Rocket Propelled Bombs?

[MikeD]

Quick question - would a rocket propelled bomb be a realistic anti-ship weapon for the Royal Navy/Royal Air Force in the mid/late 1940s?

I'm thinking something like a standard 1,000lb or 2,000lb bomb with three or four rocket motors attached designed to drive the bomb even faster and improve penetration to attack heavy battleships like the Yamato or aircraft carriers. Would the rockets actually improve penetration or do bombs generally reach terminal velocity (or close to it) anyway?

It would be a weapon designed for the Royal Navy's carrier aircraft and possibly adopted by the RAF for use with Coastal Command anti-shipping squadrons using aircraft like the Beaufighter and Mosquito so a weapon like Tallboy that you need a Lancaster to lift isn't an option meaning that designers have to come up with another plan to attack heavily armoured decks while reducing the risks to the attacking aircraft (mostly using torpedoes in RN service meaning a requirement to fly relatively slowly at low level while every weapon in the enemy fleet has a crack at you). A 'super penetrating' bomb allows the attack to be carried out in a dive attack (although pulling up at a higher altitude than traditional dive bomber weapons to allow for the rockets to have an affect on the bomb) meaning that the aircraft is a more difficult target for much of the attack, hopefully improving loss rates for the Fleet Air Arm during attacks on an enemy fleet.

[Runway ? ...]

Aiming a dumb bomb would be the hard part.
Fritz X (1941) on the other hand...

[scooter]

Aiming a dumb bomb would be the hard part.
Fritz X (1941) on the other hand...

Or the USAAF's VB-9


and VB-10


Neither of which got past the experimental stage

Of course, then you have the Kettering Bug-

[sandiego89]

Quick question - would a rocket propelled bomb be a realistic anti-ship weapon for the Royal Navy/Royal Air Force in the mid/late 1940s?

I'm thinking something like a standard 1,000lb or 2,000lb bomb with three or four rocket motors attached designed to drive the bomb even faster and improve penetration to attack heavy battleships like the Yamato or aircraft carriers. Would the rockets actually improve penetration or do bombs generally reach terminal velocity (or close to it) anyway?

Sounds like a great idea, and a great WHIF.  Suggest fins arranged to get some spin on the bomb.  Perhaps use a repurposed battleship round. 

[dogsbody]

Perhaps something like a Disney bomb with a guidance system added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_bomb



Chris

[MikeD]

Thanks for the replies - I'm assuming that the unguided bombs would start to be replaced with guided weapons in the late 40s/early 50s as experience from the war and examination of captured German weapons starts to filter through the design offices and prototypes start testing.

The Disney Bomb's interesting Chris, thanks!

[kerick]

There are several rocket assisted runway penetrating bombs out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matra_Durandal
This might give you some ideas. Of course the hardest part of making any bomb effective is aiming it.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Wasn't the Tiny-Tim a 500 pound bomb warhead in a rocket?

[kerick]

Wasn't the Tiny-Tim a 500 pound bomb warhead in a rocket?

Warhead was only 148 lbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_%28rocket%29

[rickshaw]

The IJA developed towards the end of the war the Type 4 40 cm Rocket Launcher.  This used a converted 500 lb bomb, to which a sturdy, solid-fuel rocket motor had been attached.

I also seem to remember the IJN developed a similar weapon.

Neither were particularly successful as artillery weapons.

[Dizzyfugu]

The IJN worked on IR-self-guided bombs to be used against US ships (the Ke-Go, built a Fw 190 whif around it some time ago), and there radio-controlled weapons as well (I-Go).

Check this here, for instance: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/37386-japanese-radio-controlled-flying-bomb-i-go-and-heat-seeking-guided-bomb-ke-go/

[pyro-manic]

The RN tested armour-piercing gravity bombs in 1946/47 that went right through the target (which happened to be HMS Rodney) and out the bottom of the hull. The design had a solid, heavy nose which remained intact when the bomb detonated. Tested in a dive attack using Barracudas and carried out on a Scottish loch. 2000lb AP Mk.IV, if I remember correctly.

[kerick]

There was a retro rocket equipped bomb for attacking submarines in the Straight of Gibraltar.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/asw.htm
These were the first MAD equipped aircraft and since the MAD detected a submarine once it was directly over it, a rocket was used to cancel the forward motion of the aircraft and get the bomb to drop straight down.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Or the USAAF's VB-9


and VB-10

The perforated structures on the afterbody... that's to keep it from going supersonic right?

The Fritz-X had a rounded bar like structure on the aft area for the same purpose.


BTW: At the penalty of sounding stupid -- why can't bombs be shot down?  I mean missiles have been shot down, and they would almost certainly produce an RCS...

[pyro-manic]

They can. See MTHEL, HELLADS, Skyguard etc.

Why do I keep doing this...? Read the relevant section of this page (hit number two on a google search for "VB-9 bomb" ):
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/vb.html