment on the aircraft would eventually look like had to exist." By this I meant that they knew they could do it in a parabola of X size, with displays of Y and Z types. But that does not tell you how to modularize the transmitter, the HV section, the receiver, etc.
Naturally you CAN drive those parameters with design specifications, tell the vendors "you must produce a transmitter in this many square inches, using these connectors and mounting points". However that will generally delay delivery. The vendor must first overcome the technological issues, and then meet your packaging specifications rather than just generally making it fit. Not hard to do with mature technology, a major pain in the butt if you are the first one ever to do it.
WW II was not about delaying delivery, if at all possible.
So confusion is better to obscure numbers, deception is to avoid getting shot once they realize you are present?
As a general statement, sure. But in the world of EW you want to keep clear of sweeping, defining, statements like that. What applies in one situation may not in another. Adaptability is a key.
Okay, so you use the optics to triangulate the range coordinate and the X & Y from the radar and pop off the SAM?
I don't think anyone ever used such a solution in a fielded SAM system, but I do know it was used in some gun systems. Optics have been and are used in SAM systems, but I can't think of one that used optical range finding.
T!