Embarked fighter-bombers

[ysi_maniac]

Thinking in WWII escort carriers and hybrids battleship/carrier

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,41543.0.html
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,28237.0.html

Wouldn't be interesting to embark 100% of an unique fighter-bomber instead of half or third of fighters, bombers and torpedo-bombers?

What do you think?

[Gondor]

I think that it all depends on how you intend to use your vessel. If you intend to strike at land targets then load a larger proportion of aircraft suited for that mission than fighters. Anti-shipping, load more torpedo aircraft and less strike aircraft. You will always need fighters though unless you are operating as part of a multi carrier fleet which may mean that the other carrier or carriers may be providing fighter cover for your aircraft and carrier.

Gondor

[ysi_maniac]

I am thinking in self-defending aircrafts. First they deliver their torpedoes or bombs and then they can defend them selves.

[rickshaw]

I am thinking in self-defending aircrafts. First they deliver their torpedoes or bombs and then they can defend them selves.

Why should the defenders only defend after the strike has happened?   Fighters fight the defenders before, during and after a strike, you realise?  If your aircraft are weighed down by bombs/torpedoes they are at a disadvantage compared to the defending fighters which aren't.

[jcf]

Meh, the WWII period 'fighter-bomber' was completely an exigent machine, none of them were designed
for that purpose, which is not surprising as that role is one that developed because of they way the war
progressed. It was not a concept that existed pre-war, and the war was primarily fought with machines
in roles that were conceived pre-war.

As to dive bombers or torpedo planes being able to 'defend themselves after dropping their payload', well why
the hell do you think they carried guns in the first place? Their armament was defensive at all phases of their
mission. Seriously, the dumbest questions are asked on this board, I really have to ask have you actually read
any frakking history? Because, if you had you, could answer your own questions.

[sandiego89]

Wouldn't be interesting to embark 100% of an unique fighter-bomber instead of half or third of fighters, bombers and torpedo-bombers?

What do you think?

I agree with JCF, and think this would be very difficult to achieve.  Each aircraft was optomised (some more than others) for a particular role.  Each role demands certain things.  Fighters need to be fast and nimble, bombers need good payload for fuel and weapons, torpedo bombers needed even more payload.  Payload requirements can be the major driver of the size and weight of the aircraft designs. 

A jack of all trades aircraft of the era would likely end up being a master of none.  You would end up with a heavy "fighter" that would likely be less nimble than other land or sea based dedicated fighters.   

If you really wanted only a single airframe type on the flight deck in WWII, perhaps the F4U Corsair gets your the closest to being a jack of all trades.     

[tomo pauk]

What would a navy embark on the carriers depend on a number of variables:
-what is the perceived threat
-current and future number of decks and aircraft in a theater of interest
-when would 'we' do it?
-state of the art of electronics
-availability of engines powerful enough so the fighter bomber can take off with torpedo (like the Hellcat could, though it was not used as a torpedo bomber) or a big bomb
-does the navy prefer torpedo or bomb to deal with perceived's enemy capital ships
-how good is an aircraft with 1 crew member good in doing ASW patrols or/and recon

For the RN and IJN, where the torpedo was the preferred 'missile' and torpedo bomber was the 'launcher', it would not be until 1943/44 that such an aircraft could be fielded. For the USN, where much greater percentage of dive bombers was used vs, torpedo bombers, and with availability of the R-2800 already in early 1941, that option might have more merit. But still something is needed to cover the inglorius tasks of hunting the subs, recon etc.

[PR19_Kit]

 
A jack of all trades aircraft of the era would likely end up being a master of none.  You would end up with a heavy "fighter" that would likely be less nimble than other land or sea based dedicated fighters.   
     

....and you end up with a Blackburn Firebrand. 

It looked great, and surely fearsome, but it was about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Well there was the BFC and BF2C's and were designed as fighter-bombers.  Admittedly they were developments of the F11C

[Gondor]

Well there was the BFC and BF2C's and were designed as fighter-bombers.  Admittedly they were developments of the F11C

What exactly is a BFC as you have mentioned the acronym but not told those of us that don't have a clue about what it stands for?

Big Fluffy Cat perhaps?

Gondor

[wuzak]

Well there was the BFC and BF2C's and were designed as fighter-bombers.  Admittedly they were developments of the F11C

What exactly is a BFC as you have mentioned the acronym but not told those of us that don't have a clue about what it stands for?

Big Fluffy Cat perhaps?

Gondor

I had to do a search....

Google said "do you mean BCF" - a boating, fishing and camping store in Australia.

Then I tried Joe Baugher's US Navy designation page.

http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/usnavyattackdesig.html

There was an obscure category called Bomber-Fighter.

Bomber-Fighter (1934-1937)

Boeing Airplane Company
Boeing BFB

Curtiss Aeroplane Company
Curtiss BFC
Curtiss BF2C

And this is what those aircraft were:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XF6B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_BF2C_Goshawk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_F11C_Goshawk

[sandiego89]

Well there was the BFC and BF2C's and were designed as fighter-bombers. 

In addition to the BFC Goshawk series, several other 1930's fighters could also cary bombs.   All were quite limited as "bombers" and were quickly outclassed by monoplanes. Even when the Goshawks were part of the 1930's airwing, larger strike aircraft with greater payloads were needed- especially to carry a torpedo.  So while perhaps there were several early aircraft that could do multiple things (later would be termed fighter-bombers or multi-role) there was never really a single airframe that could do it all well as per the original post.    

[ysi_maniac]

Seriously, the dumbest questions are asked on this board, I really have to ask have you actually read
any frakking history? Because, if you had you, could answer your own questions.

I have not entered this site for some time. Frankly, these are not the kind of manners that I remember were usual in this forum in the past.
I think that we are here to speak about real history and alternanives to it, assuming that real history is not the only possibility to history events. I do not consider my question more dumb than the whif concept itself.

[zenrat]

Don't take it personally ysi.  Jon can be cantankerous at times.  He gets that way if he hasn't bitten the heads off any kittens lately.

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^