Tag:

military

When Cactus Air Force, during fended off every Japanese onslaught

by Till Daisd September 17, 2022

The Cactus Air Force, which was primarily equipped with the rugged Wildcat fighter and the unrivaled Dauntless dive bomber, successfully repelled every Japanese onslaught

Control of Henderson Field was at the heart of the fight of Guadalcanal, which turned the tide of the Pacific War. Less than two weeks after the US Marines arrived, the unfinished airstrip was captured and made operational. The “Cactus Air Force” stationed there had a basic airfield and was low on supplies, pilots, and aircraft. However, as long as the airstrip was controlled by the Americans, the Japanese were unable to send the large convoys they required to retake the island.

The Americans had to keep Henderson Field operational in the face of constant attack from Japanese bombers and their Zero escorts, and even against battleship bombardment. The Cactus Air Force, primarily flying the rugged Wildcat fighter and the incomparable Dauntless dive bomber, weathered every Japanese assault and emerged victorious.

The key to defending Henderson Field, as described by Mark Stille in his book Guadalcanal 1942–1943, was successfully intercepting Japanese raids. Coastwatchers and radar were two of the Marines’ main means of alerting them to avoid Japanese raids. Every minute of early warning was essential since the Wildcats needed to acquire enough slow-climbing to reach their preferred interception height of 30,000 feet or higher. The airplane climbed just 500 feet per minute once it reached 20,000 feet. If inadequate early warning was available, the result was usually a failed interception.

Here’s how Cactus Air Force was able to Repel every Japanese Assault during the Battle of Guadalcanal

The fighters were controlled by a rudimentary mechanism. When the Marine air operations officer made a radar contact, he launched fighters as if it were a one-man show. The Wildcats’ effective radio range was only 10-15 miles, therefore once in the air, they were not dispatched too far from the airfield to undertake a radar-directed interception. A recovered aircraft radio fitted on his truck allowed the air operations officer to communicate with the airborne fighters. The officer who raised the air raid warning also served as an observer to spot enemy planes. Two navy officers who had completed the Navy’s fighter pilot training program arrived in Guadalcanal in October.

They had to deal with the same defective radars and poor communication between the airborne aircraft and 90mm gun batteries. One master technical sergeant was largely responsible for resolving the radar issue because he had the uncanny ability to identify the number, type, and approximate altitude of Japanese aircraft in a formation long before they were near Henderson Field. All of the radars on the island were connected by November 1942, and communication between fighters and antiaircraft guns had significantly improved. The system was able to withstand the 82 air strikes that were registered by the 3rd Defense Battalion between the beginning of the operation and November 15.

Given that the Wildcat and Zero were different in many ways and that many Marine fighter pilots lacked expertise, air tactics were critical. The commander of VMF-223, Major Smith, developed strategies that he taught to his pilots and that took advantage of the Wildcat’s strengths. Smith’s chosen attack strategy was approaching the bombers from a point where he had a 5,000-foot height advantage. After achieving this position—which was challenging given the Wildcat’s minor speed advantage over the Betty—Smith preached a diving attack with a focus on the formation’s trailing aircraft. A right-to-left diving attack across the bomber formation at a distance of 1,000 feet was the desired firing range.

This strategy had a lot of important benefits. The Japanese formation was unable to dodge it, and it posed a good shot on Betty’s weak-wing fuel tanks. It also leveraged the Wildcat’s superior dive speed to slip past any escorting Zeros. The Wildcats were instructed to exit the dive after the initial attack and do a climbing left turn before making another reassess. Smith advised the Wildcats to try again at the bombers if the Zero escort had not intervened. The intercept’s main goal was to disperse the bomber formation.

Obviously, the Zeros were not going to let the Wildcats attack the bombers without intervening, so when they did make an appearance Smith told his pilots not to get into a dogfight with the extremely maneuverable Zeros. The wise move was to clear the area or look for safety in a cloud using the Wildcat’s superior dive speed.

Lt. Col. Harold Bauer, the fighter unit commander for Cactus Air Force, issued a new order on October 23. Hendiscerned that the quality of Zero pilots had declined, and he was sure that the Wildcat pilots were now better. As a result, he instructed his pilots to engage the Zeros in dogfighting whenever possible during the Oct. 23 interception. The outcomes from that day appeared to support his judgment.

If the Marine pilots were shot down, even Japanese lines, there was a good chance they would reach the Marine perimeter and return to duty. This was made possible by the heroic work of the island’s loyal residents and coast watchers. Over half of the pilots that were shot down over or close to Guadalcanal later returned to fight.

The Dauntless crews and the Wildcat pilots both contributed significantly to the campaign’s success. Each Dauntless carried two crewmen, the pilot, and the rear gunner. There were Navy dive-bombers flying out of Henderson Field in addition to the Marine dive-bomber squadrons stationed on the island. When carrying 1,000 lb bombs, the Dauntless had a small battle radius. Dauntlesses were despatched into the “Slot” (the channel between the central Solomon Islands leading to Guadalcanal) in the morning and the afternoon to look for Japanese ships. The Japanese ships that were met the most frequently were destroyers on transport missions through the Slot.

These were vulnerable to assault if they went too close to Guadalcanal in the late afternoon or were late in leaving the waters around the island at night and had not steamed out of range by daylight. When carried out by a trained crew, dive-bombing was a precise way of attack, but any dive-bomber pilot would find it challenging to hit a ship as swift and maneuverable as a destroyer. Although strikes on destroyers were uncommon, the pilot would try to line up his attack down the length of the ship to create a larger target.

Only a few kilometers from Henderson Field, the Tokyo Express discharged its troop and supply cargo at night. It was tempting for the Dauntless pilots to launch night attacks. Given that they were operating from an unlit airfield, these were dangerous. Additionally, they were useless because the Japanese destroyer captains discovered how to remain undetected in the darkness by avoiding shooting at the dive-bombers and reducing their speed to lessen their wake.

Guadalcanal 1942-43 is published by Osprey Publishing and is available to order here.

September 17, 2022 0 comment

Military

The 5 worst USAF’s fighters

by Till Daisd September 15, 2022

written by Till Daisd

Several fighters have gotten the moniker “flying coffin” over the course of the last century of military aviation. Military aviation inevitably tests the limits of available technology and human endurance, especially when it comes to fighter and pursuit aircraft.

Even when nobody is trying to shoot you down, flying a fighter is extraordinarily risky. A capable fighter plane’s design is challenging as well. Many of the best fighters in history were initially looked upon with skepticism by their pilots; nonetheless, relatively minor improvements in engine, armament, and airframe design can transform a clunker into an elite combat machine. However, elite rank rarely endures for very long, particularly during World Wars I and II. As technology and tactics advanced, fighters that ruled the skies in one year turned into “flying coffins.”

Consequently, the gap between a great fighter and a bad fighter can be quite thin. The crucial effort is in choosing the criteria. Fighters must be assessed as strategic assets for the nation.

What is historically speaking the worst fighter aircraft? For these purposes, we’ll focus on fighters with 500 or more aircraft in production (mentioned in parenthesis); oddities like the XF-84H “Thunderscreech” need not apply.

Royal_aircraft_factory_BE2c_at_the_Imperial_War_Museum — Royal B.E.2 (3500)

Pilots and engineers probably struggled to get aircraft ready before anyone engaged in an air conflict. One of the first military aircraft put into substantial industrial production was the Royal B.E.2, which had a run of about 3500 aircraft. It was first flown in 1912 and continued to be used until 1919, albeit its duties gradually decreased as newer aircraft became available.

In a way, the B.E.2 served as an inspiration for the first generation of fighters by exhibiting all the flaws that were despised in fighter aircraft, such as poor visibility, low reliability, controllability issues, slow speed, and weak armament. The Fokker Eindecker’s introduction made flying the B.E.2 extremely risky. Improvements frequently caused more harm than good, with the plane getting gradually heavier and more prone to accidents.

Giving the first attempt a failing grade is difficult. However, the B.E.2 earns a spot on our list due to its difficulties and poor reliability as well as the British government’s choice to keep it in service much after its freshness date. In any case, the Royal Flying Corps’ tardy inability to successfully replace the B.E.2 served as fertile ground for the early proponents of the Royal Air Force, the first independent air force in history.

Finnish-Brewster-Buffalo-airplane — Brewster Buffalo (509)

The Buffalo, a short, squat, and ugly aircraft, entered service in the same year as the vastly superior Mitsubishi A6M Zero and Bf-109. The Buffalo was designed to be both a carrier-borne and land-based fighter, and some were transferred from the United States to Finland following the Winter War.

Provisions for more powerful weapons, additional fuel, and armor plates resulted in weight increases during the design phase. Unfortunately, this resulted in the aircraft being severely underpowered and unable to maneuver like its greatest competitors. Although the Finnish Air Force’s Buffalos performed admirably against the Soviets in the early stages of the “continuation war,” Japanese pilots in Zeros and Oscars slaughtered Buffalo pilots fighting with Dutch and Commonwealth air forces in Southeast Asia.

To make matters worse, the Buffalo performed poorly in the sweltering temperatures typical of the tropics. After the Battle of Midway, when the Buffalo performed appallingly against the Japanese, Marine Corps pilots referred to it as—you got it—a “flying coffin.” It was swiftly supplanted in American service by the Grumman F4F Wildcat, its more superior twin.

lavochkin-gorbunov-gudkov — Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3 (6528)

The Soviet Union of the 1930s rebuilt its military industries a little too soon, maximizing output around technology that would lag behind foreign peers. Military modernization is frequently about timing. The LaGG-3, which debuted in 1940 but was a development of the LaGG-1, served as the Soviet Air Force’s primary fighter during the German invasion of 1941. It was such a failure that pilots dubbed it “the varnished guaranteed coffin” in a play on the fighter’s acronym.

The LaGG-3 was essentially helpless in battle against the Bf-109 despite having entered service five years later. The unfortunate combination of its weak engine and light wood construction prevented it from gaining a tactical edge over bigger German fighters, and when struck, it disintegrated. It is not surprising that German and Finnish aviators outperformed their Soviet counterparts by astoundingly high margins given the wartime Soviet pilot training methods. The LaGG-3 should have stopped being produced in 1942, but due to the Soviet military-industrial complex’s agility, production continued until 1944.

Convair_F-102A_Delta_Dagger_USAF — McDonnell F-101A (807)

It was difficult to choose a candidate from the Century series. The majority of the Century Series aircraft were created when the Air Force’s strategic bombing cadre still held sway and was primarily focused on the possibility of nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union. In an effort to tackle this issue, Tactical Air Command focused on fighters heavy enough to carry nuclear weapons as well as interceptors that could catch and destroy Soviet bombers. As a result, the USAF’s aircraft were underequipped to battle the PAVNAF’s fleet of small, agile MiGs.

The F-100 was a good second-generation fighter, and the F-106 was a fully functional interceptor, so the series wasn’t a total failure. The remaining ones encountered the kinds of issues typical of a mismatched collection of technological and strategic principles. The McDonnell F-101 Voodoo was an interceptor that had been turned into a fighter bomber, a strange combination. It would mostly be used as a reconnaissance aircraft. Convair’s F-102 Delta Dagger served admirably as a remote-control target drone before failing miserably in its roles as an interceptor and a fighter bomber in Vietnam.

The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, popularly known as the “Missile with a Man in It,” was a fast, elegant, and lethal aircraft that earned the moniker “flying coffin” due to the over thirty accidents it experienced for every 100,000 flight hours. In Canadian service, over 50% of F-104s and over 30% of German F-104s were destroyed in collisions. The massive Republic F-105 Thunderchief deserved better since, despite being built as a nuclear bomber, it was inadequate for the conventional bombing job required by the Vietnam War and was therefore a convenient target for the SA-2s, Fishbeds, and Frescos.

The aircraft of the Century series were made by various manufacturers and were designed to carry out various tasks. The United States Air Force’s failure to envisage warfare outside of the strategic sphere, despite the fact that they were acquired in vast quantities, was the root of all of their issues.

Mig-23-DNST8908431_JPG — Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 (5047)

The MiG-23, a powerful swing-wing fighter with attack and interception capabilities, was intended to be the Soviet response to the large American fighters like the F-4 and F-111. And the Flogger was undoubtedly strong. The Flogger, however, proved difficult to fly and keep up. The American “Red Eagle” pilots tasked with evaluating the Soviet aircraft’s capabilities thought the Flogger was an accident waiting to happen. Lieutenant General Robert M. Bond perished in a Flogger operated by the USAF in 1984. The Flogger was a relatively big aircraft that lacked several of the best characteristics of its forebears, notably a low visual profile.

The MiG-23 was initially meant to bolster the Warsaw Pact’s air forces, but most of the clients in the Soviet Union favored keeping their Fishbeds. In fact, because it was so challenging to maintain in service safely, the MiG-23 was essentially a cheap loss leader for the Soviet engine and technical support sectors in terms of exports. Because of their rapid engine burnout due to design, export customers who had lost favor with the Soviet Union swiftly lost access to their fighters. The Flogger has generally had a bad combat record while serving in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. It should come as no surprise that the MiG-23 will very definitely retire from service before the MiG-21.

Attention inevitably turns to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter when discussing potential additions to this list since it should surpass the 500 aircraft cap. As we have already stated, it is challenging to understand the strategic worth of the aircraft without a thorough understanding of its lifetime. For a while, we won’t know whether the JSF deserves to be on this list. For starters, it’s unlikely that the F-35 will see an accident rate anywhere close to those of the fighters on this list.

But given its enormous cost, the JSF is unquestionably a long-term contender for inclusion.

September 15, 2022 0 comment

Military

The stealth YF-118G: the unknown stealth fighter

by Till Daisd September 13, 2022

written by Till Daisd

Unlike the F-22 or F-35 stealth fighters, the stealth YF-118G is undoubtedly not a household brand and will never enter production like the NGAD. But for a variety of reasons, this plane will always have a special position in aviation history.

A group of engineers from McDonnell Douglas’ Phantom Works created and tested the Bird of Prey, a special stealth fighter that was hidden in Area 51’s secrecy, throughout the 1990s. The “YF-118G” Bird of Prey, unlike most stealth programs, wasn’t intended for active service, but parts of its design and manufacture are still finding their way into Uncle Sam’s hangars today.

But this amazing and exotic airframe’s audacity and eventual success may have had the greatest long-term impact on America’s defense system. While most stealth programs are notorious for being expensive, the Bird of Prey cost less than the price of one F-35 today to get from a pad of paper to the skies over Area 51.

The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, the first operational stealth aircraft, was secretly introduced to service by the U.S. Air Force in October 1983. Even though the Nighthawk was given the “F” prefix, which is reserved for fighters, and even had the nickname “stealth fighter,” it was not a fighter at all. The F-117 Nighthawk was an attack aircraft masquerading as a fighter, but make no mistake: it was an attack aircraft, unlike anything the world had ever seen. It had no onboard radar, no guns, and a payload capacity limited to two 2,000-pound bombs.

The Nighthawk served as a turning point for the very direction of aviation technology and air warfare doctrine among the world’s most powerful nations after decades of focus on developing faster, higher-flying aircraft to overcome enemy air defenses.

The Nighthawk was slower and heavier than the F-15s and F-16s in Air Force hangars, but in a world where the F-117 had a radar cross-section of only a little over a tenth of an inch, America’s smallest fighter had a radar cross-section of 82 square feet (0.11 inches).

The F-117 Nighthawk was virtually undetectable to enemy radar, so to speak. The team at McDonnel Douglas’ Phantom Works had stealth goals of their own, and they had just the man they needed to pursue them. Less than ten years later, as Lockheed’s YF-22 and Northrop’s YF-23 competed for the Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter contract, bringing the world’s first true stealth fighter to fruition, the team at McDonnel Douglas’ Phantom Works had stealth goals of their own.

In contrast to Lockheed and Northrop, whose high-performance stealth fighters benefited from direct tax support, McDonnell Douglas was responsible for paying the whole cost of the creation of their new stealth aircraft.
They chose Alan Wiechman to lead the effort to ensure that none of that money was wasted. Before working to create Lockheed’s Sea Shadow, which aims to equip stealth warships for the U.S. Navy, Wiechman gained experience in stealth at Lockheed’s Skunk Works, where he worked on the Have Blue program and its operational descendant, the aforementioned F-117 Nighthawk.

After the Air Force rejected McDonnell Douglas’ Advanced Tactical Fighter proposal in favor of Lockheed’s YF-22 and Northrop’s YF-23, McDonnell Douglas hired Wiechman to jump-start their low-observable efforts on track and to help in the establishment of their Phantom Works division.

Wiechman’s name doesn’t appear as frequently in the annals of aviation history as some other great engineers from the era, including Clarence “Kelly” Johnson. In fact, among the “Secret Pioneers of Stealth Aviation,” according to Aviation Week, he may be the engineer with the “lowest profile.”

However, widespread recognition isn’t always a reliable indicator of achievement. In fact, Wiechman made so many contributions to stealth aviation that the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) honored him with a Technical Achievement Award for his work in Low Observable aircraft design before the Bird of Prey was even declassified.

“Because of Wiechman’s work, the United States gained a 15-year lead over potential adversaries that it has not relinquished, and the effectiveness of his designs and products has been thoroughly proven in combat operations,” the award read. Due to budget constraints, Wiechman’s team at the Phantom Works used a rapid prototyping technique, which was revolutionary at the time, to create their new stealth aircraft.

The Phantom Works team employed computers to help in their design work, modeling performance to the best of the era’s computing capabilities, as opposed to designing physical prototypes, putting them to testing, making adjustments, and fielding new prototypes for further testing.
As a result, they were able to create prototype parts that were far more similar to the final product than was possible with earlier methods.

The YF-118G team, however, used other inventive methods as well to construct this revolutionary aircraft. Additionally, they made use of innovative single-piece composite structural designs that did away with many body panel seems that could jeopardize an aircraft’s stealth profile.

One of the trickier parts of building stealth aircraft is getting rid of any noticeable seams or microscopic gaps between the body panels that are linked to the aircraft. In fact, some contend that it’s still a problem for Russian stealth jet designs today.

However, Wiechman and his group didn’t want to create every component from scratch, so they used as many commercially available parts as they could to cut costs and speed up the design process.
With only 3,190 pounds of thrust, the Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5C turbofan engine would have been more at home in a Cessna business aircraft.

The rudder pedals, control stick, and throttle were taken from an A-4 Skyhawk, while the ejection seat, control stick, and throttle were taken from an AV-8B Harrier. Colonel Doug Benjamin, an Air Force test pilot, once jokingly remarked, “The clock was from Wal-Mart and the environmental control system was essentially a hairdryer.”
Four years after the program’s start, in 1996, Wiechman’s team was prepared to demonstrate the viability of their strategy with a flyable prototype.

They had built a technology demonstration with a single engine and one seat that was around 47 feet long, making it slightly longer than an F-16 Fighting Falcon. With an overall span of just 23 feet, or 10 feet less than the F-16, its angular, gull-shaped wings drastically differed from other fighter designs.

The fuselage was blended, and the tail portion was entirely absent, marking the most obvious deviation from conventional fighter design. The aircraft’s shape, the use of movable or flexible covers to disguise gaps, and the placement of the engine deep inside the fuselage—behind a curved inlet duct and in front of an infrared and acoustic defusing exhaust outlet—all contributed to the design’s holistic approach to stealth.

The Bird of Prey was given that moniker after the Klingon warship originally shown in “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock” because of the aircraft’s odd design and combative stance once it was finished.

Air Force Colonel Doug Benjamin flew the YF-118G Bird of Prey for the first time over Groom Lake, better known as Area 51, on September 11, 1996.

Boeing’s Bird of Prey, like its namesake, which would cloak to hide from hostile starships, relied on stealth rather than outstanding performance to accomplish its mission.
Col. Benjamin lifted the aircraft off the ground while leaving the landing gear extended, which revealed the first of several issues.

The platform had performed well during the wind tunnel testing, but all of the tests were done with the landing gear retracted.

Benjamin quickly understood that the gear’s drag was at least three times worse than they had anticipated.
Additionally, the aircraft had stability problems, which were gradually and painstakingly fixed during subsequent flights.
With the one Bird of Prey prototype they had built, the crew completed 37 additional successful flights over the course of the next three years. Benjamin and two Boeing test pilots, Rudy Haug and Joseph W. Felock III flew the aircraft.

By the time it made its final flight in 1999, the aircraft was thought to be aerodynamically stable without the kind of computer correction that contemporary stealth fighters depended on. This was true even though it had gull wings and a tailless design.
The stealthy aircraft’s maximum operational ceiling of 20,000 feet meant it could fly less than half as high as a World War II P-51 Mustang, and its cruising speed of only about 300 miles per hour was slower than a C-130 Hercules. However, like the F-117 Nighthawk Wiechman worked on before it, the Bird of Prey wasn’t intended to outfly the fighters of its day.

Its goals went much beyond that. The Phantom Works team had demonstrated their ability to construct a stealth aircraft for less than $67 million. That means that Wiechman’s Phantom Works successfully created, prototyped, and flew a clean-sheet stealth platform for about $111 million, or less than the price of one F-35B today, when adjusted for inflation to modern money.

“Early investments in technology demonstration projects such as Bird of Prey have positioned Boeing to help shape our industry’s transformation,” Jim Albaugh, president, and CEO of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems said in 2002.
“We changed the rules on how to design and build an aircraft.”

Boeing’s Bird of Prey made its final flight in 1999, but its journey was far from over.
The X-45A Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle, which flew for the first time just months before the Bird of Prey was officially presented to the public in 2002, included the innovations and lessons acquired during the development.

The X-45A was created by Boeing’s Phantom Works, just like the Bird of Prey, but unlike its Klingon cousin, it had an automated flight system.

Boeing claims that the X-45A’s design was largely inspired by the Bird of Prey program. The UCAV incorporated features from its predecessor’s angular design, which defeated radar, and distinctive dorsal intake.
The X-32, which ultimately lost out to Lockheed Martin for the Joint Strike Fighter contract just one year after the Bird of Prey program was shut down, was developed by Boeing using some of the design strategies used for the Bird of Prey.

Today, there are no platforms in service that can draw a direct lineage to Alan Wiechman’s unusual Bird of Prey, and that may be part of the reason it’s not a frequently discussed facet of the American stealth technology race that came at the twilight of the Cold War.

A lesson America has struggled to learn in the decades since the Bird of Prey prowled the skies over Area 51 is that it doesn’t always need a bottomless budget and twenty years’ worth of delays to develop a stealth fighter. However, for a brief period in the 1990s, the Phantom Works showed that.
Atop the museum’s F-22 Raptor in the Modern Flight Gallery of the National Museum of the United States, Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is the only YF-118G Bird of Prey ever built.

September 13, 2022 0 comment

History

The Story of ‘The Backbone of Reich Defence’

by Till Daisd September 12, 2022

written by Till Daisd

Hitler praised the Me 410 as the “backbone of the Reich air defense” after observing a demonstration of one with a BK 5 cannon in November 1943

The Me 210 initially took to the skies in September 1939, with the intention of serving as a progressive development of the twin-engined Bf 110 Zerstorer. The Luftwaffe continued to work on the Me 210 and its replacement, the Me 410, in spite of the problems with the Bf 110. The Me 210 actually evolved into the Me 410 in late 1942 with improvements to the wings and fuselage in addition to more power.

Both planes were used as heavy fighters, fighter-bombers, platforms for reconnaissance, and interceptors. The Me 410 was equipped with a 30 mm cannon, 21 cm underwing mortars, and the massive Rheinmetall BK (Bordkanone) 5 five-centimeter cannon, which was designed to take on the USAAF’s four-engined bombers.

The Luftwaffe Technisches Amt had issued a requirement for a gun with a muzzle velocity of at least 600 m per second and a rate of fire of 300 rounds per minute. The idea was to have a weapon capable of inflicting almost certain damage on enemy bombers, but without the attacking aircraft coming within range of the enemy’s defensive fire. This is according to Robert Forsyth in his book Me 210/410 Zerstorer Units.

The paradox was that even though accuracy and extremely low dispersion were necessary, it would be unable to fire at a high rate of fire due to the heavy-caliber ammunition needed. Every shot had to be significant. The Me 410 and Ju 88 were the two aircraft chosen to test this weapon.

Officers on the staff of the General der Jagdflieger first suggested using a five-centimeter cannon in the Me 410 to E.Kdo 25 in July 1943. They envisioned using a five-centimeter KwK (Kampficagenkanone) 39 tank gun, which belonged to the Wehrmacht. It was believed that a bomber might be brought down with just one five-centimeter strike using the Revi 12C/D or Zielfernrohr ZFR 4A telescopic sight. However, the ZFR 4A needed a lot of practice, gunnery expertise, and the ability to maintain a stable firing position for an extended period of time in order to be used effectively.

The alterations required to fit the big gun into an aircraft such as the Me 410 were thought acceptable, given that this would avoid the development of a new weapon. The cannon would become fully automatic if a magazine was added, and it could be constructed as a single unit with the gun, mounting, and magazine-feed system for simple interchangeability. Electro-pneumatic loaders were used for loading, and an electric primer was used to fire the ammo. Two hydro-pneumatic cylinders positioned above the gun cradle served as the recoil absorbers.

The Me 410 and the Colossal Five-Centimetre BK 5 Cannon: the Story of ‘The Backbone of Reich Defence’ — *Basic side-by-side comparison of the Me 210 and Me 410 wing planforms*

The bomb-bay doors were removed and a ventral fairing was used in place of them on the Me 410 to secure the back portion of the gun to the main spar. The installation of the gun turned out to be so successful that the ventral fairing’s outline only required to be expanded from the original design by around 100 mm at its deepest point. The rear of the panel had a cartridge ejection aperture with an internally mounted chute.

A perforated muzzle brake allowed the muzzle blast to be evenly spread over the airframe, preventing any damage and avoiding the need for reinforcement. The only issue was that it was difficult to keep the gun heated at altitude, therefore heating came from the crew compartment.

A Steinbock, a sizable transportable hydraulic jack, was used to raise the gun into a Me 410. A rope was used to secure the muzzle end of the barrel to the Steinbock arm, which was then pumped up until the mounting’s back was tilted upward. The gun and Steinbock were then brought in from underneath the fuselage and lifted until the clamp of the setting mechanism lined up with the plate attached to the main spar. After that, two locking bolts were screwed in. The mounting of the gun was held in place with the aid of a gimbal ring, a pair of lateral bracing tubes, and a suspension stirrup.

It appears that by the end of October 1943, Galland’s office had changed its mind about the BK 5 and now thought that a rapid-fire weapon like the MK 103 would be preferable. Hitler said that the Me 410A-1 was the “backbone of the home air defense” after seeing a demonstration of one with a BK 5 cannon in November. The Me 410 must be dedicated to Reich defense, and two Gruppen or a Geschwader must be outfitted with the aircraft and weaponry, according to the Fuhrer.

Given the lack of additional cannons, Goring had the guts to tell Hitler that only two or three aircraft could be fitted with the BK 5. Considering that the majority of Me 410s had been assigned to bomber Gruppen for missions over England, the Reichsmarschall gave Generalfeldmarschall Mitch the go-ahead to begin outfitting two Gruppen with 45 cannon-equipped aircraft each on January 12, 1944. Two days later, in response, Milch wrote to Goring;

`The first experimental aircraft have been equipped with a 50 mm gun. Since this gun can no longer be delivered, a conversion for a new 50 mm gun had to be carried out within a very short period of time. This new gun is installed in a different manner. The first delivery of ten guns was to be made in December. This was not possible since the magazine feeding device which we constructed suffered stoppages due to broken belt links, whereby the cartridge was hitched to the belt conveyor table. These defects have now been eliminated. There have been difficulties experienced with the high-explosive shell we developed on account of casting defects in the casings and also with respect to its dispersion because of the rotating bands. Alterations are being carried out in the plants. The results have still to be tested.’

Following the original investigation at Tarnewitz into the BK 5-equipped Me 410 V2, Deutsche Lufthansa at Berlin-Staaken began work on adapting the gun for aerial usage. The finished weapon was mounted on aircraft of II./ZG 26 as the Me 410A-1/U4 beginning in early February 1944 after just over three months of testing, during which time significant belt-feed and jamming malfunctions had been resolved.

In order to resupply, the Gruppe relocated from Hildesheim to Oberpfaffenhofen, and by February 8th, Staffel 5 had 12 cannon-equipped aircraft. Despite the fact that the weapon was still having electrical issues, minor switches were discovered to be easily breakable, and ammunition belts continued to fall apart, trial operations were promptly launched over southern Germany and Austria. Additionally, the BK 5’s feed and recoil mechanisms were not designed to withstand the G-forces of airborne combat, and it was uncommon to fire more than one shell without the weapon jamming. The addition of an improvised cleaning device helped to some degree to address these problems.

However, in most cases, Goring and the high command’s insistence that the units use large-caliber guns turned out to be a mistake. Instead of developing guided rockets, it would have been preferable to employ unguided rockets.

When the daylight war over the Reich reached its peak in October 1943, the USAAF was forced to accept that unescorted, deep penetration formations could not provide sufficient self-defense. Although these missions resulted in unacceptable levels of loss, they still compelled the Luftwaffe to engage in aerial combat, causing attrition to a degree from which the Germans would find it challenging to recover.

On October 10, the Kommodore of ZG 26, Major Karl Boehm-Tettelbach, led his Bf 110s, together with Me 410s of III./ZG 1 from Hesepe and Osnabruck, in an attack on the marshaling yards at Munster against B-17s of the 3rd Bomb Division. The 14th Bombardment Wing was particularly hard damaged by the Zerstorer in a mass attack from the rear near Munster, after the 3rd’s B-17s, which had been abandoned without any escort owing to bad weather over England, had already been mauled by single-engined fighters. In fact, the Bf 110s of ZG 26 claimed to have destroyed 14 B-17s, making it their single most successful day. On the other hand, and somewhat surprisingly, the Me 410s of III./ZG 1 did not return with any laurel.

Early October sorties by I./KG 51 also had little success. In a return to the aircraft industry targets that had proven to be so costly to the USAAF in August, 229 of the 291 B-17s that were dispatched managed to reach Schweinfurt on the 14th. The Me 410s of I./KG 51 took off from Horsching under Jagdfliegerfuhrer Ostmark and flew west until they established visual contact close to Schweinfurt, where the bombers had already dropped their ordnance on the city’s ball-bearing plant.

The Messerschmitt aircraft pursued the bombers into the enemy formation while following them and firing their mortars. Once more, the highly efficient defensive fire of the bombers trapped the Me 410s, and while the Gruppe was lucky to escape without damage, it made no claims. Prior to being deployed for missions over England, it turned out to be the unit’s final such mission.

Me 210/410 Zerstorer Units is published by Osprey Publishing and is available to order here.

Photo by U.S. Air Force, The PIPE and Mike Freer via Wikipedia

September 12, 2022 0 comment

Military

F-22 Raptor vs Su-57 Felon

by Till Daisd September 10, 2022

written by Till Daisd

The fifth-generation fighter market is going to get more competitive, as evidenced by Russia’s formal designation of the PAK-FA/T-50 jet as the Sukhoi Su-57. All six countries—the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and Korea—are developing fifth-generation designs of their own, but only three of them—the F-22 Raptor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and the Chinese J-20—are already in service. People are questioning how the Su-57 will compare to the F-22 Raptor once it becomes operational given the rising tensions between Russia and the United States, NATO on the one hand, and Russia on the other.

Similar to the F-15C Eagle, which it was initially intended to replace, the F-22 Raptor began life as a dedicated air superiority fighter. The F-117A Nighthawk stealth “fighter” was the first operational stealth warplane constructed by Lockheed Martin, who also designed and built the aircraft.

Due in significant part to its emphasis on stealth and mobility, the YF-22 fighter prototype beat the Northrop YF-23 Black Widow II in a fly-off in 1990. The F-22 was built with stealth as a core component, and the plane’s stealthy profile was partially determined by simulations run on the Cray supercomputer, one of the first supercomputers. With wings that were formed like diamonds and sharp, faceted surfaces, the F-22 design enhanced sensor evasion. While the huge, vertical, canted tails lessen the fighter’s infrared signature from some angles, the speed brake, weapon bay doors, and engine exhausts are serrated to diminish the radar signal of the aircraft.

In addition, radar-absorbent materials and paint are also applied to the aircraft’s metallic surfaces. The F-22 was made much more agile, especially at high angles of attack, thanks to the employment of the Cray supercomputer. Thrust vectoring in the pitch axis is a critical F-22 characteristic that enables the aircraft to employ engine power and maneuver at high angles of attack to gain an advantage in dogfights. The huge bubble canopy, which provided the pilot with a great view, was the largest single piece of polycarbonate manufactured while the F-22 was in production. A pilot is better able to notice and respond to hazards in the visual range thanks to maneuverability and visibility.

The F-22 is propelled by two F119 after-burning turbofan engines, which provide a combined thrust of 70,000 pounds, which is 40% more than the F-15 Eagle. Because it can’t carry extra fuel tanks into battle, the Raptor’s engines increase its range by enabling it to supercruise at Mach 1.4 without using afterburners. The primary sensor of the aircraft, the AN/APG-77 radar, is built to out-range adversary threats, identifying and categorizing them before the Raptor does, giving the American jet the advantage of not just seeing but also firing first.

Three weapons bays are available on the Raptor, two of which can hold a single AIM-9M/X Sidewinder infrared guided missile and a third belly bay that can hold six AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided missiles with a maximum range of 65 miles. JDAM satellite-guided weapons and up to four 600-gallon fuel tanks can also be stored in the center compartment. The right-wing root of the F-22 conceals a twenty-millimeter M61A2 six-barreled Gatling gun with enough ammo for little under five seconds of continuous fire.

The information on the Sukhoi Su-57 is much less. Seven years of test flights have not revealed all there is to know about the aircraft. What is known is that Sukhoi had difficulty developing the aircraft, especially crucial parts like the engine. 2019 was the year for the first operational aircraft to join the Russian Aerospace Forces. Although they are both fifth-generation fighters, the Su-57 and F-22 Raptor have quite different design philosophies. The Raptor placed a strong emphasis on mobility and stealth. Contrarily, the Su-57 prioritizes maneuverability and speed, making it comparable to the YF-23 Black Widow II.

According to experts, the Su-57 is an updated version of the Su-27 Flanker with increased maneuverability while maintaining low radar observability. According to aviation author Piotr Butowski, a plane with considerable static instability may move “much more at supersonic speeds than any previous fighter.” For avionics, fuel, and weaponry, the internal volume is increased by the blended wing design.

The performance of the Su-57 is greatly influenced by its two engines. The thrust output of each Saturn izdeliye 30 engine is intended to range from 24,054 to 35,556 pounds, with the top end falling within the capabilities of the F-22’s F119 engines. These are designed to propel the aircraft to supercruise speeds of up to Mach 1.5. Unfortunately, the izdeliye 30 is having issues, therefore the first 12 of Moscow’s new planes will be powered by two Su-35-like Saturn AL-41F1 afterburning turbofan engines that provide a combined 65,000 pounds of thrust.

The L402 electronic countermeasures suite and the N056 Byelka radar system will be installed on the Su-57. The 101KS Atoll electro-optical package, which includes an infrared search and track system, will help the pilot track and engage targets with infrared-guided missiles at shorter ranges while L-band arrays will be the fighter’s primary way of detecting stealth aircraft at longer ranges.

The Su-57’s two substantial internal armament bays are positioned side by side and occupy nearly the whole length of the aircraft. Up to four K-77M beyond visual range radar-guided missiles can fit in each compartment. The K-77M missile, also known by the NATO codename AA-12 Archer, has a bigger body than earlier models of the K-77 and an active electronically scanned array radar seeker, which enable it to engage highly maneuverable targets at distances of up to 100 miles. Additionally, the K-74M2 short-range infrared-guided missiles are kept under the underwing fairings of the aircraft.

The two aircraft each have various benefits depending on the range according to their varied design priorities. Priorities and armament of the Su-57 support the identification and eradication of threats at great distances. The Su-57’s radar must be able to identify stealth aircraft at a distance, which is essential to this tactic. The aircraft can react fast and retreat from battles it cannot win thanks to its concentration on speed. However, the Su-57’s combination of mobility and infra-red search and track will make it a lethal opponent once the two opposing fighters are close to visual range.

On the other side, the F-22 Raptor places a strong emphasis on mobility and stealth. Long-range opponent detection is another capability of the F-22, and if it can avoid hostile radar, it can set up an ambush before the enemy is even aware it is there. As a result, the F-22 has a higher chance of seizing the initiative first and winning the conflict before the two aircraft can get into the visual range of one another.

The F-22’s stealth must shield it from the prying eyes of Russian radars, which is essential to the Raptor’s strategy. Given that we don’t know how maneuverable the Su-57 is, it’s tough to predict who would win a dogfight. However, the Russian jet’s infrared search and track system—which the American stealth fighter lacks—will be a significant advantage in combat.

One of the best aircraft in the world and the current leader in performance is the F-22 Raptor. For the first fifth-generation fighter to achieve operational status, the Su-57 could demonstrate to be a strong and deserving rival in a variety of ways. Our world will be significantly worse off as a result of their conflict, should they ever meet. We can only hope that the only thing we ever get to do is speculate about the encounter.

September 10, 2022 0 comment

Military

The Swedish Saab 35 Draken

by Till Daisd September 9, 2022

written by Till Daisd

The Saab 35 was a revolutionary Swedish design that, in contrast to certain common Nordic furniture, was very durable and had a long lifespan. The Saab 35, a novel jet fighter designed by Saab engineers, would have two delta wings.

Large, triangle-shaped wings that are largest at the back and taper inward closer to the plane’s nose are known as Delta wings. There are some advantages to delta wings. In comparison to conventional wings, delta wings often have larger interior space for fuel. Although they incur more drag than traditional swept-wing aircraft, delta wings can also be structurally stronger. After the Second World Conflict, Sweden upheld a neutrality policy but also anticipated that, if war broke out, it would likely be against the Soviet Union.

The Swedish Air Force anticipated the requirement for a jet fighter that could combat fighters while also being able to intercept bombers at high altitudes. Such an interceptor was developed soon after the Second World War, and it represented a significant advancement in aviation technology.

Saab engineers came up with a daring design for the Saab 35 Draken, an all-weather supersonic jet fighter. After researching various methods of storing the fuel and equipment, Erik Bratt, an aircraft engineer, and a group of more than 500 experts conceived the idea of a special “double delta” wing shape.

The Draken, which translated means “dragon” was actually intended to mean “kite” due to the curvature of the wings and was the first successful aircraft to use the double delta wing design. These are easily identified as the broad, triangular wings that are widest at the back and taper inwards closer to the nose of the plane.

The first is that compared to conventional wings, delta wings can be structurally stronger and have greater interior space for fuel. Higher drag compared to ordinary swept-wing aircraft is the trade-off. The Saab-210, a sub-scale test plane that was informally dubbed “Lilldraken” or “little kite,” was first flown in 1952 to establish Saab’s still-unique double-delta wing configuration. The double delta design appeared promising to Bratt and his team after three years of intensive design study.

In the era before modern flight simulations and computer-aided design (CAD), such scale prototypes were required.

The double delta layout was effective. The Saab 210 flew over Stockholm in 1952 to commemorate the city’s founding’s 700th birthday. The double delta was actually rather effective. The Cobra Maneuver, a technically difficult aerobatic show in which a quick lift of the nose forces an airplane to fly forward perpendicular to the ground, was done by Swedish Saab pilots in the early 1960s.

The minute the pilot turns to face the sky, the airframe becomes a massive airbrake, rapidly slowing the aircraft. The Cobra Maneuver proved the Saab 35’s capabilities even though it is not always appropriate to combat situations. It is a sign of excellent maneuverability.

For its day and given that it had only one engine, the Saab 35 was a very capable jet. In addition to air-to-air missiles and one or two 30-millimeter internal cannons, depending on the variant, the fighter had a Mach 2 top speed.

The Saab 35 proved to be a reliable supersonic interceptor and skilled dogfighter during the Cold War. This was one of the first combat aircraft made in Western Europe to surpass Mach 2 in level flight. The aircraft was first used by the Swedish Air Force before being exported to Denmark, Finland, and Austria.

The aircraft underwent several improvements, 651 were made in total. A tribute to the Saab 35 Draken’s efficient design and capabilities is the fact that the last one, which was serving with the Austrian Air Force, was only retired in 2005. Despite never participating in actual combat, the aircraft would have performed admirably in its mission as an interceptor against Soviet bombers and would have easily outperformed Soviet fighters of the time.

Outside of Sweden, the Saab was successful and exported to some of Sweden’s neighbors, including Finland and Denmark. Up until 2009, twelve formerly Danish Saab 35s were operated by the US as training aircraft. Austria also purchased several unique Saab 35s. The Austrian State Treaty restricted Austria from using air-to-air missiles, therefore they equipped their Saabs with internal cannons for air-to-air combat.

In 1993, the prohibition was lifted. The Saab 35 Draken continued in operation in some capacity until the mid-2000s, a run of around fifty years, even though it was eventually superseded by the more powerful Saab 37 Viggen (which also employed a modified delta wing design).

September 9, 2022 0 comment

History

The first fight of a P-51 with a Me 262, which resulted in the death of Luftwaffe Ace Walter Nowotny

by Till Daisd September 5, 2022

written by Till Daisd

Even though his last statements were muddled, Nowotny’s aircraft was struck and on fire when he plunged to his death

For their respective air forces, the Me 262 and P-51 Mustang were the cutting edges in terms of design, performance, and combat capabilities.

The Me 262, which made its operational debut in the summer of 1944 and was powered by the Jumo 004 jet engine, was faster and more powerful than anything the Allies possessed. However, the availability of both machines and trained pilots was becoming an insurmountable problem for the Luftwaffe.

The USAAF, meanwhile, finally had a fighter with the “legs” to escort its heavy bombers deep into Reich airspace, and back, for well over 1,000 miles in the P-51, fitted with the Rolls-Royce (Packard) Merlin engine and drop tanks. Furthermore, while having a different powerplant and top speed from the feared Me 262, the P-51 was more than capable of competing against it on an equal footing if flown to its strengths. In actuality, the Mustang would emerge as the enemy of the Luftwaffe fighter arm.

Since August 1944, the USAAF had been aware of the Luftwaffe’s beginning to use the Me 262 in small numbers over the Western Front in both the fighter and bomber roles, according to Robert Forsyth’s account in his book Me 262 Vs P-51 Mustang. Meetings between Allied fighters and “jet jobs” gradually increased as the summer gave way to fall, but there was something of a cat-and-mouse nature about them.

One of the earliest known engagements between a P-51 and a Me 262 took place on Aug. 20 when a Mustang pilot reported spotting “a ship similar to an A-20.” The pilot went on to describe how the jet “turned into the sun from ‘six o’clock’. We turned into this attack, but due to the tremendous speed of the enemy aircraft, I was unable to get my guns on him. We easily out-maneuvered him, and when he dived past us, I realized the enemy aircraft was jet-propelled.” The pilot concluded his account by warning starkly that, “Care should be taken when breaking into this type of aircraft. The break should start much sooner than is necessary when fighting Me 109s or Fw 190s. This is due to the tremendous speed of the enemy aircraft.”

A Mustang “jockey” wouldn’t claim the first Me 262 “scalps” until October 7. Despite having started operational flying four days earlier, Kommando Nowotny’s first mission of any significance wasn’t carried out until the 7th, when a formation of Me 262s piloted by the legendary Hauptmann Georg-Peter Eder prepared to take off from Achmer to intercept enemy bombers attacking oil targets. Eder had to abort when one of his Jumo engines flamed out as the jets started to move across the concrete taxiways.

The P-51D of 361st FG pilot 1Lt Urban L. Drew swooped down while the three other Me 262s, flown by Oberleutnant Paul Bley, Leutnant Gerhard Robert, and Oberfahnrich Heinz Russell, proceeded to taxi out for takeoff.

When a “box” of B-17 bombers came back from attacking one of the refineries, Drew, who was in charge of the 375th FS, noticed a dogfight below the bombers and left his section to descend with his own flight to investigate. He duly joined up with some other Flying Fortresses that were in need of suitable escort after discovering that the aircraft had dispersed when he arrived on the scene. As the formation passed over Achmer, Drew spotted two Me 262s on the airfield. For a few moments he monitored their progress:

The First Engagement Between a P-51 and an Me 262 and the Death of Luftwaffe Ace Walter Nowotny

‘The lead ship was in take-off position on the east-west runway and the taxiing ship got into position for a formation take-off. I waited until they were both airborne and then rolled over from 15,000 ft and headed for the attack, with my flight behind me. I caught up with the second Me 262 when he was about 1,000ft off the ground. I was indicating 450 mph and the jet aircraft could not have been going over 200mph. I started firing from about 400 yards, with 30 degrees deflection. As I closed on him, I observed hits all over the wings and fuselage.’

This aircraft, which blew up soon as it was taking off, was possibly Leutnant Kobert’s. Drew’s P-51 flew directly through the victim’s burning remains and dispersed the debris.

‘Just as I passed him I saw a sheet of flame come out near the right wing root. As I glanced back I saw a gigantic explosion, and a sheet of red-orange flame shot out over an area of about 1,000ft. The other jet aircraft was about 500 yards ahead of me and had started a fast climbing turn to the left. I was still indicating about 400mph and I had to haul back on the stick to stay with him.’

Oberfahnrich Russel might have been piloting the Me 262, which collapsed under machine gun fire from the P-51. Drew explained:

‘I had started shooting from about 60ndegrees deflection at 300 yards and my bullets were just hitting the tail section of the enemy aircraft. I kept horsing back on the stick and my bullets crept up the fuselage to the cockpit. Just then I saw the canopy go flying off in two sections and the plane rolled over and went into a flat spin. He hit the ground on his back at about a 60-degree angle. I did not see the pilot bailout. The enemy aircraft exploded violently, and as I looked back at the two wrecks there were two mounting columns of black smoke.’

Oberleutnant Bley’s plane crashed on the runway amid the commotion, but he managed to flee. Despite the fact that his gun camera was unable to capture the action on video, 1Lt Drew claimed responsibility for the downing of two Me 262s.

As the Luftwaffe increased the rate of Me 262 sorties in November, the battle against the jets became more intense. On the first day of the month, Oberfahnrich Willi Banahaff of 3./ Kommando Nowotny was forced to leave following a run-in with P-51s over Holland. However, 24 hours later, there was a relief when Feldwebel Erich Buttner shot down a P-51 and a P-47. The loss of three more jets to Mustangs on November 4 dampened this event, though.

Worse was to come when Major Walter Nowotny, the famed commander of the Kommando and one of the most distinguished pilots in the Luftwaffe, finally took off to combat the enemy in a Me 262 on the afternoon of November 8. For his 257th and 258th victories, the ace downed a P-51 and a four-engine bomber, but on his way home, he was apparently intercepted by Mustangs thought to have been flown by ace Capt Ernest C. “Feeb” Fiebelkorn of the 20th FG and 1 Lt Edward “Buddy” Haydon of the 357th FG, who each has been given credit for a shared kill. Whatever the reason, Nowotny’s cracking voice could be heard on the radio a short while afterward.

Adolf Galland witnessed events from the ground. ‘A Me 262 appeared out of the cloud and dived vertically into the ground. There was black smoke and an explosion.’ Even though his last words were muddled, Nowotny’s aircraft was struck and on fire when he plunged to his death.

Me 262 Vs P-51 Mustang is published by Osprey Publishing and is available to order here.

Photo by U.S. Air Force

September 5, 2022 0 comment

Military

The H-20, the Chinese stealth bomber

by Till Daisd September 3, 2022

written by Till Daisd

As it strengthens China’s nuclear triad and significantly widens its nuclear assault range to encompass a significant chunk of the continental U.S., the H-20 stealth bomber, which is being dubbed a “B-2 copycat”, is projected to present an altogether new realm of threat dynamics to the U.S.

According to the UK’s Sun, the new H-20 bomber, which is anticipated to arrive in a few months, has a range of up to 7,500 miles, making it possible for one sortie from mainland China to reach targets over the United States without the need for refueling.

This is a significant breakthrough because uninterrupted stealth bomber attack missions with that type of reach increase the risk of an undetected nuclear assault on important U.S. targets. Refuelers can, of course, help disclose the position or existence of a stealth bomber.

According to an article in the Asia Times: “the South China Morning Post, which cited a London-based Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies report, the state-of-the-art H-20 can carry a massive weapons payload of 45 tonnes and fly great distances without mid-air refueling.”

Although the precise makeup of its stealth capabilities or radar-signature-reducing technologies may not be fully understood, the images and renderings that are now available show an aircraft that, in some ways, resembles a U.S. B-2.

Given China’s well-known and well-documented propensity to steal or replicate American weapon systems, nothing about this is particularly surprising. This is especially true in the case of the H-20. The similar rounded upper fuselage, wing bodies that meld together, curved upper air inlets, and almost no vertical structures distinguish it.

To show China’s overt “copycat” action, there seems to be quite a bit of proof that is visible. During Operation Enduring Freedom in the early days of the Afghan conflict, American B-2 aircraft made 44-hour missions from Whiteman AFB, Miss., to Diego Garcia, a small island off the coast of India. The B-2 is also noted for its long-endurance flights.

In support of American ground forces, B-2s launched bombing sorties over Afghanistan from that location. Although refueling was probably necessary for this operation, it does highlight the benefits and tactical advantages of the long-endurance bombing. Annual “China Military Power Report” from the Pentagon for 2018 and 2019.

The 2019 report pinpoints that the new H-20 will likely have a range of “at least 8,500km” and “employ both conventional and nuclear weaponry.”

The People’s Liberation Army Air Force Commander General Ma Xiaotian announced the development of the H-20 in public remarks in 2016 and stated that the weapon could appear at some point in the next decades. The following decade has arrived, and early representations seem to confirm part of what Xiaotian said regarding Chinese aspirations for the bomber.

He said that the H-20 will “employ 5th generation technologies,” according to the Pentagon’s China report. Although there are still many unanswered questions, the Chinese have already developed several possibly fifth-generation aircraft with the J-20 and J-31, so the ability to engineer and deliver fifth-generation technology into the bomber may remain to be seen to some extent.

The exterior does, at the very least, seem stealthy; it appears to have an embedded engine, a blended wing body, no vertical structures, and engine air ducts woven into the frame on top of the fuselage. In the Pentagon report, it is noted that “a possible H-20 prototype depicted a flying wing airframe akin to the B-2 bomber and X-47B stealth unmanned combat aerial vehicle.”

A B-2 bomber’s reported range of more than 6,700 miles looks to be a little shorter than the reported range of 8,500 kilometers. Pentagon reports have raised worries that the Chinese “may also be developing a refuelable bomber that could “reach initial operating capability before the long-range bomber.”

Given the extensive enhancements and modifications the Air Force made to the platform in the 1980s, it is also unclear if the H-20 would be able to compete with a U.S. B-2. A thousand times faster computer processor, air defense evasion Defensive Management Systems sensors, and upgraded weaponry, including the capability to drop the B-61 Mod12 nuclear bomb, will shortly be installed on the B-2.

The B-2 will look very different in a few years compared to its 1980s origins as the Pentagon seeks to ensure the platform remains relevant and effective for many years into the future. The B-2 is scheduled to fly alongside the new B-21 until sufficient numbers of B-21s arrive.

There might simply be too many unknowns for it to be competitive with a B-2 or B-21. A few things do, however, come to mind. For example, the B-21 airframe seems to have few, if any, external exhaust pipes, which begs the issue of whether it uses innovative thermal management or heat dispersion technology.

To make stealth bomber airframes less visible to thermal sensors, it is important to aim toward making them match or align with the ambient air temperature. Additionally, senior Air Force officers have stated that the B-21 platform features a new generation of stealth technologies and can “hold any target in the world at any time” even though many facts about the B-21 remain “black” for understandable reasons.

This suggests that there may be a great degree of confidence in the new B-21’s ability to defeat the most sophisticated air defense systems in use today and projected in the future. Given the new generation of technology used in advanced Russian air defenses like the S-400 and S-500, it would be quite an achievement to be able to avoid both surveillance and engagement radar in the current technological period.

They claim to be able to detect “stealth” to a significant extent in addition to using digital networking to connect radar nodes, relying on faster computer processing, and tracking aircraft on a wider range of frequencies. Even though it is a claim made by the Russian media, this may still be unverified, but it has motivated American weapon developers to look for newer paradigms for stealth technology.

Additionally, top Air Force weapons developers have said that stealth is just “one arrow in a quiver” of ways to dodge and destroy enemy air defenses, at least when it comes to stealth planes. This is likely due to the sophistication of these sophisticated air defenses.

Despite this, there is little evidence to suggest that a new B-21 would face any difficulties when facing the most sophisticated air defenses; discussions in this vein are likely to continue for years, at least until much more information about the B-21 is known. Officials from the Air Force claim that the B-21 will be nearly “undetectable,” which may very well be the case.

September 3, 2022 0 comment

Military

The Swedish Saab 37 Viggen

by Till Daisd August 28, 2022

written by Till Daisd

Few aircraft may have a more fitting name than the Saab 37 “Viggen,” which means “Thunderbolt” and alludes to the three-forced lightning produced by Thor’s hammer. During the darkest years of the Cold War, Sweden maintained a strict neutrality stance but was well-prepared for a potential war with the Soviet Union.

Stockholm also upheld a strong policy of domestic design, development, and production of its frontline military equipment, particularly combat aircraft for the Flygvapnet, to aid in that effort. The Saab 37’s moniker, “Guardian of Neutrality,” fits it perfectly. In the early Cold War era, the Royal Swedish Air Board demonstrated its ability to forge ahead of other countries. In 1958, it started developing what was then known as “System 37,” which was created to be integrated with the STRIL 60 air-defense infrastructure of radars, computers, and displays.

The result was the single-engine, single-seat Saab 37 Viggen fighter, which had a low double delta wing and two canards with flaps. The first of seven 37 prototype/pre-production Viggens, intended to replace the outdated Saab J35 Draken, was rolled out in November 1966, and the aircraft made its first flight in February of the following year.

The Viggen joined the Swedish Air Force in 1971 after rapid advancement had been made. It was the first canard-designed aircraft to be mass-produced, and at the time of its introduction and up until the Panavia Tornado entered service in 1981, it was also the most technologically advanced fighter jet in Europe.

Advanced and Rugged Warbird: The Saab 37 was a single-seat aircraft with cutting-edge avionics, including a central computer and heads-up display to take the position of a human navigator. The CK 37 (centralkalylator 37), the first airborne computer to use integrated circuits, was among them.

The eight thousand words “vocabulary” memory unit of the miniature digital computer allowed it to give the pilot automatic navigation, target location, and even firing control. Additionally, it was connected to the STRIL 60 ground defense network.

The Viggen was the only European aircraft of its time with such sophisticated radar, a wide speed range, and a full “kit” of avionics and weaponry. The Saab S37 was built to be tough in addition to being a highly technological aircraft. The Royal Swedish Air Board also demanded that the multirole fighter be “battlefield friendly,” including the capacity to take off and land on short runways and, in an emergency, even use highways and off-road routes.

Stockholm was determined to mount a substantial defense in case the Soviets invaded, therefore the new fighter also needed to be simple for conscript-level personnel to assist refueling.

Additionally, the Saab 37 Viggen lived true to its lightning bolt name. A Volvo RM 8 turbofan, which was essentially a license-built version of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine that propelled commercial airliners in the 1960s, provided the aircraft with power. The S37 received an afterburner, and the airframe included a thrust reverser that could be used during landings.

The Saab 37 has the distinction of being the first aircraft to have both an afterburner and a thrust-reverser, a feature later used on the commercial airliner Tornado and Concorde. The Viggen was only capable of short takeoff and landing (STOL) from airstrips that were around 500 meters long.

The aircraft had a service ceiling of 18,000 meters, a top speed of Mach 2.1 (1,385 miles per hour), and a maximum range of 2,000 kilometers with internal fuel. A rate of ascent of 203 meters per second was given by the RM 8 engine. The Viggen was a true fighter with a 30mm Oerlikon KCA gun and six underwing/under-fuselage hardpoints for air-to-air and air-to-surface weaponry, which initially comprised Rb04E or Rb05A missiles for the attack and Rb27, Rb28, and Rb324 missiles for defense. Typical late-stage weapon load-outs also included RB71 Skyflash missiles, AIM-9 Sidewinders, and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles.

The Viggen was initially intended for 800 units, but the order was reduced due to expenses after it was decided not to sell the Viggen for export. The United States also prevented a potential sale to India by refusing to give an export license for the engine since it employed American technology. Initially, Saab had marketed the aircraft all over the world, but Swedish export rules were one obstacle.

Only 329 Viggens of all models, combined, were ever produced, and they flew for the Flygvapnet until 2005. The fighter was never employed in battle and less than twenty modern aircraft remain today, and most of them are housed in military and aviation museums abroad.

August 28, 2022 0 comment

History

Allied Heavies Vs German Flak

by Till Daisd August 18, 2022

written by Till Daisd

In contrast to flak damage, the percentage of allied bombers lost to or damaged by enemy fighters significantly decreased during the 1944

The Allied bomber onslaught was a massive industrial battle with more than one million tons of bombs dropped, almost one million civilians killed or injured, and more than 3,500,000 industrial and residential structures destroyed. Many times, the aerial conflict that took place over Germany has been compared to a conflict between bombers and day/nightfighters. However, historians typically overlook the significance of German anti-aircraft fortifications (flak).

In late 1943, the USAAF started to take the science of “flak analysis” seriously after realizing, to its detriment, that the Flakwaffe constituted a significantly higher threat than had been initially predicted, according to Donald Nijboer in his book German Flak Defences Vs Allied Heavy Bombers. Monthly increases in the number of heavy bombers damaged or shot down required a shift in strategy and the application of electronic countermeasures. The Eighth Air Force initially employed chaff on December 20, of that same year, two months after the USAAF unveiled the gun-laying Carpet I radar jammer. Although these techniques lessened losses, they were never entirely successful.

Allied Heavies Vs German Flak: why Allied Bombers Never Defeated Nazi’s Flakwaffe

An extensive study titled “An Evaluation Taken to Protect Bombers from Loss and Damage” was produced by the Eighth Air Force Operational Analysis Section of Headquarters in November 1944. The outcomes were sobering. Although new strategies were suggested, many of the outdated practices persisted. The report said, among other things, that:

The enemy’s flak defenses have been consolidated over the past year, and our bombers have encountered many more guns. While the percentage of bombers lost to flak has decreased only somewhat, the percentage of bombers destroyed or damaged by opposing fighters has drastically decreased. The amount of flak damage has stayed essentially consistent. As a result, the proportional importance of flak has steadily increased until June, July, and August 1944, when flak was responsible for around two-thirds of the 700 bombers that were lost and 98 percent of the 13,000 bombers that were damaged.

The current rate is startling in terms of quantity. In each of the six months ending in September 1944, 3,360 to 4,453 bombers returned with flak damage, which represents a monthly average that is nearly twice as high as the total number of bombers damaged by flak throughout the first year of operations. The fact that we have been flying over targets that are being defended by more and more guns seems to have offset all of our efforts to lessen the damage caused by flak. In addition, it’s likely that the enemy’s equipment, gunnery, and ammo have improved.

The target of 60 guns from a year ago will probably be defended by 300 guns today. This makes it crucial that we step up our efforts to reduce flak risks by reevaluating the strategies we have been employing and such novel strategies that provide genuine prospects.

The main strategies to lower flak risks are:

1. Avoid flying over flak defenses en route to and from the target
2. Enter and leave the target area on course, which crosses over the weakest flak defenses in the shortest time possible — i.e. with allowances for wind vector.
3. Fly at the highest altitude consistent with other defensive and offensive considerations.
4. Plan the spacing and axes of attack of bombing units to make the fullest use of the radio countermeasures Window and Carpet.
5. Minimize the number of bombers flying together as a bombing unit.
6. Increase the spread of the entire formation in altitude and breadth to reduce the risk of barrage fire.
7. Close up in trail so as to reduce the time between attacks of successive bombing units, and thus saturate the enemy flak defenses when they are employing continuously pointed or predicted concentration firing tactics.
8. Plan evasive action when flying over known anti-aircraft positions (except on a bomb run) to make it difficult or impossible for the enemy to get accurate data for continuously pointed or predicted concentration firing tactics.

Dismissed as ineffective and a waste of resources, the Flakwaffe in fact made a major contribution to the defense of the Third Reich. At least half of the USAAF aircraft shot down over Germany fell to flak (5,380), and it was estimated that flak accounted for 1,229 aircraft lost by Bomber Command between January 1942 and April 1945. The anti-aircraft fire served two purposes. The two roles were to shoot down hostile aircraft and, more importantly, to make bombers drop their ammunition earlier or from a higher altitude, decreasing the precision of their bombing. In addition to harming aircraft, flak caused bombers to lose altitude, slow down, and become easy targets for German fighters on the prowl.

We never overcame the German flak artillery, Commander Henry H. “Hap” Arnold, the USAAF’s commanding general, said.

German Flak Defences Vs Allied Heavy Bombers is published by Osprey Publishing and is available to order here.

Photo by German Federal Archives and U.S. Air Force via Wikipedia

August 18, 2022 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts