Air to air bombs

[rickshaw]

... it assumes that the attacking aircraft is only using guns and is approaching from directly astern and has closed to quite a close range.   In otherwords, normally an unlikely situation. 

In the 70s when flying low was rather prefereable to getting targeted by the SA-2 and the like and the AAMs on the fighters would be handicapped by the ground clutter leaving  guns to be nominally the best bet. I have read it somewhere that it was almost a NATO standart for F-104s to carry a Napalm store in the fuselage centre. Set aside for "bombing the interceptor." Might not have downed it but the MiG pilot would have to respond -by giving up the chase for a moment and the F-104 was blisteringly fast. The MiG would be possibly not capable of getting into the Starfighter's Six again.

Down low, the F-104, like most aircraft was rather speed limited.  Inlet lip temperatures and fuel consumption meant that it was rarely able to achieve supersonic flight and then it would have had to use Afterburner.  Even the Buccaneer down low had similar problems but because it was powered by turbofans, rather than turbojets could sustain it for a lot longer and didn't have to resort to Afterburner to sustain those speeds.  Only the F-111 was really optimised for low altitude, supersonic flight and even then, it took quite a few goes for them to get the inlet configuration right, to allow it to really exploit that potential.

While ground clutter might have affected radar homing missiles, it didn't affect IR ones and an F-104 blasting away, down low would have had a massive IR signature.  Even the early IR missiles wouldn't have had much trouble tracking in a look-down/shoot-down situation.

[Weaver]

Chris Gibson's Battle Flight mentions that the RAF looked at using Red Beard as an air to air weapon, with the lack of anything suitable to take out Soviet bombers.

Years ago I read of a tactic used by US Army Apaches for evading an attacking aircraft.  They'd turn head on to their attacker, which would reduce the amount of time a fast jet could react.  They'd then loose off a Hellfire in their direction, then head for the ground and get away as quickly as possibly.  I think the chance of hit was fairly remote, the idea being more that the attacking jet would have to take time to evade and launch countermeasures giving the Apache chance to make a getaway.

Turning into an attack and diving is a good tactic for any helo because it forces the fast jet into a steepening dive when he's already lower than he's comfortable with....

The major problem for any anti-fighter tactics with helos is warning though: visibility to the rear and above is usually dire on helos and even if there's an observer leaning out of the door, he's likely to be looking down rather than upwards.

[tahsin]

Down low, the F-104, like most aircraft was rather speed limited...

While ground clutter might have affected radar homing missiles, it didn't affect IR ones and an F-104 blasting away, down low would have had a massive IR signature.  Even the early IR missiles wouldn't have had much trouble tracking in a look-down/shoot-down situation.

I believe one can quite successfully argue that the F-104 was less limited than many. Americans would simply accelarate in Vietnam, the "latest" MiG of the time gets lots of commentary on how fast it was at Sea Level, meaning it could barely keep up with Phantoms. As for the IR signatures, it was an issue in 1972 even with Top Gun trainees like Cunningham with he firing a Sidewinder to the last MiG-17 diving and he expecting not to hit... There must be a reason why the entire European Airforces regularly ran into birds upto the end of the Cold War.

[Dizzyfugu]

Thanks Rickshaw.  I got into this because I was putting laser guided bombs onto my Skyraider for anti-ship use and while I thought it was feasible to steer one onto a moving target I wasn't sure.

Have a similar idea on the agenda, but found that the A-1's speed might be a little too low for an effective use of LGBs? Not certain, though.

As a side note concerning air-to-air bombs: the Soviet Union used small air bombs/grenades as defence in the lower rear sector on ground attack aircraft like the Il-2 and its successors. Even the Il-20 prototype carried a compartment with such weapons.

[zenrat]

Thanks Rickshaw.  I got into this because I was putting laser guided bombs onto my Skyraider for anti-ship use and while I thought it was feasible to steer one onto a moving target I wasn't sure.

Have a similar idea on the agenda, but found that the A-1's speed might be a little too low for an effective use of LGBs? Not certain, though...

Speed isn't an issue with these.  While the bombs on my Skyraider may look exactly like GBU-10s they are 500lb Mk1 LSOs from the Victorian Ordanance Works designed specifically for use from propeller driven strike aircraft...

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

Down low, the F-104, like most aircraft was rather speed limited.  Inlet lip temperatures and fuel consumption meant that it was rarely able to achieve supersonic flight and then it would have had to use Afterburner.

Huh?  If I recall, the F-104 was one of the fastest planes at low-altitude; at least with drop-tanks, it was able to escort thuds if I recall...

As for inlet lip temperatures, I'm surprised that would pose a problem at only Mach 1.2 or 1.3, even though the air is thicker down-low; I know the fuel consumption would be an issue, but I do remember some cases of F-104's slipping through the barrier by accident at low altitude even.  As an interesting note the XF-104 could actually go through the sound-barrier in level flight without using it's afterburner; the F-104A had a more powerful engine so theoretically it would be able to do the same.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's performance were more like the Lightning than you'd be lead to believe (afterburners are still preferable for interception simply because you can get up to speed and altitude faster which is vital for intercept).

While ground clutter might have affected radar homing missiles, it didn't affect IR ones and an F-104 blasting away, down low would have had a massive IR signature.  Even the early IR missiles wouldn't have had much trouble tracking in a look-down/shoot-down situation.

Even in hot weather?  I remember hearing stuff in Vietnam about routinely losing targets that dove towards the ground when the AIM-9's were shot at them.

[Allan]

Knoke's book is just about un-put-downable and the passage where he bombs the B-17s is rivetting
Goering phones him in the evening to say thanks,   true or not ? who knows
Allan in Canberra

[Mossie]

That reminds me of the Fiery Grapnel, a WWI weapon designed to destroy Zeppelins.  It consisted of two grappling hooks, one was dropped and trailed from the aircraft.  When the first one hit, the aircraft climbed dropped the other and an incendiary charge ignited the escaping gas.  Didn't work too well in practice and it wasn't adopted for use.

Here it is loaded onto a B.E.2c:

[dogsbody]

Japanese phosphorus bombs:

http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/pictures_japanese_phosphorus_bombs.html

http://forum.worldofwarplanes.com/index.php?/topic/27512-possible-japanese-premium-heavy-fighters-mitsubishi-ki-46-nakajima-j1n1-gekko/


Chris

[zenrat]

Thanks Chris.
It strikes me that the problem with the phosphorus bombs would be getting above the B29s so you could drop them.

[rickshaw]

Thanks Chris.
It strikes me that the problem with the phosphorus bombs would be getting above the B29s so you could drop them.

I doubt if you did, it would have had much effect.   It may look spectacular but were any aircraft downed by any?  The Japanese, like the other combatants were grasping at straws in desperation to try and counter the bombers.   Their anti-aircraft mortar is another example of that.  The only really effective anti-bomber weapon in WWII was the fighter and the Japanese couldn't produce enough to counter the bombers.