Single type CAG for WW2 FAA?

[Admiral Beez]

With the limitation on number of aircraft on British aircraft carriers, was it ever considered to have a single fighter-torpedo-bomber-recon aircraft to do all the roles? Could this be a torpedo-capable Fulmar? Something like a DH. Sea Hornet could do the job - is there anything revolutionary on the Hornet that could preclude it entering service earlier?

I'm not suggesting whatever all-purpose aircraft was introduced wouldn't be rubbish. But was it considered?

 

[MikeMeech]

With the limitation on number of aircraft on British aircraft carriers, was it ever considered to have a single fighter-torpedo-bomber-recon aircraft to do all the roles? Could this be a torpedo-capable Fulmar? Something like a DH. Sea Hornet could do the job - is there anything revolutionary on the Hornet that could preclude it entering service earlier?

I'm not suggesting whatever all-purpose aircraft was introduced wouldn't be rubbish. But was it considered?

Hi

The Fairey Barracuda was an attempt to get as many 'roles' into one airframe as possible due to the limited numbers of aircraft on the carriers. This was dive and torpedo bombing capabilities plus, later, the reconnaissance role which also meant fitting radar systems. It could also carry depth charges for anti-submarine work. Trying to make one aeroplane also do daylight/night interception, and other fighter duties may have been going a bit far for the time, even with an earlier version of the Hornet.

Mike

 

[Admiral Beez]

Trying to make one aeroplane also do daylight/night interception, and other fighter duties may have been going a bit far for the time, even with an earlier version of the Hornet.

It's the fighter element we need to tackle the most, as making a torpedo-DB combo was relatively common.

The Fw 190 could carry a torpedo, so could the Re.2001..... and Fiat G.55 if only in trials.

I remember years back seeing a photo of a Grumman Hellcat with a torpedo, but I can't find it on Google.

 

[tomo pauk]

Something like this?

 

[yulzari]

It's the fighter element we need to tackle the most, as making a torpedo-DB combo was relatively common.

The Fw 190 could carry a torpedo, so could the Re.2001..... and Fiat G.55 if only in trials.

View attachment 564408

I remember years back seeing a photo of a Grumman Hellcat with a torpedo, but I can't find it on Google.

Not off a carrier deck they won't.

 

[yulzari]

Ahem, cough, cough, (mumble) Blackburn Firebrand, cough, cough..........

 

[MikeMeech]

It's the fighter element we need to tackle the most, as making a torpedo-DB combo was relatively common.

The Fw 190 could carry a torpedo, so could the Re.2001..... and Fiat G.55 if only in trials.

View attachment 564408

I remember years back seeing a photo of a Grumman Hellcat with a torpedo, but I can't find it on Google.

Hi

Yes, fighters were fitted to single seat fighters, at least in prototype, the FW 190, had only two MG 151 to aid the carriage of the torpedo. All except the Hellcat (that also was not chosen for production in the torpedo bombing role) were land based so would have to be 'navalised' for carrier use, which would have increased the weight more as well as decreasing range probably. The closest thing the British had was the Blackburn Firebrand that did become a single-seat strike fighter equipped with four 20mm cannon,as well as being able to carry (in final form) a 1,850 lb Torpedo, or two 1,000 lb bombs or sixteen 60 lb rockets, fully navalised with an adequate range. However, it had become a strike fighter because it was not as good as other fighters in the air-to-air combat role. There were other roles that needed to be done by carrier aircraft which the Firebrand would have been inadequate for, so a mixed air group would still be needed unless the carrier is limited in its role. You, probably could have a single type air group on carriers but only by limiting the role of the carrier.

Mike

 

[Admiral Beez]

All except the Hellcat were land based so would have to be 'navalised' for carrier use, which would have increased the weight more as well as decreasing range probably.

The Re. 2001 naval variant was intended as a carrier borne torpedo-fighter. Perhaps the shortened range meant less in the Mediterranean.

 

[MikeMeech]

The Re. 2001 naval variant was intended as a carrier borne torpedo-fighter. Perhaps the shortened range meant less in the Mediterranean.

Hi

Maybe someone else knows, but I thought the Re.2001G was the experimental torpedo-fighter conversion while the two 'navalised' Falco 2s just had arrester hooks fitted (for use on the proposed Aquila and Sparviero merchant ship conversions), so were they the same aircraft?

Mike

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hi

Maybe someone else knows, but I thought the Re.2001G was the experimental torpedo-fighter conversion while the two 'navalised' Falco 2s just had arrester hooks fitted (for use on the proposed Aquila and Sparviero merchant ship conversions), so were they the same aircraft?

Mike

Aquila was to operate only one aircraft type, the Re.2001. Any torpedo capability for Aquila will have to come from the Re.2001. With such a small air group, a single type like I'm suggesting for the British was clearly necessary for the Italians.

 

[Shortround6]

I'm not suggesting whatever all-purpose aircraft was introduced wouldn't be rubbish. But was it considered?

Probably not due to the knowledge that it would be rubbish.

A land based fighter torpedo bomber makes a bit of sense because it can use a really long runway. It is not expected to fly any great distance (torpedo ships right off the coast?) and it might survive enemy aircraft and AA better. But if you can't fly very far with the torpedo then you can't reach the enemy carriers while his planes can reach yours unless you are contemplating one way missions ( and gambling on finding the enemy carriers/fleet ).

Without torpedo

If you get intercepted before dropping the torpedo you can either keep it and be a sitting duck or drop it in which case it is a mission kill and defending fighters don't have to fire a shot.