P-61 or Reverse Lend Lease Mosquito

[wuzak]

I'd almost swear they had thought of making a turret fighter to counter the Fw.200 Condor.

There was a turret fighter prototype, W4053. The fighter prototype W4052 had flown earlier.

The turret fighter had nothing to do with the Fw 200.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What does POH mean?

POH = Pilot's Operating Handbook

Has to be onboard to fly.

 

[Robert Porter]

I got a little dizzy trying to read that, too many voices in my head!

 

[Shortround6]

Granted it is sort of a mock-up but it went with the Beaufighter abomination.

At what point sanity prevailed I don't know.

 

[Robert Porter]

Hmmmm, turret, on an F-35? Yeah lets do it!

 

[wuzak]

Granted it is sort of a mock-up but it went with the Beaufighter abomination.

At what point sanity prevailed I don't know.

This is W4053, the turret fighter prototype.

It was found that the drive motor wasn't powerful enough to overcome air resistance, and that the performance loss was quite substantial.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Mosquito with the turret and the Beaufighter with the turret were conceived for a night fighter specification to replace the Defiant. The Beaufighter was actually used in combat with 406 Sqn; the photo is of Beaufighter V R2274, but it was very slow, slower than the Defiant it was supposed to be replacing. It's interesting to note that before the Mosquito prototype flew, Sholto Douglas expected de Havilland to put a tail turret on the Mosquito before it was going to go into production and the prototype was to be built as a concept demonstrator, but thankfully, like SR stated, sanity prevailed and the tail turret Mossie was not proceeded with.

 

[Zipper730]

So to be clear, the radar system for the P-61 was supposed to be a blind-shooting radar-directed gun-laying system like the Skyknight had? This could be lined up with the guns or the turret?

 

[wuzak]

So to be clear, the radar system for the P-61 was supposed to be a blind-shooting radar-directed gun-laying system like the Skyknight had? This could be lined up with the guns or the turret?

No.

Radar was for searching and tracking target.

Pilot or gunner still had to aim the guns.

btw, the radar used in the P-61 (the SCR 720) was also used in Mosquitoes (as AI Mk X)- some NF.XIXs, most NF.30s, Maybe some NF.XVII.

 

[Zipper730]

FLYBOYJ

First the F-35 IS NOT a dedicated air to air fighter, but if used in that role it does not necessarily need to get on an enemy's 6 - it could stand off and fire from miles out and even interface with other aircraft in the vicinity and use their weapons.

When you say "use their weapons" do you mean take control of their A/C and fire-control system automatically, or simply assign them a target?

It could also compute a mission strategy by interfacing with other aircraft and even ground and naval weapons systems (like a mini AWACS)

So it would use all the networked data (AWACS, Satellites, Ships, and it's own data), and use that to propose and recommend attack plans for the F-35 pilot? Does this take control of the plane to execute the attack or simply advise the pilot?

The F-35A (and probably the F-35C) have the maneuverability of an F/A-18C. Despite some maneuvering limitations (which were exaggerated by the press and others)

I'm not sure what the limits are, and I'm not sure which press has attacked this: I know the neocons wanted the F-22 over the F-35; there are guys like Pierre Sprey, who are remarkable at being able to mix the truth with half-truths and whole lies.


GregP

I believe all the MiGs in Vietnam that we saw in combat that looked like the MiG-15 were MiG-17s, as you say.

Yeah, but it's a long enduring statement: Even in the book "Linebacker" (1989) by Karl J. Eschmann mentioned MiG-15/17's

I knew the F-35 could carry more missiles, but it loses a lot of stealth when it does so.

That was my impression as well, so as a general rule you would want to carry them internally in high threat areas.

When I try to read up on the F-35 I can usually find only two sides: One side says it does the job better than anything else has to date. That side comes from Lockheed-Martin / USAF top brass. The other side says it is abysmal as a fighter. That side is, for want of better words, "the critics."

The critics often are people like Pierre Sprey who are proponents of somewhat simpler, low-cost fighters that can be produced in large numbers.

I'm guessing they appeal to the public and the politicians instead of the experts is because they will lose against experts: The question is why would they push these positions in spite of this?

• They believe they're right and the experts are too stubborn to embrace new ideas that are sufficiently outside the box
  
• They are partially or fully aware their ideas are wrong, but continue to push them anyway for one reason or another

The latter would include the following

• They are concerned about the ever increasing cost of military programs and would prefer something cheaper even if it didn't work quite as good...
• They are concerned about cyber-warfare and effects on our weapons systems: Low tech isn't as easily stopped from cyber-warfare attacks, high tech often is...
• They are afraid of the high tech systems that we are developing for some reason: Admittedly, they haven't really come out much against drones which have caused more trouble to us lately than manned aircraft, and automated war-planning and logistics system such as (JADE-2), which revolve around mapping the human-terrain and amount to a non-nuclear Skynet (this system is creepy)...
  
• They wish to reduce our spending on weaponry dedicated for high tech adversaries and large scale wars. This would include either the ability to focus on small low intensity conflicts against small nations that can't do much more than hurl rocks at us...
• They have some desire to dismantle our country from within, or force increasingly massive defense expenditures on equipment that will not provide the decisive victory we had in the past...

The last one is the most concerning and would amount to subversion of our country, though I cannot conclude if this is true or not.


Robert Porter

I hear a lot about current US and NATO doctrine that is heavily dependent on very complex integrated CCC systems. Which to me means these fantastic monsters are highly vulnerable to loss of that data. And as someone that has worked on defense computer systems I can tell you they are not all that robust any system has its vulnerabilities. I don't have an answer per se, but if our sats are disabled as an opening act, very real potential, then we are going to literally be back to Mark 1 eyeball and those fancy integrated systems become so much deadweight to be shoveled around.

I'm not sure how much of our net-centric capability works through direct line of sight telecommunications systems (i.e. aircraft-to-aircraft, aircraft to ship, aircraft-to-ship-to-aircraft without satellites; communications through satellites), and over the horizon communications (radio waves transmitted up into the ionosphere and bounced back down).

Mark 1 eyeball is a wee exaggeration but you get my point, the Navy's new wonder ships, the littorals, which via automation were supposed to require significant crew reductions proved impractical. For one, Captains said that with as small a crew as called for damage control functions could not be accommodated.

So if they were attacked, they couldn't repair themselves quickly enough and might sink.

My concern is that we seem to have become so very dependent on external technology, meaning external to the ship/aircraft/infantry soldier, that I wonder how well these systems will work if that technology is disrupted?

A very disturbing question


GregP

Look at the F-22, surely a modern fighter.

Each one has a God's eye view of the entire hemishpere it is in, and knows what weapons all other F-22s in the hemishpere has, and waht is on their sensors.

Because of all the interlinking between all the A/C...

That's WAY cool until it "goes away." When it does, the F-22 drivers are flying a very cool airframe that is almost entirely dependent on the Mark 1 eyeball.

It would be bad, but the fact is that the radar systems/sensor-fusion would still work pretty well and provide a 360-degree view. You would only be limited to your own sensors however, and your own weapons (fortunately these are excellent). The aircraft's GPS might go out, but we probably have a back-up INS and almost certainly a compass (the HUD shows one it seems).

I'm thinking nuclear detonation in space taking out a lot of satelites.

Military satellites are EMP hardened, though a nuclear explosion in space produces an artificial Van Allen Belt, the electronics should hold-up far as I know.

Maybe they can't get them all. Maybe they can. Maybe losing half would not cripple anything. Maybe not.

If they did do this, they could take their own out too... we'd be evenly fucked up.

I wonder if anyone has run a simulation of loss of satellite / uplink / downlink data and seen what happens ... but I have no idea whether or not they have.

They almost certainly have.

But, my bet is there IS a plan for that. It looks like something called AWACS and digital radar at ground level.

Aircraft involved would have to be EMP hardened (all seem to be), and the datalink would have to be data obtained by line of site from one source to another, or over-the-horizon from one source to another (or over the horizon to a site that would transmit line of site to another).

Thing is, the potential enemies have the exact same problem. If they take out satellites, THEY are back to the same technology.

The question is who gets screwed more, and can we win even if we get screwed more?


swampyankee

I'm somewhat leery of the incredible dependence on GPS. By its very nature, the ephemerides of GPS satellites have to be known to all users, so they're highly vulnerable to anti-satellite weapons

Good point

this would be a very unsafe act, and would only be part of a wider war, but GPS signals can also be spoofed and jammed.

One reason driverless cars scare the crap out of me!

This is why the USN is starting to teach celestial navigation again.

Oh, that's great! I'm really happy to hear that...

However, the GPS-guided munitions, especially those launched from internal carriage in the F-35 and F-22

JDAM's

This is what cyber warriors would probably corrupt most profitably

Depending on degree of spoofing.


Shortround6

Just try goggling

Inertial navigation systems.

They have existed since the 1950s and I am sure that modern ones work much better than the 1950 models, which were used to guide intercontinental ballistic missiles. New ones would be much smaller and lighter than the 1950s versions.

One I found with less than 2 minutes;

VN-200 SMD Specifications - VectorNav Technologies

Weight 45 grams. Granted it 'seems' to update from GPS signals and might very well not be able to guide a plane for 6-10 hours without an update? Or maybe it can? or maybe a unit under 1kg can. In any case building multi-million dollar aircraft and not having some sort of device like this in the navigation system would border on criminal negligence.

Yeah, 2.2 pounds isn't that big a deal to fit a back-up INS system


tomo pauk

Why would you spoil a story with facts?

*busts out laughing*

As an aside in the 80's we were issued with new radios that used "channels" not frequencies. When the switching mechanism failed not 1 in 50 could manually tune their radios to the correct frequencies.

That's not good...

Eventually re-training occurred and the next gen radios that followed had more clearly marked instrument faces.

Making it easier to manually switch as a back-up?

Every time technology "helps" us, we have to remember to plan and train, for when that technology is no longer available.

That's right...


BTW: I hope this isn't as big a mess as before, it doesn't appear to be as marathon-ish a post and I've tried to keep things on topic

 

[fubar57]

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Zipper730]

wuzak

Radar was for searching and tracking target.

Pilot or gunner still had to aim the guns.

Okay, I was just curious as to this statement from Dana Bell which I'm going to quote below

The big problem was the radar-guided, automatic gun-laying system being designed for the P-61 - it never worked.

This seems to suggest at least the intention for a blind-shooting system. I'm not sure exactly how it was supposed to work (it was stated that it never worked), but it kind of reminds me of what I read about the F3D...

the radar used in the P-61 (the SCR 720) was also used in Mosquitoes (as AI Mk X)- some NF.XIXs, most NF.30s, Maybe some NF.XVII.

That late?

 

[Zipper730]

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Still too long? I tried to keep it on one topic rather than drift, I did group some replies together as long as they stayed with the topic; when they didn't I quoted the replies separately...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Seriously, 2 o 3 quotes per post.

 

[wuzak]

Still too long? I tried to keep it on one topic rather than drift, I did group some replies together as long as they stayed with the topic; when they didn't I quoted the replies separately...

Except that you were quoting posts that were already waaaay off topic.

 

[Robert Porter]

I think I contributed some to the off topic nature of some of the posts. To be honest I lost track of the topic somewhere in there. My bad.

 

[wuzak]

This seems to suggest at least the intention for a blind-shooting system. I'm not sure exactly how it was supposed to work (it was stated that it never worked), but it kind of reminds me of what I read about the F3D...

I don't think that the P-61 gun turret was ever connected to gun laying radar, rather that the turret used a remote sighting system, possibly with a computing gun sight.

 

[wuzak]

That late?

Late?

Around 1943/44, about the time the P-61 was being introduced to service.

Mosquitoes started using the universal nose in one of the single stage NF models, not sure if it was the NF.XVII or NF.XIX, which could accommodate the AI.Mk IX and AI.Mk X. Possibly even the AI.MK VIII.

 

[Zipper730]

wuzak

I don't think that the P-61 gun turret was ever connected to gun laying radar, rather that the turret used a remote sighting system, possibly with a computing gun sight.

That was my assumption always as well until the quote I sent you.

Late?

Around 1943/44, about the time the P-61 was being introduced to service.

For some reason I figured the plane flew in 1942 and somehow mixed up some numbers and thought the NFXII would have probably a similar system.

 

[Robert Porter]

Found this SCR 720 night fighting radar display at the National Electronics Museum the radar used in the Mosquito and the P-61 was AI, Airborne Intercept. Directions were passed verbally from radar operator until the aircraft was vectored closely then a smaller screen in the pilots view was used to resolve final intercept. But I did not read anywhere that the SCR-720 set used was actually connected directly to the guns. Post war this was done. And I believe the British had a war time radar controlled rear turret in some of their bombers.