[General Battuta]

He might be Air Force but not be a pilot.

[colecampbell666]

IIRC he said he was a pilot.

[Janos]

This is, of course, completely wrong. The P-47 was the best piston-engine fighter of the war above 20,000 feet and hence one of the best bomber escorts. It was also capable of escort to Germany once the correct drop tanks were fitted; the terrible mistake the prewar Army Air Corp made was actually forbidding their development in a bout of bomber-mania.

P-47 cost twice as much as P-51, weighed twice as much, couldn't originally perform the wanted duty as a bomber escort and couldn't climb fast above said 20 000 feet. It could dive, though!

What a great tool for bomber escorts, right. This is of course besides the point: the subsequent modifications that made P-47 somewhat glorified cannot be used to justify the original model that didn't fill the role it was supposed to fill, and more importantly: if the military proposes something, it's not always what the politicans want the military to do, it's sometimes just what the military wants to do. In times where US army is bloated and routinely proposes outrageous stuff it would do well to remember this.

[IceFire]

Not being a huge aircraft person, I don't really have a dog in this fight.

But if I were President, perish the thought, I would have someone design 3 separate aircraft, one for each branch that wants/needs.  This much generalization is what makes the damn thing cost so much.  And screw the stealth aspect, it's great, but the cost makes it questionable.  I mean is one stealthed aircraft worth 2 non stealthed aircraft assuming the rest of the characteristics are similar?  And no one has mentioned the cannon yet, do these hunks of tin even HAVE a cannon?  The last figure I heard was that about 50% of dogfights, even after the implementation of radar guided A2A missiles, were still resolved with cannon fire.

Anyway, those're my two bits...

Actually thats sort of what happened.  The Navy squeaked the mostly new Super Hornet design in under the radar without a lot of hullabaloo because its "the same plane" which its not.  The Super Hornet is a much more capable fighter and multi-role platform.  With the latest AMRAAM missiles available its almost as capable as the Tomcat ...and theoretically cheaper to maintain...so they went with that.  AEGIS Destroyers/Cruisers make up the rest of the new defence.

The USAF wanted a super fighter that could beat everything else the Russians had in development or otherwise at a ratio of 10:1 (not completely off on this either) or somewhere like that.  They got that.

The Marines, USAF, and Navy (sort of) said we want something to be the F-16, the A-10, and the Harrier at the same time and thus the F-35 was born.  So that was three.  Except...the A-10 is being upgraded to the A-10C because nothing is better than the A-10 in its specific role and the F-35 is almost as good as the two it replaces, plus some stealth, plus sensors.  Its a weird compromise.

I still think the Europeans got it right.  The Typhoon is an excellent aircraft.

Also the F-22, F-35A, and F/A-18E/F models all have integrated 20mm or 25mm cannons.  The F-35B and C have optional stealthed 25mm gun pods as optional armament.

[NGTM-1R]

P-47 cost twice as much as P-51, weighed twice as much, couldn't originally perform the wanted duty as a bomber escort and couldn't climb fast above said 20 000 feet. It could dive, though!

What a great tool for bomber escorts, right. This is of course besides the point: the subsequent modifications that made P-47 somewhat glorified cannot be used to justify the original model that didn't fill the role it was supposed to fill, and more importantly: if the military proposes something, it's not always what the politicans want the military to do, it's sometimes just what the military wants to do. In times where US army is bloated and routinely proposes outrageous stuff it would do well to remember this.

Your history is fail. The P-51 was originally an Allison-engine-powered piece of **** relegated to photo recon and BDA duties over France because it just wasn't any good. Selective memory now?

But more to the point, dear Ally is absolutely correct. This is not a "subsequent modification"; the designers included the capablity for use of drop tanks from the original model. It was the actual tanks themselves that were missing, though they were in development at the time the aircraft entered service. Rate of climb is an irrevelant attribute for escort duty. The cost is also irrevelant, and almost certainly wrong; in any case the P-47 was a significantly more manuverable aircraft above 20,000 feet and it was also multirole, as it use in ground support demonstrates, so it was worth additional cost. P-47 groups served in bomber escort to the end of the war. They were the first aircraft to provide escort to Germany and were doing so for six months before the P-51.

Now I know you're just not a good historian and all. But seriously. At least do some basic research.

[BloodEagle]

Rate of climb is an irrevelant attribute for escort duty.

 

Please clarify.

[Flipside]

Well, in NGT's defence, most Bombers will hit ceiling within friendly airspace, since fuel consumption is lower at high altitudes, and you want to enter enemy airspace with as much warning of incoming as possible, and bombers aren't exactly the fastest climbers in the world, so the escort only needs to climb as fast as the Bombers.

[NGTM-1R]

Please clarify.

Escorts would typically climb higher than bombers so that they can dive on any force attacking the bombers. However both reach operating altitude for the mission before any real possiblity of interception. Once in place as high cover or close escort, minimal altitude changes are necessary. Rate of climb is irrevelant; rate of dive is useful only to prevent destruction of the aircraft, as a last resort; if you dive out you're not covering the bombers while they're being intercepted.

High-altitude performance rewards raw power over aerodynamics, as most modern jet aircraft and the P-47 know. Once it reaches operating altitude, fast rate of climb is no longer a useful attribute to the mission, and no WW2 fighter save the Me163 was even remotely capable of vertical-plane manuvering like a modern jet aircraft, so the vertical plane was an unused element at the time. Straightline or shallow dive/shallow climb speed and turning circle were the attritubes of decision.

[Janos]

P-47 cost twice as much as P-51, weighed twice as much, couldn't originally perform the wanted duty as a bomber escort and couldn't climb fast above said 20 000 feet. It could dive, though!

What a great tool for bomber escorts, right. This is of course besides the point: the subsequent modifications that made P-47 somewhat glorified cannot be used to justify the original model that didn't fill the role it was supposed to fill, and more importantly: if the military proposes something, it's not always what the politicans want the military to do, it's sometimes just what the military wants to do. In times where US army is bloated and routinely proposes outrageous stuff it would do well to remember this.

Your history is fail. The P-51 was originally an Allison-engine-powered piece of **** relegated to photo recon and BDA duties over France because it just wasn't any good. Selective memory now?

But more to the point, dear Ally is absolutely correct. This is not a "subsequent modification"; the designers included the capablity for use of drop tanks from the original model. It was the actual tanks themselves that were missing, though they were in development at the time the aircraft entered service. Rate of climb is an irrevelant attribute for escort duty. The cost is also irrevelant, and almost certainly wrong; in any case the P-47 was a significantly more manuverable aircraft above 20,000 feet and it was also multirole, as it use in ground support demonstrates, so it was worth additional cost. P-47 groups served in bomber escort to the end of the war. They were the first aircraft to provide escort to Germany and were doing so for six months before the P-51.

Now I know you're just not a good historian and all. But seriously. At least do some basic research.

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/stevenson%20f-22%20brief.pdf

James P. Stevenson is the former editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School's Topgun Journal and author of The Pentagon Paradox and The $5 Billion Misunderstanding. He is also an adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C.

Now I know you're not much of a historian either, so I rather take a source that I know than internet username "NGTM-1R"

[Nuclear1]

I'm actually not a pilot. I'm aircrew however on the Rivet Joint.

[General Battuta]

Not being a huge aircraft person, I don't really have a dog in this fight.

But if I were President, perish the thought

Here I was thinking you didn't like the President overstepping his authority. 

[Sushi]

Escorts would typically climb higher than bombers so that they can dive on any force attacking the bombers. However both reach operating altitude for the mission before any real possiblity of interception. Once in place as high cover or close escort, minimal altitude changes are necessary. Rate of climb is irrevelant; rate of dive is useful only to prevent destruction of the aircraft, as a last resort; if you dive out you're not covering the bombers while they're being intercepted.

High-altitude performance rewards raw power over aerodynamics, as most modern jet aircraft and the P-47 know. Once it reaches operating altitude, fast rate of climb is no longer a useful attribute to the mission, and no WW2 fighter save the Me163 was even remotely capable of vertical-plane manuvering like a modern jet aircraft, so the vertical plane was an unused element at the time. Straightline or shallow dive/shallow climb speed and turning circle were the attritubes of decision.

So what happens halfway through the mission, when the first wave of interceptors hits, and you've dogfighted and bled your altitude so that you're now significantly lower than the bombers? Wouldn't climb rate be important for getting back in place quickly before another wave hit? Or was that never an issue?

I honestly don't know here: all I know is from playing flight sims, dogfights tended to spiral downward and everyone involved tended to lose a lot of altitude.

[Flipside]

Actually, that would have been a genuine problem back then, nowadays though, not so much, because interceptors could be detected further away and escorts will dive down to meet them before they can get among the bombers anyway.

Of course, having an interceptor that could climb faster than the escort could cause big problems.

[Thaeris]

Excellent. WWII aviation is my specialty...

Note some things first: I don't like the P-51. It's a plane with a bloated ego/reputation. It deserves a lot of credit, but probably not in the magnitude it gets to date.

The P-47 was a great aeroplane. But, just like the Mustang, was more suited to some roles than others. At certain high altitudes, the P-47 would outrun the Mustang with little problem due to the massive turbo-supercharger that filled in a lot of the fuselage. The exhaust from the thing made it almost like a turboprop because of residual thrust being vented. Keep in mind the P-47 was the heaviest operational single-seat fighter of the war. Being over 20,000lbs gave the plane a massive wing loading. If it was going to maneuver, it was going to do it at speed. Even in the thin air at high altitude, a "Jug" at speed was a dangerous foe. Because the fuselage was so densly packed with the mechanisms of the plane, as well as the redundancy/reliability of the radial engine, the P-47 was immensely survivable. It had a great deal of power, meaning it (despite its weight) could lift a great deal of ordnance. So, it could perform either role, escort or attack. In my opinion, it was a better attack platform.

It would have been great if it would have stayed that way for thee rest of the war. Here's why (most likely) it got replaced by the P-51: (a.) economy. The P-47 used huge amounts of fuel. The engine was thirst, and the airplane was BIG. Thus, you've got a large aircraft which has a big, blunt frontal area. Drag. (b.) logistics. Good things get replaced if there's not a lot of them. An example is already in the thread: the F-14. Now, the P-47 did see service until the end of the war, but in limited numbers. Primarily this was the P-47M in Europe and the N in the Pacific. The M and N were basically the same, but the N had longer wings with fuel tanks therein. Both had uprated engines (2,800 hp I think?).

Like all aircraft, the P-47 and '51 were good in their respective roles (even the early models), but that did not make them great at everything. The P-51 is a great example. Sure, it had a good payload in the ground-attack role, but it could not take a hit to the radiator. Which was located in the center of the plane, on the bottom of the plane. Which, made it hard to miss... Still, I will concede that the P-51 was better for the aerial superiority mission.

On maneuvering... I'll get to that later. This post is long as is...

-Thaeris

[NGTM-1R]

James P. Stevenson is the former editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School's Topgun Journal and author of The Pentagon Paradox and The $5 Billion Misunderstanding. He is also an adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C.

Fine. You want to play name the source, I'll bite.

Eric M. Brown, Royal Navy Captain and test pilot, who was contemporary to the aircraft in question and flew both of them.

Eric Bergerud, who I was fortunate enough to have attented a couple of lectures by once, historian and professor of history.

Both of whom have considerably less of an axe to grind or a dog in the fight then your source, to boot.

So what happens halfway through the mission, when the first wave of interceptors hits, and you've dogfighted and bled your altitude so that you're now significantly lower than the bombers? Wouldn't climb rate be important for getting back in place quickly before another wave hit? Or was that never an issue?

Dives and climbs were very shallow in these sorts of tactics. You did not lose altitude like you really want to, you were merely trying to gain a few extra MPH. Perhaps a thousand feet at most, more likely, five hundred, would be the variation. Interceptors avoided turning fights because of the loss of altitude.

[Thaeris]

Eric Bergerud, who I was fortunate enough to have attented a couple of lectures by once, historian and professor of history.

I envy you...

Fire in the Sky must be my favorite history to date. The time to read its almost 700 pages was well worth it.

-Thaeris

[IceFire]

P-47 cost twice as much as P-51, weighed twice as much, couldn't originally perform the wanted duty as a bomber escort and couldn't climb fast above said 20 000 feet. It could dive, though!

What a great tool for bomber escorts, right. This is of course besides the point: the subsequent modifications that made P-47 somewhat glorified cannot be used to justify the original model that didn't fill the role it was supposed to fill, and more importantly: if the military proposes something, it's not always what the politicans want the military to do, it's sometimes just what the military wants to do. In times where US army is bloated and routinely proposes outrageous stuff it would do well to remember this.

Your history is fail. The P-51 was originally an Allison-engine-powered piece of **** relegated to photo recon and BDA duties over France because it just wasn't any good. Selective memory now?

But more to the point, dear Ally is absolutely correct. This is not a "subsequent modification"; the designers included the capablity for use of drop tanks from the original model. It was the actual tanks themselves that were missing, though they were in development at the time the aircraft entered service. Rate of climb is an irrevelant attribute for escort duty. The cost is also irrevelant, and almost certainly wrong; in any case the P-47 was a significantly more manuverable aircraft above 20,000 feet and it was also multirole, as it use in ground support demonstrates, so it was worth additional cost. P-47 groups served in bomber escort to the end of the war. They were the first aircraft to provide escort to Germany and were doing so for six months before the P-51.

Now I know you're just not a good historian and all. But seriously. At least do some basic research.

Actually the early Mustangs were also quite good.  But only under 10,000 feet.  At that altitude they put in some solid tactical fighter efforts during 1942 and 1943 and also well into 1944 in China/Burma/India.  The RAF used the Mustang Mark I to launch the first tactical strikes into Germany.  But in terms of a world class fighter...not as much.  At that point the Allison was not up to the task without a supercharger better suited to high altitude.

The Thunderbolt was also developed into quite a good aircraft although that took some time as well.  The thing is that WWII has plenty of very impressive aircraft all doing different things which means that the arguments can go on for ages.

[Janos]

James P. Stevenson is the former editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School's Topgun Journal and author of The Pentagon Paradox and The $5 Billion Misunderstanding. He is also an adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C.

Fine. You want to play name the source, I'll bite.

Eric M. Brown, Royal Navy Captain and test pilot, who was contemporary to the aircraft in question and flew both of them.

Eric Bergerud, who I was fortunate enough to have attented a couple of lectures by once, historian and professor of history.

Both of whom have considerably less of an axe to grind or a dog in the fight then your source, to boot.

So what happens halfway through the mission, when the first wave of interceptors hits, and you've dogfighted and bled your altitude so that you're now significantly lower than the bombers? Wouldn't climb rate be important for getting back in place quickly before another wave hit? Or was that never an issue?

Dives and climbs were very shallow in these sorts of tactics. You did not lose altitude like you really want to, you were merely trying to gain a few extra MPH. Perhaps a thousand feet at most, more likely, five hundred, would be the variation. Interceptors avoided turning fights because of the loss of altitude.

Fine.

So what did these sources of you say, exactly? That P-47, the fighter that the AF originally proposed for bomber escort duty, was adequate from the beginning and that the decision to prioritize P-51 was useless - or the decision didn't exist? I didn't question the performance of P-47 in all the cases, I simply put forward the point that P-51 was selected for a reason for the VLR bomber escort duties to Germany!

That's besides the point, of course, which originally was that the tools military proposes for a mission are not always the best for that, but the tools military want to use. See the Crusader farce, for example.

[NGTM-1R]

Fine.

So what did these sources of you say, exactly? That P-47, the fighter that the AF originally proposed for bomber escort duty, was adequate from the beginning and that the decision to prioritize P-51 was useless - or the decision didn't exist? I didn't question the performance of P-47 in all the cases, I simply put forward the point that P-51 was selected for a reason for the VLR bomber escort duties to Germany!

That's besides the point, of course, which originally was that the tools military proposes for a mission are not always the best for that, but the tools military want to use. See the Crusader farce, for example.

The P-47 was totally adequate for the job. It was intially unable to make the range requirement for escort to Germany, but this was anticipated; the aircraft was designed and entered service with the knowledge that larger and better drop tanks were in the pipeline to extend its range. The P-47 was going to win the air war. Arguably, it did.

The P-51 was essentially a lucky break that the Air Force ended up with by accident, a marvelous fighter and certainly superior in many aspects from the B model on, but it was not required. The original weapon would have completed the job. Once the AAF got a good look at it, however, the Merlin-engined Mustang became the only tool they wanted, subverting your point.

Your argument would have been vastly more interesting and valid if you had gone with, say, the entire existence of RAF Bomber Command, USN torpedo development prior to and during WW2, German failure to design and implement new technologies for their submarines until it was much too late...

[Kosh]

German failure to design and implement new technologies for their submarines until it was much too late...

Yeah the Type 21 (like the ME-262, it's Luftwaffe counterpart) would have had a major influence on things if it was introduced earlier and in sufficient numbers.  Shame for them.