My WHIF Air-Force & Military (Part II)

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'd like to start a new thread which expands off of what I had discussed in the original thread, though I have decided to make numerous changes

As before, the nation depicted is fictitious, though will often be based on numerous characteristics of the United States.  The fictitious nation's WHIF Air-Force however comes into being in 1947, not 1945, and is formed out of Army-based and Navy-based aviation-corps.  The WHIF Army and Navy would have to be persuaded to believe that the formation of an independent Air-Force would be in their best interest by members of their air-corps with various degrees of political pressuring, with heads of both Navy and Army to sign off on it.  If the WHIF Air-Force would be anything like the United States, it would be logical to conclude that it would be easier to persuade the WHIF Army into signing off where heavier pressure would be needed, along with various concessions to get the WHIF Navy to get on board.

The new service would have all fixed-wing aviation placed under a single umbrella which would include both land-based and carrier-based aviation.  As for the operation of helicopters, I'm not sure whether to put it all under the Army and Navy, to place all helicopter assets under the Air-Force, or to place certain assets under the Air-Force, with certain assets under the Army and Navy.  Regardless of exact set-up, integration would be vital, and it would be important to make sure that the Air Force would integrate well with the Army and Navy as they would often be involved with each other.  It would also be important for the defense-department set-up, and legislative branches to insure that the Air-Force with it's highly important role and the fact that the other services would be dependent on it to avoid the Air Force dominating the other services.  To produce a smooth transition for Air Force personnel, those who were members of the Army would remain working on land-based aviation; members of the Navy who worked on land-based aviation would continue to work on land-based aviation, with members of the Navy who worked on carrier-based aviation would remain so for the most part as much as possible.

With this nation based on the United States heavily, nuclear technology would become available as early as 1945, though I'm not sure if the first weapon would be like Little Boy, or more like an earlier concept that was proposed which used a lower enrichment of Uranium but employed a moderator to improve efficiency, with following weapons being more like Little Boy or Fat Man (Keep in mind this nation is not exactly the United States).  Regardless of the development and use of nuclear weapons, it would be preferable to avoid developing a strategy that entirely emphasizes a policy of all-nuclear warfare with the intention of complete and utter annihilation of the enemy.  Such a strategy has it's uses, but it's not good to be bound only by one strategy, and it would only be a matter of time before an enemy nation would gain the resources to build a nuclear bomb of it's own, and that strategy would fall apart.  With that in mind, it would be important to emphasize close-air support and air-superiority despite the development of nuclear-capable bombers; it would also be wise to ensure that bombers are not developed solely to carry nuclear weapons -- sometimes conventional weapons are just fine as is.  The bombers would be for strategic warfare, both conventional and nuclear, the interceptors would be to protect friendly airspace from enemy bombers, fighters would be to gain and maintain air-superiority over a battlefield, used to defeat enemy close-air-support planes from picking off troops on the ground at will from the air, protect close-air support aircraft, who's job it is to pick off enemies on the ground at will, and prevent enemy fighters from maintaining air-superiority.  Essentially a well blended, well-rounded air-force is the goal.

At the time of the creation of the WHIF-Air Force there would be numerous fighters, attack planes, bombers and transports of various types being used by former Army and Navy Air-Forces.  It would be important to get all these aircraft under one designation system that would cover everything.  By in large, the system would be similar to the Tri-Service 1962 designation system utilizing a numerical system similar to the USAF, and assigning new designations starting with one to all planes currently in inventory or service ordered by date of first flight, and then proceeding from there.  There would be a few exceptions though
- I would prefer to give the D-designation to Drone, and the place the Drone-controller category under Special-Electronics
- I would prefer to delete the O-designation which is used for Observation, and place it under the Reconnaisance designator as they seem to be redundant
- I would want to employ multi-role designations:  For example if I had a fighter that was clearly designed with significant attack capability (yet was still predominantly a fighter), I would prefer a designation of F/A with the numbering to come from the fighter series (i.e. F-2, F-3, F-4, F/A-5, F-6), and if I had an attack plane that was predominantly attack, but clearly had significant air-to-air capability, I would prefer a designation like AF, with the numbers coming from the attack-series (i.e. A-3, A-4, A/F-5, A-6, A/F-7, A-8)
- Certain naval designations (if they were basically Army designs used by the Navy, such as how the R4D was basically a C-37) would be given the previous army-designation (within reason).

As for engine designations, at least turbojets, turboprops, turbofans, and ramjets would start with 1 and would continue up from there.  Being that the first jet-engines would be created under an Army Air Force and a Navy Air Force; Army would get odds, and Navy would get evens; however once the WHIF Air-Force gets into being, the engines no longer follow odds and evens and simply go up in number.  Unless an entirely new engine designation system would be better.

Due to the fact that this Air Force would have been formed after the first several jets would have flown, I have already created two baseline fighter designs, one created by the Army, and one created by the Navy.

The WHIF Army Air Force design would be based on a fuselage-shape similar to the Hawker Sea-Hawk (basically tear-drop shaped), but with a longer nose more like that of the Hawker Hunter.  Wings and tailplane cross-sections would be derived from the P-51 with revisions to thickness, tapers, and leading-edge/trailing-edge sweeps (The inboard trailing edge would have more forward-sweep to it as the shape worked well on the Hawker Sea-Hawk and also would help blend the engine bay in with the wings) and of course area (total area would be around 350 square-feet give or take a little bit), with the tailfin featuring some form of high-swept dorsal section and sized appropriately.  The aircraft would be powered by two engines which would likely be based on the centrifugal-flow J31 type engine.  The intakes would be basically mounted on the side of the fuselage, be relatively flat and wide (deeper at the inboard section than the outboard section), swept, and blended in nicely with the wings.  The nozzles would be slightly outboard of the root due to the exact position of the engine with a fillet between the nozzle and the fuselage.  Armament would consist of 2 x 20 mm and 1 x 37 mm cannon, with possible provision for some rockets of either 2.75" to 5" variety.  Empty weight would probably be around 7,500 to 8,250 lbs with a maximum weight of around 12,000 to 14,000 based on the weights of the P-59, and Gloster Meteor.  Aircraft would make it's first flight in 1942 or 1943 and would enter service sometime in 1944.

The WHIF Navy Air-Force design as I envision it would be basically based on an aircraft with a basic shape to the F2H, but around the same size as the FH.  I would have used a slightly larger wing area with swept intakes and a more gradual sweep on the blended area which connect from the intake to the wing.  Guns would be placed on the bottom rather than the top, it seems easier for maintenance (though I could be wrong), and it wouldn't screw up the pilot's night-vision when used at night.  Armament would be 4 x 20 mm cannons and racks for 5 inch rockets.  Engine power-plant would be a centrifugal flow jet like the J30 similar thrust and such.

Technically there would be other jet-fighter planes built likely during that timeframe, but I have a number of unresolved questions that would prohibit me from accurately doing this.  

As for attack-planes, as I had mentioned in a previous post, the first close-air-support planes would be pistons because of their superior loitering capabilities, and would likely be WW2 grade propeller aircraft of various types.  The second generation of CAS planes being jet-powered (aft-fan turbofan probably).  Since this Air-Force would come into being later there would be more Navy and Army jet-aircraft developed which I'm working on, though the first two were pretty much what I was going for.  After that I'm not sure.  

As for post war development, it would of course be important to make use of the supersonic wind-tunnel facilities the germans had that we would get our hands on and develop the means to get a supersonic wind-tunnel of our own.  It would be important to take any german-fighter designs, as well as german engine-designs we knew about and test them and derive any useful information off them to help develop future aircraft.  Granted the Germans were not as far ahead as one would think, but still some useful tips and tricks can be gleaned.


KJ Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

If anybody can help me with this, does anybody know why the Navy took longer to adopt swept-wings than the Air-Force?  I've heard many explanations over the years, regarding claims the Navy was worried about their carrier handling characteristics, or the fact that the Navy didn't get the post-war data as fast as the Air-Force.

[GTX]

Why are you bumping your own thread - I'm positive this question was posted last week (or there-about).  If people have an answer, they will  reply.

Greg

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm thinking of adding in some more jet-fighters into the mix for the time being.  Since I'm starting from scratch, for the time being I'm starting with F-1 for the first fighter, and the first jet-fighter, which would be the AAF design I had mentioned in a previous thread, the plane would be named "Eagle" due to the fact that birds of prey make great names for fighter-planes, the plane would have high performance for the era, and it's large 350-square foot wings (based on the P-51 cross section with thickness and taper modifications) designed to provide good high altitude agility.  It's first date of flight would be around 1942 to 1943 with a service entry date of around 1944.

The F-2 would be the Navy jet-design which I had described in a previous thread (I have not come up with a name for the aircraft yet), based on an FH sized aircraft with F2H design characteristics and other such modifications, and J-30 like axial-flow engines.  It's first date of flight would be based on the actual FH, making it's first flight in 1945 (either on a similar schedule, or potentially a few months later in the year) and entering service in 1947.

The third jet-fighter design would fly initially as an AAF design as a fighter-bomber, most likely with a role similar to the F-84/F9F, ideally with better maneuverability than the F-84...
Design wise, I'm thinking of either...
- A single-engined jet-fighter with bifurcated intakes and a straight tapered wing that would possess characteristics of both the F-84 and F9F
- A single-engined jet-fighter with bifurcated intakes and a straight wing, perhaps a wing with a slight-sweep that would possess characteristics to a scaled up DH Vampire
(Though I'd be willing to listen to some alternative ideas),
...With the following armament capability...
- 4 x 20mm cannon
- 4,500 lbs of bombs
- Fully-loaded weight figures somewhere between the F-84 and F9F.  
- Axial-flow powered-engine type with thrust figures similar to the J-35.  
...It would be designated the F/A-3, while I haven't dedicated a nickname for the plane yet, the name "Vulture" sounds nice.

The fourth jet-fighter design as I see it would basically be a bigger, longer-ranged version of the "F-2", with greater range, more powerful engines and such, in essence it's what the F2H was to the FH.  I think it would have been better for the design to have more readily deviated from the "F-2" design as it would have allowed more latitude in the overall design (and could have potentially allowed less weight-gain).  It would be designated F-4, and I have not come up with a name for it yet.


I'd of course like to hear feedback since I am not a huge expert on aircraft design, and I do want to be realistic.


KJ Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

Since the second aircraft, and fourth aircraft have not received names yet, and I'm not entirely sure about giving the third one the name "vulture", I'd like to hear people's opinions on names.

Go wild

[Battlefield]

I'd like to suggest that the F-2, the naval fighter, could named "Osprey." after all, an Osprey is a bird of prey that lives near bodies of water, like the sea.

I'd also suggest "Hawk" or "Falcon" for the F-4 fighter.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

I'd like to suggest that the F-2, the naval fighter, could named "Osprey." after all, an Osprey is a bird of prey that lives near bodies of water, like the sea.

I like Osprey!  Let's go with that

I'd also suggest "Hawk" or "Falcon" for the F-4 fighter.

"Falcon" could be a good name.  Could "Super Osprey" or "Osprey II" work nicely?  Or do you think a new name should be used?


KJ Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was looking at the book "American Secret Projects:  Fighters & Interceptors 1945 to 1978" and it shows on page 39 (upper image) a McDonnell Model 40 design which was based on the F2H but with swept wings and a V-tail.  According to what was written in the book, it was the first serious fighter-competition after WW2 and stated that all entries were supposed to be submitted by April 1946. 

Since my WHIF Air-Force is to have an F-2 Osprey (which is based on the FH Phantom), and an F-4, which effectively is what the F2H was to the FH, and their dates of first flight will be similar to each other:  Was the actual F2H Banshee too far along by April 1946 to have been modified to incorporate a 35-degree swept-wing assuming there was more latitude to deviate from the original design?


KJ Lesnick

[Battlefield]

Since the F-4 isan enalrged version of the F-2, then the name "Super Osprey" woudl be appropriate.

By the way, are you planning to create any designated night fighters, or are you just going to have variants of existitng aircraft?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

Since the F-4 isan enalrged version of the F-2, then the name "Super Osprey" woudl be appropriate.

Great, so the F-1 will be the Eagle, the F-2 will be the Osprey, the F/A-3 will be the Vulture, and the F-4 will be the Super Osprey

By the way, are you planning to create any designated night fighters, or are you just going to have variants of existitng aircraft?

That's a good question, I'm not entirely sure.  The British seemed to do okay with their Night-Fighter Gloster-Meteor models, and I don't necessarily see a problem with a modified Night-Fighter version of the Eagle and Super Osprey with a twin-crew and a radar. 

What's your opinion on the matter?

[Battlefield]

Well, to use a real world example, during the late 1940s and early 1950s, the US Navy and Marine Corps had a dedicated night fighter, the Douglas F3D Skynight. It was first flown in 1948 and entered service in 1951. It was one of the last aircraft to be ever designed from the ground up as a designated night fighter, since, about the mid-1950s, all-weather aircraft such as the F-94 Starfighter and F-89 Scorpion took on that role.

Since your airforce exists during the late 1940s, it would be sor of logical for it to have at elast one pupose-built night fighter. I think "Owl" would be an appropriate name for it, since it is a bird of prey that's active during the night time.

These are just my thoughts. The final decision is yours.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

Well, to use a real world example, during the late 1940s and early 1950s, the US Navy and Marine Corps had a dedicated night fighter, the Douglas F3D Skynight. It was first flown in 1948 and entered service in 1951. It was one of the last aircraft to be ever designed from the ground up as a designated night fighter, since, about the mid-1950s, all-weather aircraft such as the F-94 Starfighter and F-89 Scorpion took on that role.

At this stage in time, I'm starting to become more partial to the idea of a dedicated, purpose-built night-fighter, but I'm just curious to know if a radar-system like the AN/APG-35 be fit reasonably well into a modified "Super-Osprey" design with tandem twin-man crew, and a modified nose?  I'm also curious to know how the F3D compared to the night-fighter versions of the Gloster Meteor (The NF.11 through NF.14).

Since your airforce exists during the late 1940s, it would be sor of logical for it to have at elast one pupose-built night fighter.

Makes sense.  To be honest, I think it would probably be better to develop a purpose-built night fighter as it would be more likely to be able to accommodate a wider range of equipment onboard.

I think "Owl" would be an appropriate name for it, since it is a bird of prey that's active during the night time.

Could be a good name, how about "Nighthawk"?  I'm not sure if I want to name all fighters after birds of prey, so if you have any other cool names, I'd love to hear it.


KJ Lesnick

[Battlefield]

If it's modified, it probably will. As for a compariosn between the F3D and Meteor NF, I think the ebst wya to find that out is to compare thier specs and service records to one another. I know that the Skynight did claim several kills during the Korean War, but I'm not sure about the Meteor NF.


A purpose built fighter would work. That way, you could fit wahtever you want into it from the start. 


"Nighthawk" would be a good name. As for something other than birds of prey, how about mythological creatures?

Here's a list I've put togther: Chimera, Hydra, Wyvern, Centaur, Minotaur, Phoenix, Griffion, Sphinx, Basilisk, Medusa, Gorgon, Cyclops, Cerebus, Harpy, Pegasus, Manticore, Drake, Dragon, Serpent, Goblin, Golem, and Gargoyle.

[sequoiaranger]

>...mythological creatures?   Here's a list I've put togther: ... Cerebus...,<

Good list! Howsomever, I think you mean "Cerberus" for the mythical three-headed dog (pic below). This name might be good for a three-seater, or three-engined plane!

[Battlefield]

Yeah, I did mean "Cerberus." I can't think of any kind of jet that would have a crew of three, though.