P-61 or Reverse Lend Lease Mosquito

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.

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.

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?
 
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.

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

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

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.

Damn, I HOPE so. And I hope they have a backup that uses the radars and technology we have left after an EMP. If not, somebody needs to be fired.

But, my bet is there IS a plan for that. It looks like something called AWACS and digital radar at ground level. If they take out satellite AND ground AND AWACS, then we are back to Mark 1 eyeball fighting, just like looking for the WWII fleets with PBYs ... unless the planes are EMP-hardened successfully. Then they would at LEAST have onboard senors.

Thing is, the potential enemies have the exact same problem. If they take out satellites, THEY are back to the same technology. Wonder who plans for that contingeny the best?

No answers, but if makes you wonder, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
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; 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. This is why the USN is starting to teach celestial navigation again.

However, the GPS-guided munitions, especially those launched from internal carriage in the F-35 and F-22 are also very small, so they need to strike their target; a disruption that can skew their guidance by a few tens of meters will render them much less effective, possibly massively increasing collateral damage. This, of course, neglects the problem of simply bad targeting data*, such as when the US accidentally bombed an embassy during the air war over the former Yugoslavia


-----------------------------------------

* This is what cyber warriors would probably corrupt most profitably:

General to POTUS: "Sir, we've discovered why we accidentally dropped a 2000 lb bomb on BoA's headquarters."

POTUS (literally fuming) "Well?"

General: "Somebody changed the coordinates for the ISIS training camp from southeastern Syria to San Francisco."
 
Leaving aside politics, one of the very frustrating things about the F-35 program is simply how long it's taken to produce a workable airplane. It was, overall, a fairly well run program (the UTTAS program, that resulted in the H-60, was probably the best-run aircraft procurement program the US has had for a very long time: very tight specs, demanding, but within the known state of the art, and well-though out by the Army. The most serious publicize error seems to have been that the Army's specs for RFI resistance were too low, leading to some crashes when the FCS was confused by high-powered radars). Jointness is not, by itself, a bad thing, and, in this case, the simple fact that the F-35 has essentially the same role for the USN and USAF, unlike the case with the F-111, should not be considered to have been failing. It's possible the VTOL requirement was; this was certainly the most difficult issue not related to the F-35's weapons systems.
 

Greg,

F-22s work wonderfully in a "deprived" environment. GPS jamming or deprivation is a known and planned for operation. All of our stuff works, as the Brits say, "Brilliantly"!

Cheers,
Biff
 
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.
 
I wonder just how much operational training the pilots get on loss of systems training. My real worry is that we have grown increasingly dependent on that "Gods eye" view of a theatre both individually and as the main method of managing a battle. Makes one wonder just how well we will perform if all that goodness is rendered useless, on all levels, not just at the cockpit level but whole commands.

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

Every time technology "helps" us, we have to remember to plan and train, for when that technology is no longer available.
 
And I thought this thread was about Mosquitoes and P-61s...

The V-1 used a crude inertial navigation system
Click to expand...

Very crude; point and shoot, basically. The fixed launch ramp was aligned in the general direction of the target area and the missile's three internal gyros would orient it up the right way, and a counter, driven by a propeller on the nose counted down, and then the fuel lines to the motor were severed and the wee spoilers under the hori stabs flicked out, pushing the thing into a dive. The counter was set based on the missile's average speed and the time it would take at that speed to reach the target area.

Spinny thing on the nose: warbirds

Spoilers: warbirds
 

And in less than 20 years you had

LN-3 Inertial Navigation System - Wikipedia

Installed in F-104G strike aircraft. 98% C.E.P. of 4 nautical miles after one hour of flight. Over 50 years later one would assume that if the GPS network goes down we would not be reduced to the MK I eyeball for navigation.
 
nuuumannn said:
Probably not. How do I know? Aaaah, call it a hunch.
Click to expand...
Ah but we would, at least in the short haul. While other technologies or even just different technologies exist, very few aircraft are currently equipped with such. Yes aircraft have redundant systems and I am sure for simple navigation tasks they would certainly be up to the task with or without GPS. But as I pointed out, if all the current systems that depend on data rich communications, and GPS were taken out which is actually not unlikely then even things as simple as IFF become troublesome. Modern IFF in combat aircraft utilize GPS tags for example. Backups and redundancies for all of it either exist, or could be quickly sourced. But in the context of modern warfare where the entire shooting match would be over in hours to as long as possibly several days. I just wonder if we have not created our own achilles heel.
 

There is no such thing as mast bumping, only mast bump, it only takes one time to do the job. The 212 has the same basic rotor design as the UH-1D/H(slightly wider blades) so it is susceptible mast hub contact as well. Mast bumping occurs in the low-g environment, by pushing on the stick, not pulling. As long as the head is loaded you are fine. The most likely cause is rotor rpm decay caused by engine failure or worse, a main driveshaft failure. The Huey is perfectly safe, its the finest helicopter ever made, its the DC-3 of the helicopter world.
 
Last edited:

The extra thrust was not necessary. Buccaneer attack jets had the same Spey engines but no afterburners. With a normal service load the Buccaneer weighed over 60,000 lbs. on take-off. The real reason for Spey-engine Phantoms was political.
 
EKB said:
The real reason for Spey-engine Phantoms was political
Click to expand...

In part, but there was more to it than that. Certainly the RN's rejection of the P.1154 decided the purchase of the F-4 and the navy favoured the Spey because of commonality with the Buccaneer S.2, but McDD was considering developing a Spey engine Phantom based on the F-4B back in 1960 specifically to court an order from the RN.

After the war, if I am not mistaken, the first U.S. aircraft they bought was the F-4 Phantom
Click to expand...

Actually, it was the Sikorsky Hoverfly II helo, delivered in 1946. The RN received Skyraiders in 1951 in the carrier based airborne early warning role, then the RAF received Neptunes in 1952, the RN got Avengers a year later. The Phantom, F-111 and C-130 were ordered round about the same time as replacements for the cancelled P.1154 supersonic Harrier, TSR.2 and AW.681 jet powered heavy lifter respectively.
 
EKB said:
The extra thrust was not necessary. Buccaneer attack jets had the same Spey engines but no afterburners. With a normal service load the Buccaneer weighed over 60,000 lbs. on take-off. The real reason for Spey-engine Phantoms was political.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. RN Buccaneers went about 45,000lbs. RAF Buccaneer 2Bs went 62,000lbs. Bulged bomb bay door and beefed up landing gear. There were some ex RN machines that were brought up to 2B standards. I don't think anybody tried operating the RAF version off carriers.
 

In 1978, Buccaneer XV863 of No 809 Sqn made the last catapult launch of that type from HMS Ark Royal. That airplane was converted to S2D standards in 1973.
 

A standard F-4J generally outperformed the Rolls Royce version and would have cost y'all half as much. The RAF in fact later purchased a batch of second-hand F-4Js to cover attrition of the original Spey-engined Phantoms.

But there ain't no free lunch when your local civil servant is looking to buy voter confidence. Furnishing a few defense contracts and jobs always makes headlines, with well-placed photo ops and handshakes. Pork and Politics are inseparable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
1K
Snautzer01
Anglo-US Reciprocal lend-Lease
Replies
8
Views
1K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
1946 Australian Lend-Lease settlement
Replies
5
Views
967
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Canadian Mosquito Production Dates
Replies
1
Views
610
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Mosquito
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register