FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1950
1950 - 1586.PDF
2l6 FLIGHT "The German Becker gun of 1916 (of which the British Hispano gun is but an adaptation of a modification) was designed for use against armoured ground targets..." Illustrated is a 20 mm Becker mounted defensively on an A.E.G. long-range night-bomber. Fighter Armament ... inability to appreciate experience gained eitewhere. However well mentally equipped they may be—some are indeed so- most appear to be blissfully unaware on what ground they are building, and to care little about experience other than their own. These hamadryads are offended when reminded of such experience and withdraw with hurt feelings into the trees of top secrecy, like snails into their shells. Too many, more- Over, seem to recoil automatically from new ideas. Finally, the inclination of arms experts to maintain a dogma of infalli- bility is paramount. It is, consequently, not surprising that fighters are under- gunned, that mistakes are repeated, that postulates are held up with arguments long known to be fallacious, and that hopeful developments are arrogantly cast aside—to the delight, no doubt, of potential enemies. Before discussing some weapon developments, a brief his- torical examination of air-combat methods may be made for the benefit of those who believe that experience gained in the past may yet be helpful to an appreciation of our present problems. A few examples taken at random will show that there was and is sufficient inspiration for armament planners to draw from. In 1914, Lt. R. Clark-Hall, R.N. (later Air Marshal), then in charge of the aircraft armament of the R.N.A.S., predicted air combat as the main purpose in the use of guns. For this reason he demanded specialized armament, and that the air- craft carrying it should have superior speed, good climb and pusher airscrews. We got all this—except the specialized armament. In France, at the same* time, aircraft were being developed with guns exclusively for air combat. F. M. Green, a noted aircraft designer, stated, in 1921, his belief that the rate of fire ought to be stepped up, and that special guns were required, for air combat. The multi- gun fighter arrived 13 years later, under pressure by far- sighted R.A.F. officers, and against the advice of some arma- ment technicians. That fighter pilots had clear ideas about the requirements of air combat is evident from what Major Oliver Stewart. M.C., A.F.C., wrote in about 1923 (in his book on air fighting): — "The fighting aeroplane of the future will be a very small all-steel monoplane mounting a 1,000 h.p. gas-turbine engine and possibly incorporating some form of jet pro- pulsion. It will be capable of 400 nvp.h. on the level and will have a terminal velocity in the dive of nearly 800 m.p.b. In other words, it will be able to travel faster than sound. It will climb to 20,000ft in 4 min, and its service ceiling will be 60,000ft. . . . The pilot will be enclosed in a pres- sure suit. Looking further ahead, I feel that the totally enclosed pressure cockpit, with some form of transparent, streamline conning-tower, must eventually be incorporated. "The fewest possible accessories will be carried. They wiH have none of the bomb racks, flare tubes, signal pistols, landing and navigation lights, fire extinguishers, and other odds and ends. "The gun will be of smaller bore than the modern m.g. It will be a composite weapon consisting of several barrels, and will have a terrific rate of fire. "There will also be long-range fighters which will escort the ground-attack formations. They will be two-seaters, and will be far less swift and less vicious than the specialized fighters." When, 27 years ago, Stewart believed in. the engine- operated sub-calibre gun, he was in perfect agreement with the views which .progressive armament experts abroad held at the time. The "odds and ends," incidentally, are still with us. Basic Principle* of Interception.—Air combat obeys the principle of every combat: to destroy an enemy in the shortest time and at minimum risk. The effort required matters but little: war is not a profitable business anyhow, and in the age of atomic warfare means to frustrate such weapons are invaluable. Four basic categories of interception present themselves: (1) High-altitude; (2) Low and medium altitude; (3) Blind interception by "all-weather" fighters; and (4) Escort-duty protection. Escort fighters will not be required to seek the enemy, but to defend their formations; such fighters and those used for "all-weather" operation may possibly be identical in type. All-weather interception would make good use of refuelling and rearming in flight, permitting long patrol missions and avoiding losses other than by mechanical deficiencies or enemy action. For high-altitude interception, two distinct aircraft classes will possibly be needed: subsonic and supersonic intercepters. Operation within the transonic domain of speed will probably not be practical. Both intereepter classes will differ in power- plants, bat might have basically similar armament. The single-seater will score. Whatever the boldness of aircraft conception, the primary problem to be settled is that of the offensive weapon. Tactically, much arguing is going on about the ability of intercepters to engage the enemy at all. The U.S. Navy, for instance, states that its jet fighters can intercept any modern bombers such as tbe B-36. The U.S. Air Force claims that ceiling and speed of this bomber (which carries an atom bomb) might be increased so that no subsonic fighter could approach close enough for effective attack. The specific argument is, of course, of little importance because American fighters wiih their o.sin guns are distinctly undergunned (Rnssian intercepters carry 30 mm shell-guns and even bigger weapons), and because such statements may have been made for reasons of propaganda. But the core of the argument is that the modern bomber has become so fast and powerful in climb and ceiling that there is but a small margin left in favour of the intercepter, and that the time available for effectual interception ("effectual" because destruction after the bomber has reached the target area is no longer of the slightest value) has become desperately short. "The famous Fokker monoplane was actually a very mediocre aircraft... and Fokker was not a weapon specialist, but a hobbyist with a gift for improvization ..." Anthony Fokker is seen with his famous synchronized-Spandau-armed monoplane fighter.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
