Turreted Fighters

[Maverick]

The idea that they would bring a greater weight of fire to bear compared to aircraft from the 30s makes some sense, given most were MG armed, but extending this into any viable wartime scenario doesn't work for me. 

The weight of the system means, as has been said, that the aircraft wouldn't be a performer, and their opponents by then would have been sporting cannon to add to the carnage.  The Defiant's NF role was great, but as a daylight aircraft, I think its demise gives a fairly good indication where any other turreted fighter would have gone.

Regards,

Mav

[sotoolslinger]

How did I miss this thread? Hey it ain't a fighter but it's got turrets and it's cool

[NARSES2]

Have to agree with GTX on this - everything I've read indicates the same. Down to the increased speed of monoplanes meaning that the small weight of fire offered by 2 x 303's would be in the sights for to short a time. That coupled with the fact that their "Airships" at the time (at least in the RAF) would have remembered the success enjoyed by twin seat fighters in WWI once appropriate tactics had been sorted out. The RAF had a long line of these from the Bristols of WWI through the "turret" Demon to the Defiant and Roc.

Chris

[Maverick]

I guess it's the same old interwar RAF (& others) story of fighting WWI all over again.  I wonder how things would have looked had they had some more 'modern thinkers' instead of Great War retreads in positions of responsibility?

Germany was an excellent example of throwing out the antiquated ideas from that conflict and forming a modern, effective force that stood as a blueprint for others (and yeah, I know the Panzer divs weren't numerical & they still had horses, etc, etc).

Mav

[Mossie]

Hi All.
Howzabout modern jetz, not so much a turret- more like the gun pit in the Millenium Falcon.  The F14 GIB on an office chair

going back in the cupboard now...........

Just re-read this, there are a couple of bomber projects in BSP Fighters & Bombers that have above & below cannon turrets like the Millenium Falcon, including a modified Avro Manchester.  Millenium Vulture maybe?!?

Jumping in on the operational use of turret fighters, I think the only real chance of success they wold have had is in the tactical role.  Aircraft like the Westland P-12 & Grushin Sh-Tandem MAI-3 with turrets in the tail would have been able to strafe targets from the rear, slightly less hazardous than the usual frontal attack & the gunner would be able to pick targets outside the direction the aircraft was travelling in.  Neither the P-12 or Sh-Tandem where developed past the prototype stage because both the Brits & Soviets felt there was no specific need for an aircraft of that type.  I wonder just how useful they would have been?

There's a pic of the P-12 on page one of this thread, here's a pic of the Sh-Tandem:

[deathjester]

I seem to remember a few years ago, an Italian firm designed a lightweight fighter not unlike the Rutan Aries, but with a fully automated, radar directed 20mm cannon barbette in the tail!
  How about an Airwolf - style, retractable, 360 degree arc of fire, short range missile launcher for tactical aircraft?

[NARSES2]

I guess it's the same old interwar RAF (& others) story of fighting WWI all over again.  I wonder how things would have looked had they had some more 'modern thinkers' instead of Great War retreads in positions of responsibility?

Germany was an excellent example of throwing out the antiquated ideas from that conflict and forming a modern, effective force that stood as a blueprint for others (and yeah, I know the Panzer divs weren't numerical & they still had horses, etc, etc).

Mav

Only problem there Mav is that the Blitzkreig was in some ways a re-hash of British WWI tactics as used at Amiens etc, only with much more reliable equipment. And those tactics only reflected what had always been seen as the ideal from the first days of warfare - the skilled combination of all arms acting in concert.

In the interwar years Britain and other nations "experimented" with inovative tactics and strategy they just didn't have the militaristic willpower to invest the Nations wealth in putting them into practice. The Germans on the other hand with an axe to grind (Versailles) did. Sadly to say.

[Maverick]

Chris,

Whilst I agree that the basic concept of an 'all arms' offensive had its roots within the later battles of the Great War, I disagree that the Blitzkrieg was a rehash.  The use of radios and commanders in forward operating vehicles were both quite at odds with any WWI concept.  Whilst I know in WW2 that the Brits had effective comms within their armoured units, their command structure interwar definitely didn't have forward positioned elements to effectively adapt tactics within the fluid war that was Blitzkrieg.  Had the Germans attempted to use the British model of sitting miles behind the rear areas looking at a map, the concept of the 'lightning war' would, in my opinion, have died a rather hasty death.

Germany wasn't the only nation to rearm during the 30s either, although they were perhaps the most effective to.  In fact, the construction of the Maginot line, as shortsighted as it was, could be considered to be a rather harsh slap in the face towards Germany.  After all, clunking great forts pointing every weapon towards the Reich is hardly a way of saying "we believe in peace", is it?

Either way, Britain was, I believe, stymied by shortsighted military leaders who failed to grasp the complexity and nature of modern warfare.  It's just a lucky thing that many of the innovative British designs were pushed ahead regardless of official sanctioning.  I'm quite sure that the experiments that the UK might have carried out might have found more favour had they been considerably more 'conventional'.  It is fortunate that both designers, experimenters and even those in positions of responsibility who were able to think 'out of the square' were able to succeed.

Regards,

Mav

[Hawkeye]

The added weight of a turret degraded performance. The effectiveness of one without sophisticated sighting/targeting systems rendered it useless as the pilot jinx around while dog fighting or avoiding a trailing threat. Just as a gunner got a line/lead on a target the pilot would jinx the aircraft causing the gunner to spend precious ammo into empty sky.

I think a more effective means to thwart an attacker is to provide provisions for a flak dispenser that would pump out aerial mines that would explode sending projectiles out much like a modern missile does today. In Dale Brown's book "Flight of the Old Dog" such devises were used in conjunction with flares and chaff.

As I recall didn't the Germans use something similar to attack allied bomber formations? Fly over a formation and drop kisses of death.

[Mossie]

Hawkeye, that's got me thinking about more modern approaches to turreted fighters.  One of the BAe SABA projects, the P.1329, was designed with an interchangable module in the mid-upper fuselage.  These modules could contain turreted cannon, hypervelocity missiles, surveilance radar, or simillar to how you mention Hawkeye, cluster bomblets or smart mortars.  The smart mortar (named Merlin) would be fired above the aircraft, each round homing in on it's target using a seeker head.  This could probably have been as deadly to helicopter formations as to armour & fixed targets.

The Soviets especially have looked to turreted fighters in more recent years, or at least using cannon aimable in two dimensons.  CAS aircraft may be able to use turrets similar to attack helicopters, especially wirh modern lightweight materials.  A retractable turret allowing high speed flight maybe?  Modern detection systems take the stress away from a pilot or the weapons operator, maybe the technology is almost mature enough to see turreted aircraft take to the skys again?

[sotoolslinger]

All ya'll have mentioned some very cool modern ideas, has anyone got pictures they can post  to excite my head.  especially the Rutan based stuff. I  that guy.

[Mossie]

Well, I can't find any pics of the P.1239 on the net, but its described in British Secret Projects; Hypersonics, Ramjets & Missiles with several illustrations & three views.

I've a couple of the ARES, but you'll find a lot more with a Google search, try Rutan ARES or Scaled Composites ARES.




There's several battlefield support aircraft detailed on this thread on Secret Projects.  If your not a member, it's worth it as you'll be able to see more images then.  There are no turreted aircraft, but some of them may be adaptable & there's several of the BAe SABA line of aircraft, of which the P.1239 belongs.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,170.0.html

[Maverick]

W,

Whilst I agree that the concept of the Defiant was as an anti-bomber aircraft, everything I've read about the type suggests that the only reason any 'success' was enjoyed by 264 was the fact that the Axis pilots incorrectly assumed it was a single seat fighter and were chopped up as a result.  Once the Jagdgeschwader realised what they were up against, it became a much easier bird to fry.

As for firing forward, I wonder how that would work?  Did they have an interrupter gear added for that eventuality?  It would seem to be a bit of forward thinking, if you'll forgive the pun.

Regards.

Mav

[Hawkeye]

I read that the USAF/USA want to use the C-27 as a gunship (light) to augment the AC-130.

I'm concepting out a light gunship that would use a retractable turret in the belly of the aircraft that houses a 20mm vulcan cannon and a 7.62mm minigun. The turret would be slaved to a fire control system that utilized a complex sensor array (radar, IR, optical) as well as a computer to collect aircraft performance information (airspeed, AOA, course, altitude etc), weapon ballistics (range, drop, type) so that the operator could strike a target without the pilot necessarily orbiting the target. The 20mm would be used for hard targets, whereas the 7.62mm would be for lighter targets. Instead of saturating an area with projectiles, this system would allow for greater accuracy, capable of firing short bursts and rapidly changing aim to keep the rounds within a tighter area. The weapons could also be selected to hose and area too.

This system would facilitate less collateral damage in urban areas when fighting guerrillas in cities and town where civilians are also present. The weapons operator could select a short burst of 7.62 to take out a roof top sniper, or switch to 20mm to penetrate a building or vehicle. It would only take a one or two second burst.

The other plus is the aircraft would be clean, by not having the weapons sticking out the side causing drag. The turret would retract for transit to and from the target as well as allow the operators to service and reload as needed. If provisions are made to allow an on demand capability to change ammo type (armor piercing, explosive, WP etc) gives the right round for the purpose.

Another part of this concept is with the ammo itself. A means to see the rounds from the gun platform but not from the ground. Today we use tracer rounds to track the bullet impact points. This also illuminates the guns location in the sky. A breath taking display but potentially deadly to the shooters. If a way can be developed to allow the aft end of the bullet to illuminate an IR sensor on the firing platform the bullets can be tracked all the way to impact, but not letting the bad guys see where they are being shot from.

Both guns could not be fired at the same time...the ballistics for each is vastly different so accuracy would be compromised. The shooter would have a rocker switch on his targeting joystick to fire one or the other. A simple movement of the thumb to depress the switch and a pull of the finger to fire the weapon as well as a safety on a second command location within the aircraft (two man policy). The selection would automatically adjust between weapons and compensate accordingly.

[jcf]

Another part of this concept is with the ammo itself. A means to see the rounds from the gun platform but not from the ground. Today we use tracer rounds to track the bullet impact points. This also illuminates the guns location in the sky. A breath taking display but potentially deadly to the shooters. If a way can be developed to allow the aft end of the bullet to illuminate an IR sensor on the firing platform the bullets can be tracked all the way to impact, but not letting the bad guys see where they are being shot from.

Perhaps a one-piece combination IR LED, battery and sensor potted into the base of the projectile?
The sensor would detect when the round was fired and turn on the LED.

Jon