Tag Archives: Maritime

Official classification tag

Fiat G.50 In Finnish Service 

Finnish flag Finland (1940-1944)
 Fighter – Number operated: 35

In late 1939, the rapid expansion of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe caused great alarm in Finland. As a politically isolated nation with limited funds, Finland struggled to equip its military for a potential war with the Soviets. Despite the challenges they faced, they achieved some limited success in finding the equipment they needed. While the Finnish armed forces lacked for many modern weapons, they possessed a small number of advanced fighter aircraft, though not enough in the face of a Soviet invasion. To address this, they approached the Kingdom of Italy and acquired 35 Fiat G.50 Freccia fighters. While the G.50 was not an exceptional fighter in terms of overall performance, it was sufficient for the Finnish Air Forces and remained in frontline service until 1944.

The Fiat F.50 in Finnish service. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.50_Freccia

Finland’s Early Struggle to Survive 

Following the collapse of the Russian Empire, and the subsequent Civil War, Finland emerged as an independent state. While it did not have great relations with the neighboring Soviet Union, Finland’s first two decades of independent existence proved to be mostly peaceful. This changed drastically on 27th August 1939, when a secret meeting between German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This non-aggression pact had secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe into spheres of influence, which directly affected Finland. As part of the agreement,  Germany agreed to let the Soviets occupy former territories that had belonged to the Russian Empire. By September, the Soviets were in the process of occupying the Baltic states under the pretext of defending against a possible German attack. These countries were mostly too small to offer any real resistance to the Soviet demands.

Fearing a potential war with the rapidly expanding Soviet Union, Finnish military officials sought to acquire as many weapons and as much material as possible, including aircraft. As part of this, a delegation was dispatched to Italy. This delegation visited Turin in 1939, where new G.50 fighter was being tested. The Finnish representatives were impressed with the aircraft’s performance and promptly placed an order for 35 brand-new G.50s.

In November 1939, while testing the G.50’s capabilities, Finnish pilot Tapani Harmaja took a sharp dive from an altitude of over 3.5 km, reaching a remarkable speed of 830 km/h during his descent. Ironically, this was the highest speed achieved by any Italian aircraft up to that date.

Purchasing the 35 aircraft was the easy part; transporting them to Finland proved to be a much more challenging task. By then, the Second World War had already begun in Europe with the German invasion of Poland. With limited options, the aircraft were disassembled into smaller parts and transported by train to northern Germany. From there, they were loaded onto ships bound for neutral Sweden. Due to various delays, the first aircraft was not fully assembled until mid-December 1939, and the last of the 35 ordered fighters did not arrive in Finland until June 1940.

In the hope of acquiring more modern fighters Finland purchased 35 new Fiat G.50 fighters from Italy. Source:  airpages.ru

The Fiat G.50, a Brief History

During the 1930s, the Italian Ministry of Aviation (Ministero dell’aeronautica) was interested in adopting a new, all-metal monoplane fighter and ground-attack aircraft for the Italian Air Force (Regia Aeronautica). In April of 1935, engineer Giuseppe Gabrielli began working on a new low-wing, all-metal aircraft designated G.50. On 28th September 1935, Gabrielli submitted his project to the Ministry of Aviation. Military officials were impressed by the design and ordered him to proceed with his work. As Fiat’s production capacities were overburdened, work on this new project was instead moved to the Costruzioni Meccaniche Aeronautiche (CMASA) works at the Marina di Pisa, which had been a part of Fiat since 1931. By 1936, Giuseppe Gabrielli had completed his last drawings and the list of needed materials and equipment in.

The prototype was completed in early 1937 and was transported to the city of Turin for further testing. The prototype, under registration number MM 334, made its first test flight on 26 February 1937. Once accepted for service, the Fiat G.50 would become the first Italian all-metal monoplane fighter. Between 1938 to 1943, some 774 to 791 G. 50s would be built. These saw combat service starting from 1938 in the Spanish Civil War, until 1943 when the few surviving aircraft were reassigned to secondary roles.

G.50s flying in formation with a German Bf-110, possibly during the Battle of Britain Source; Wikipedia

In Finnish Service

While the G.50 proved to be a fairly modern fighter, they arrived too late and in too few numbers to have any real impact in the Winter War. The Soviet Union then demanded territorial concessions from Finland, particularly the lease of the Karelian Isthmus and other areas near Leningrad. The Finns were reluctant to comply, leading to unsuccessful negotiations. When diplomatic negotiations failed, the Soviet Union launched a military offensive against Finland on 30 November 1939. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, the Finnish military, with their knowledge of the terrain and effective guerrilla tactics, inflicted significant casualties on the Soviet forces. The harsh winter conditions also worked to Finland’s advantage.

With the gradual arrival of the G.50, these aircraft were assigned to the  Lentolaivue 26, or shortened, LeLv 26 (REng. 26th Fighter Wing). This unit was based at Haukkajärvi. Although the G.50s arrived late, they still saw significant action. Between February and March 1940, Finnish pilots flying these aircraft managed to shoot down 11 Soviet planes, losing only one of their own.

There is some disagreement among sources and authors regarding the use of the Fiat G.50 during the Winter War. According to P. Vergnano (Fiat G.50), the aircraft was deployed in this conflict. However, other authors, such as G. Cattaneo (The Fiat G.50), state that 14 aircraft reached Finland by February 1940, and were assigned to the 26th Fighter Wing, but they did not see action until after March 1940. D. Monday (The Hamlyn Concise Guide to Axis Aircraft of World War II), simply mentions that they arrived too late to participate in the Winter War.

Despite the Finns’ valiant resistance, they were eventually forced into peace negotiations with the Soviets. The war concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Moscow on 12th March 1940. Though brief, the conflict was costly for both sides, and Finland was compelled to cede roughly 10% of its territory to the Soviet Union, including the Karelian Isthmus. Finnish military officials, however, recognized the need to prepare for future conflicts.

Camouflage And Marking

Initially, the G.50 would use camouflage of Italian origin, featuring a combination of green, brown, and sand backgrounds. In 1941, at the insistence of the Germans, the original Italian camouflage colors would remain unchanged for the Finnish planes. However, the Italian paint was prone to peeling, so ground crews used whatever was available to repair the damage. After 1942, most aircraft were repainted with Finnish camouflage colors, such as black, olive green, and light blue.

The first aircraft that arrived in Finland was designated with the code SA-1. This was later changed to FA-1 (up to FA-35) in late January 1940, with the capital ‘F’ standing for Fiat.

The standard Finnish Insignia was a Hakaristi cross, commonly referred to as a swastika, on either side of the fuselage. The Finnish Hakaristi is often conflated with the swastika used by Nazi Germany, however, the Hakaristi was not derived from the German swastika and had been used in Finland since 1918, drawing from much older cultural use. The Hakaristi markings were blue with a round shape and a white background.

Additionally, commanding fighters often had large numbers painted on their tails. The first squadron fighter leader’s aircraft had a light blue number, followed by a black number with yellow trim for the second, and a yellow number for the third. After 1942, the light blue color was replaced by a simpler white.

The first G.50 (initially marked as SA-1 later changed to FA-1) reached Finland. This aircraft used for initial testing and crew training. Source: en.topwar.ru
The standard Finnish roundel was a Hakaristi cross which as painted on the fuselage sides. Source: ww2aircraft.net
The first squadron fighter leader’s aircraft had a light blue number, followed by a black number with yellow trim for the second, and a yellow number for the third. After 1942, the light blue color was replaced by a simpler white. Source: ww2aircraft.net

Continuation War 

While not fully aligned with Nazi Germany, Finland did allow the Wehrmacht access to Northern Finland. Finland later signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was initially an anti-communist pact between Germany and Japan, with other minor nations signing throughout the war. Prior to this, relations had already been previously established, which was convenient for both nations, as Germany could stage their military in Lapland, and other areas of Finland, for Operation Barbarossa. In turn, Finland would be granted the military assistance they needed. However, this ended all support, both material and political, from the Western Allies. On the 22nd of June 1941, Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union began, assisted by some Finnish forces. Three days later, the Soviets staged air raids against nearby Finnish cities, thus beginning the Continuation War. Finland never sought to gain any additional territory from the conflict, only to regain control of what was initially lost during the Winter War.

Just before the outbreak of the Continuation War, the Finns observed that the newly arrived G.50 aircraft were somewhat ill-suited for operating in the harsh Northern climate. This was not entirely unexpected, as the aircraft had been designed in Italy, a much warmer region, and the designers had not anticipated the need for the G.50 to function in colder parts of the world. In response, the Finnish Army attempted to modify the G.50 to enhance its effectiveness in these conditions.

The G.50s that the Finns received were from the first production series, which featured enclosed cockpits. This design element was not well received by Finnish pilots, leading to the replacement of the enclosed cockpits with open ones. Additionally, the aircraft’s variable-pitch propeller mechanism had a tendency to freeze in low temperatures, risking critical component failure. To address this issue, the Finns turned to Sweden for assistance, importing Swedish propeller spinners that were better suited for cold climates. These spinners were originally used on Swedish-imported CR.42 and J11 biplanes, which had faced similar issues.

Further modifications included replacing the original G.50 fins and rudders with improved versions. Finnish engineers also experimented with the installation of landing skis for use in snowy conditions.

To avoid freezing of some parts of the propellers, Finish engineers added a new Swedish propeller spinner, as seen here. Source: P. Verganano Fiat G.50

When the war resumed, the 26th Fighter Wing, stationed at an airfield near Utti, was tasked with defending the area around Lake Ladoga, where they saw the bulk of their action. From the outset, Finnish pilots operating the G.50 achieved remarkable success. On the first day of the conflict, the six G.50s managed to shoot down ten Soviet bombers without suffering any losses. One pilot, Oiva Tuominen, alone shot down four of these bombers within a matter of minutes. Tuominen would go on to become one of Finland’s top fighter aces, credited with a total of 23 air victories (though some sources claim 33 or even 43), with around 15 of these achieved while flying the G.50. For his service, he was awarded the Mannerheim Cross, Finland’s highest military decoration at the time. In 1941, following the German invasion, the number of Soviet aircraft on this front sharply declined.

In late August 1941, they successfully shot down nine Soviet fighters. By the end of the war, pilots of the 26th Fighter Wing had achieved approximately 88 air victories, with the loss of 11 G.50 aircraft. Of these, only two were downed by Soviet fighters, one was lost to anti-aircraft fire, and eight were lost due to accidents or mechanical failures.

By 1943, the introduction of newer Soviet fighter models and better-trained pilots forced the Finnish Air Force primarily into a defensive role. At this point, the G.50 was clearly obsolete as a frontline fighter, but due to a lack of alternatives, it remained in service until 1944. After May 1944, the surviving aircraft were withdrawn and relegated to secondary roles, such as training. However, by the end of the war, several operational G.50 fighters remained in use, with some continuing to serve until 1947.

Technical characteristics

The G.50 was a single-seat, low-wing, all-metal fighter plane. The fuselage was made from four angular longerons. The wing construction consisted of a center section which was made of a steel tube connected to the lower fuselage and two metal spars connected with ribs. The fuselage, wing, and tail were covered with duralumin sheets. The only fabric-covered parts of the aircraft were the movable control surfaces in the wings and the tail. The G.50 was powered by the 840 hp (626 kW) Fiat A 74 RC 38, a 14-cylinder radial piston engine, which drove an all-metal three-blade propeller produced by Fiat.

The G.50 was equipped, like most modern aircraft of the time, with inward retracting landing gear, but the rear tail wheel was fixed. In later improved versions, the rear tail wheel was changed to a retractable type as well.

The armament consisted of two forward-firing 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns, with 150 rounds of ammunition for each gun. The guns were placed behind the upper engine cowl and were synchronized in order not to damage the propeller.

In Finnish service, these aircraft received several modifications as mentioned earlier. This included an open pilot cockpit, enlarged tail control surfaces, and propeller spinners which protected the variable pitch mechanism from the cold climate.

The Finnish version could be easily identified by the open cockpit and the use of an engine spinner, Source: www.militaryimages.net

Conclusion

The acquisition of the Fiat G.50 provided Finnish pilots with a more modern fighter aircraft. While the design was not exceptional from the start, the Finns managed to put it to good use, achieving relatively good success against the Soviet Air Force. The G.50 remained in service well into the later stages of the war.

Specification G.50 Fighter
Wingspan 35 ft 11 in / 10.9 m
Length 26 ft  3 in / 8 m
Height 10 ft 7 in / 3.28 m
Wing Area 196.5 ft² / 18.25 m²
Engine One 840 hp (626 kW) Fiat A.74 RC.38, 14 cylinder radial piston
Empty Weight 4,353 lbs / 1,975 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 5,324 lbs / 2,415 kg
Fuel Capacity 316 l
Maximum Speed 292 mph / 470 km/h
Range 267 mi / 445 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 35,100 ft (10,700 m)
Climb speed Climb to 19,700 ft (6,000 m) in 7 minutes and 30 seconds
Crew One pilot
Armament
  • Two 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns

Illustration

Credits

  • Article written by Marko P.
  • Edited by  Henry H.
  • Illustration by Haryo Panji

Sources 

  • V. Nenye (2016) Finland At War  The Continuation And Lapland Wars 1941-45, Osprey Publishing
  • V. Nenye (2015) Finland At War The Winter War, Osprey Publishing
  • P. Jowett and B. Snodgrass (2006) Finland At War 1939-45, Osprey Publishing
  • D. Nesic (2008)  Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija. Beograd
  • C. Shores (1979) Regia Aeronautica Vol. I, Signal publication.
  • D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
  • V. Nenye (2016) Finland At War The Continuation And Lapland Wars 1941-45, Osprey Publishing
  • V. Nenye (2015) Finland At War The Winter War, Osprey Publishing
  • P. Jowett and B. Snodgrass (2006) Finland At War 1939-45, Osprey Publishing
  • P. Verganano (1997)  Fiat G.50, La Bancarella Aeronautica
  • A, Brioschi (2000) I Colori Del Fiat G.50, La Bancarella Aeronautica
  • G. Cattaneo The Fiat G.50, Profile Publication

 

Lockheed S-3 Viking

United States of America (1975)

Anti-Submarine Warfare Aircraft; 188 built, 160 upgraded to S-3B

An S-3 Viking comes in to land on the aircraft carrier USS Independence. [National Archives]
The Lockheed S-3 Viking was an anti-submarine warfare aircraft designed to replace the aging S-2 Tracker, later becoming one of the most important components of the US Navy’s anti-submarine strategy during the late Cold War. Designed in anticipation of modern Soviet Nuclear submarines, the Viking could boast of a host of cutting edge sensors and computerization that put it well above the curve, and all wrapped up in an airframe that was reliable and versatile. Its exceptional anti-submarine capabilities were augmented even further during its mid-life improvements which lead to the introduction of the improved S-3B. After the Cold War, the aircraft transitioned away from its traditional anti-submarine duties to surface surveillance, signals intelligence, and aerial tanker duties. A thoroughly reliable and advanced aircraft, the Viking easily ranked among the most important and versatile aircraft to ever serve aboard US carriers.

The Modern Submarine

The submarine of the Second World War was little more than a long range torpedo boat with the ability to submerge itself for short periods of time to avoid detection. Its offensive capabilities were rather modest, and apart from some outlying, but considerable, success against warships, it was typically seen as a tool for disrupting overseas shipping. Their comparatively low speed coupled with the need to transit on the surface for long periods, which snorkels could not entirely eliminate, would see them become a supporting vessel of most navies. However, advancements near the end of the war would transform the submarine from a raider and reconnaissance vessel, to one of naval warfare’s principal combatants.

Owing to the extreme desperation of the German U-boat force, a submarine built along new, revolutionary lines was designed. As the surface proved an exceptionally dangerous place to be, due to long range Allied patrol aircraft, the new boat would be designed to operate almost entirely submerged for the duration of its patrols. The new Type XXI was designed around the most modern features of any submarine thus built, featuring a much improved pressure hull construction, partially-automatic torpedo loading, a powerful sonar array, and a massive battery capacity which, combined with a hydrodynamically clean hull, allowed it to travel at double the speed of a conventional Type VIIC with over three times the range.

A Type XXI submarine ready to be assembled from prefabricated sections. Massive quality control problems prevented any hope of the submarine’s use in the Second World War, though this construction process was improved post-war world wide. [national archives]
The Type XXI only completed a single wartime patrol, but its effects on naval engineering and submarine design were dramatic. In effect, every submarine built before it was obsolete, effectively restarting a new naval arms race. In the context of the then brewing Cold War, this was the cause of no shortage of anxiety for Western Navies. While the Soviet Union’s shipbuilding capabilities were relatively meager, and greatly damaged during the war, their experience with the new German submarine could very well allow them to leap up to the position of the world’s most prominent navies, if only in the field of submarine design.

In addition to the new submarine’s capabilities, the Type XXI also demonstrated that submarines could also be built at an unheard of rate thanks to its modular construction. Submarine sections could be constructed at secondary factories before being shipped to main construction yards, where they would be assembled into completed boats. Initially, an intelligence survey estimated that the Soviet Union could have as many as 2000 modern diesel-electric submarines in 1960. However, a much more reasonable secondary survey noted that they were likely restricted to 400 boats, owing to available dockyard space, fuel, and bottlenecks in battery maintenance and production. Regardless, the US Navy began work on a modernized anti-submarine strategy to counter a potential flood of Soviet boats which could threaten intercontinental supply lines in a potential war.

The first Whiskey class submarines were only marginal improvements on their WWII era predecessors. Late models, pictured here, had snorkels and performance somewhat below the German Type XXI, but with hundreds made in a relatively short time, their numbers helped offset these deficiencies. [US Navy]
The first of the new Soviet boats was the Project 613 ‘Whiskey’, a somewhat shrunken derivative of the German Type XXI. It had more modest performance than the German boat in regards to speed, range, and endurance, but once it received a snorkel on later models, it had the same ability to remain underwater for long periods. The Whiskey was thus the most advanced submarine the Soviet Union had yet built. In countering these submarines, the US Navy would employ a modified version of the same strategy it had used in the Second World War. The primary anti-submarine weapon was to remain the airplane, in the form of long range patrol aircraft, like the P-2 Neptune, and carrier based planes, like the new models of TBM-3 Avenger. Their primary means of locating submarines were radar, which could detect snorkeling submarines, magnetic anomaly detectors, which were set off by a submarine’s magnetic signature, and sonobuoys, which determine the position of a transiting submarine if dropped close enough. Radar was the main means of detecting a submarine at range, with the other two systems being used to ‘fix’ its location before attacking with torpedoes and depth charges.

Unlike their land based counterparts, early carrier based ASW aircraft lacked the ability to carry both the sensors and weapons needed for the task and were thus placed in a pair of cooperating aircraft. The first such pair were the TBM-3W ‘warning’, for detection, and TBM-3S ‘strike’, for carrying out attacks on marked submarines. These hunter-killer teams operated aboard modified escort carriers and later switched to fleet carriers, when it became clear the small escort carriers could not reliably launch and recover the larger hunter-killers. In the early 50s, it was recognized that the entire system was extremely clumsy and would not provide adequate anti-submarine support.

The Hunter-Seeker ASW method proved far too unwieldy for further use. This ‘hunter’ Grumman Guardian has a search radar on one wing and a high powered searchlight under the other. Its torpedo was stored internally. These were the largest single engine piston aircraft in service at the time of their introduction. (US navy)

The CVS program was thus introduced, which brought several mothballed WWII era-fleet carriers back into service as dedicated anti-submarine warfare ships. The CVS’s, which were introduced in 1952, were soon joined by the S-2 Tracker two years after. The Tracker was large enough to carry both the sensors and the weapons, and the clumsy hunter-killers were finally dispensed with. The S-2 was an excellent ASW aircraft which would go on to serve in a number of roles, though by the mid 60s, the growing capabilities of Soviet submarines and operational troubles with operating a piston engined aircraft on increasingly jet dominated carriers began to highlight the need for a replacement.

The Soviet Nuclear Submarine

Through the 50s and early sixties, the existing strategies for sub hunting were predicated on the need for submarines to recharge their batteries, and that said batteries could be discharged during a drawn out search, thus rendering the submarine helpless. Advancements in Soviet nuclear engineering would end up negating most of these existing strategies. General Secretary Iosif Stalin would formally sign off on the program to build the first Soviet nuclear submarine in 1952. The boat was to be a delivery platform for a gigantic nuclear torpedo for use against harbors. It was completely impractical, and due to the extreme secrecy surrounding it, was rejected by Soviet Admiral Kuzntetsov upon learning of it. The Project 672 Kit (NATO reporting sign November) was then given a conventional torpedo armament and went out to sea in 1958. It was a fast boat, with a given maximum speed of 28 kts, but its turbines proved unreliable and its reactor developed leaks after 800 hours. Less concerning was its noisiness, a factor Soviet submarine designers felt was less important than top speed, and a design choice that would plague Soviet nuclear submarines into the 1970s.

The nuclear submarine was a far more capable and deadly opponent compared to its diesel electric counterparts. Without needing to rely on electric power for underwater propulsion, a nuclear submarine was not restricted to a small patrol area, nor did it need to expose itself to detection to recharge. Furthermore, it was fast. As loud as the Novembers were, they were nearly twice as fast as contemporary diesel electric submarines. Lastly, their larger size enabled them to carry larger, more sensitive sonar systems and greater complements of weapons. In short, it was a faster, more alert, and better armed threat than anything the US Navy ever had to contend with.

The Novembers proved to be a wake up call to the US Navy, but their operational restrictions kept them from being perceived as a massive threat. For instance, they were not deployed to the Caribbean during the Cuban missile crisis, as the distance was deemed a hazard. The turbines aboard these boats were unreliable, and there was no wish to have their most advanced submarine being seen under tow. Subsequent developments would however be a more considerable concern to the US surface fleet. General Secretary Nikita Kruschev’s plan for the Soviet Navy was to be one that was capable of defending its own coasts using light warships armed with anti-ship missiles, and submarines which could stalk shipping lanes for enemy vessels. As opposed to Stalin’s views, Kruschev’s plan heavily favored the development of cruise missiles and submarines over a balanced fleet, and largely handicapped the development of larger warships.

The torpedo shaped November class was a massive, if clumsy, step forward for the Soviet Navy. While unreliability and loud acoustic emissions plagued these boats, they showed the promise of nuclear submarines to future Soviet naval planners. [US Navy]
The immediate products of this philosophy were the Echo class nuclear submarines, and to a lesser extent, the conventional Juliet class. These new boats carried heavy, anti-ship cruise missiles and were initially considered a serious threat to US carriers. They were not, however, without serious limitations. They required cooperating patrol planes to share radar data for over the horizon targets, and needed to stay on the surface for up to thirty minutes before carrying out the attack with their long range missiles. They were accordingly extremely vulnerable when operating in areas without a substantial Soviet air presence. The more advanced Charlie class materialized after Kruschev’s fall, and was capable of submerged launches, but of slower and short ranged missiles. With Kruschev gone, the Soviet Navy largely abandoned any plans of Atlantic convoy raiding to pursue building better defenses against American Polaris missile subs, and later to focus on denying potential enemies access to bastions where their own SSBNs patrolled. Largely under Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov’s direction, the Soviet fleet would try to right itself to become a more balanced force, so that it might better assist Soviet foreign policy, and to build up a defense against wartime incursions from enemy aircraft carriers and modern nuclear submarines.

In spite of the limitations of the Soviet nuclear submarine fleet of the sixties, their growing capabilities would prompt the US into developing their anti-submarine forces even further. Throughout the sixties, new aircraft ASW tactics were employed to replace the old snorkel-chasing methods. A greater focus was placed on the use of sonobuoys, which could be used to survey larger patrol areas, and the newer versions of which were growing ever more sensitive and sophisticated. Greater coordination with surface vessels was also employed, with newer destroyers and frigates mounting considerably more powerful sonar systems. Overall, US nuclear subs would take up an ever more important role in anti-submarine warfare, massive new hydrophone lines were laid in strategically important areas, and the aircraft carrier was soon to take a primary position in anti-submarine strategy.

Viking

In the world of the nuclear submarine and the jet carrier air group, the S-2 Tracker was becoming an ever more inconvenient asset. As carriers began to carry an ever greater number of jet aircraft, there was some frustration with having to still carry stores of aviation gasoline for the S-2s. The situation was not improved by the retirement of the WWII era converted CVS, which would be entirely out of service by the early 1970s. As a result, the entire surface ASW framework was to be restructured. Among the earliest moves was to announce a competition for the S-2 replacement in 1964, under the designation VSX. The new plane was required to have at least twice the speed, twice the range, and twice the ceiling of the aging Tracker. Lockheed was among the most promising entrants due to their previous history in designing maritime patrol aircraft, though their lack of experience with carrier based aircraft saw them partner with LTV Aviation, and the new ASW gear was to be designed by Univac Federal Systems.

A wooden mockup of Lockheed’s entry into the VSX competition. [US Navy]
Lockheed’s Viking was a robust, high wing aircraft which featured a pair of turbofan engines for their power and fuel economy. The plane also carried nearly every modern airborne submarine detection system of the time. Its four crewmen operated the aircraft’s systems in coordination with a central, general purpose digital computer, which greatly aided the crew in processing the information gathered by the aircraft’s sensors. Further crew integration was accomplished through the use of multi-purpose displays that could show information from any of the aircraft’s crew positions. In addition to the MAD, radar, and sonobuoy systems, the plane was equipped with a FLIR system mounted to an extendable turret which was capable of detecting snorkeling, or near surface submarines and sea mines. To complement its sensors, the aircraft had a maximum speed of approximately 429 kts, a ceiling of 40,000 ft, and a maximum endurance of over six hours. Of the entries from Grumman, General Dynamics, and Convair, Lockheed’s design won out.

They were formally awarded the contract in 1969. The first of eight YS-3A prototype and pre production aircraft flew only three years after the contract was finalized in 1972, with the aircraft entering service two years later. This program was also the first to have a formalized set of milestones to ensure costs were kept low and technical risks were reduced. All program milestones were met ahead of schedule, and the plane was prototyped, built, and delivered in quantity in only five years. Their carriers too were modified to better suit ASW operations. In 1971, the USS Saratoga was the first to receive an ASW analysis center and support shops for ASW gear and weapons. All carriers but the older, smaller Midway class were able to receive the improvements. Prior to the introduction of the Viking, carriers operated S-2’s, with the introduction of the new aircraft vastly improving the anti-submarine capabilities of US carrier battle groups. The plane could perform an ASW search quickly at 35,000 feet at a speed of over 300 kts, a massive improvement over the S-2’s 135 kts at 10,000 ft. Even before considering the massive improvements in sensors and the centralized computer integration, the Viking could patrol truly massive stretches of ocean for a plane of its size. With a payload of four lightweight torpedoes and 60 sonobuoys, the Viking could fly out 826 nmi from its carrier, and conduct a two hour search before having to return. The use of external stores and airborne tankers could push this already phenomenal range out even further.

The unified CV concept brought together the anti-submarine and surface distinctions, as the old sub-hunting legacy carriers began to be decommissioned. The carrier’s air wing was tailored to its deployment goals. [US Navy]
VS-21, the first S-3A squadron, was deployed aboard the USS John Fitzgerald Kennedy in the summer of 1975. During its Mediterranean deployment, the Kennedy was able to truly demonstrate the universal carrier concept. Previously, carriers were divided between the CVS, sub hunting carriers, and the CVA’s, which hunted everything else. The introduction of the Viking enabled the consolidation of all US carriers into CV’s, the new concept seeing carriers equipped for every conceivable mission. However, the S-3A was not the only newcomer to the ASW mission. The year prior to its first deployment saw the introduction of the Kaman Sh-2F Seasprite. This light anti-submarine helicopter would soon be found aboard most US warships, extending both their maximum search and offensive ranges. In short, the US surface fleet’s ASW capabilities had been thoroughly improved through the adoption of these two aircraft, well in advance of the predicted improvements in Soviet nuclear submarines.

An A-6 Intruder and S-3A Viking overfly a surfaced Project 641 ‘Foxtrot’ class submarine. These boats had improved fire control and sensors over the older Whiskey and Zulu class boats, but were otherwise built along the same post-WWII lines. Significant improvements in regards to quieting and hull form would not be achieved until the later Project 641B ‘Tango’. [US Navy]
In service, the S-3A was primarily a screening element for the carrier group and any surface groups it might be supporting. A US carrier group is typically deployed alongside independent surface action groups and nuclear submarines, these often being the outermost defenses for the carrier group. The carrier’s offensive range and ability to survey thousands of miles of ocean make it the center of naval operations, and the most well defended asset. It was the job of the outer forces to screen the path and potential approaches to the carrier from enemy submarines, and to a lesser extent surface ships, though those more often fell under the purview of other aircraft and vessels.

Given the distance between these forces, gaps inevitably form, and these areas are typically patrolled by aircraft. In wartime, the Viking could quickly fly out to these locations and deploy a grid of sonobuoys, which it could maintain for several hours before being relieved by other aircraft. In addition to screening the path of the carrier, the S-3A could also be tasked to patrol the open ocean to search for older cruise missile submarines, which had to surface for long periods to fire their weapons. The S-3 would eventually receive Harpoons for this role, but initially, it would carry Hydra 2.75 inch rockets or unguided bombs. By the late 70s, these submarine ‘Shaddock’ missiles were easily defeated by the new EW systems and defensive weapons added to destroyers, cruisers, and carriers, but they still posed a threat to lighter warships and shipping. In addition to open ocean patrols and barrier searches, the Vikings could be quickly dispatched to support patrolling frigates and destroyers which were tracking submarines.

While the Victor class boats were primarily designed around the anti-submarine mission, they could fire salvos of two heavy weight, long range Type 65 torpedoes for use against large surface groups. The boat first entered service in 1977 and represented a major success in achieving low acoustic emissions in Soviet submarine design. [US Navy]
Though the Soviet fleet consisted of a large number of these older submarine classes, new models of Soviet nuclear submarines would pose a greater challenge. A change in design philosophy would see a shift in focus away from achieving the best possible speed, to a balanced approach which placed greater importance on lower acoustic emissions. When commissioned in 1974, K-387, a Project 617RT ‘Victor II’, was the first Soviet nuclear submarine to incorporate rafted equipment. With its turbines suspended on vibration dampening mounts and its hull clad in anechoic rubber tiles, it was remarkably quieter than its forebearers. Further improvements to this class resulted in the Project 617RTM ‘Victor III’, with the first boat being commissioned in 1978. However, sound reduction was only marginally improved, with much of the focus being placed on new sensors, with the main mission for the sub being ASW. With 48 total Victors of all classes being produced, it represented the modern workhorse of the Soviet submarine force. More concerning to the carrier, however, were the successors to the Echo and Charlie class SSGN. The Project 949 ‘Oscar’ was a massive vessel which carried 24 P-700 ‘Shipwreck’ missiles, three times as many missiles as the Echo. Capable of submerged launches and engaging surface targets at long range, the Oscar lacked the handicaps of the earlier boats, and its state-of-the-art missiles boasted high speed and countermeasure resistance. A single Oscar could put the air defenses of a carrier battle group to the test, and thus long range anti-submarine screening became key for naval planners. The character of the Soviet submarine force of the eighties was rather peculiar, being composed mostly of obsolete to somewhat up to date vessels, but with a small and growing pool of cutting edge submarines.

Vikings among A-7 Corsair II and A-6 Intruder strike aircraft aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1980. [National Archives]
These ever-advanced models of Soviet submarines were anticipated and largely matched by the US Navy’s efforts to build a defense against them. All new warships possessed powerful new sonar systems and light ASW helicopters, and the carrier based S-3A sat at the center of fleet-wide anti-submarine strategy.

Into the 80s

While the S-3A proved an incredible new addition to the fleet, it soon encountered an unexpected challenge. As a result of the post-Vietnam defense cuts, the spare parts program for the Viking was among the worst affected. Stocks of replacement parts began to grow tight by 1977, though they would not pose a serious issue until the turn of the decade. As a result of stricter rationing of components, the mission readiness level of the Viking squadrons often fell to below 40% in 1981. However, the problem was soon identified and the procurement of more replacement parts began the following year, along with a new series of maintenance programs to increase readiness. Thanks to these efforts, the mission readiness of these squadrons climbed to 60% in 1983 and rose to 80% in the coming years, the highest in the fleet.

While the Navy was procuring additional parts, they also initiated a program to drastically improve the offensive and sensor capabilities of the aircraft. The Weapon Systems Improvement Program would seek to prepare the S-3 Viking for its service into the new millennium. Most of these improvements were focused around the aircraft’s sensor systems, most notably its new inverse synthetic aperture radar, which boasted a much higher capability in regards to periscope and snorkel detection, and its acoustic sensor suite. The acoustic data processor was improved through the use of a standardized naval signal processor which ran on a software shared among new naval maritime patrol aircraft, a new sonobuoy receiver boosted the available channels from 31 to 99, and it received a new, more reliable tape recorder for storing gathered acoustic data.

An S-3 passes a Kilo class submarine. While much of the Soviet diesel-boat fleet consisted mostly of obsolete classes like the Foxtrot and Romeo into the 1980s, the Kilo was thoroughly modern. [The Drive]
In addition to its sensor improvements, the Viking received the new ALE-39 countermeasure system, and its electronic support measures were improved to allow better classification of contacts by their radar and radio emissions. Lastly, it finally received the capability to utilize the AGM-84 Harpoon missile, with the pair of missiles being mounted on the outer hardpoints. With a range of approximately 75 nmi’s, the sea skimming Harpoon could prove very difficult to detect and shoot down. As more effective air defenses against sea skimming missiles would not become widespread for almost a decade, the inclusion of this weapon would make the Viking a considerable anti-surface asset, along with its already impressive anti-submarine capabilities.

The sum of these upgrades would end up seeing the modified aircraft identified as S-3B’s, as squadrons began to receive the improvements in 1984. In addition to these upgrades and after the parts shortage, the scope of duties for the aircraft began to grow over the years. Among the first new tasks assigned to the Viking was to act as an airborne tanker. The long endurance of the aircraft, coupled with its incredibly fuel efficient turbofan engines, made it extremely capable in the new role. Carrying ‘buddy stores’, the S-3 could increase the range and endurance of cooperating carrier-borne aircraft in a much more efficient manner than the Ka-6d tanker, or a fighter or strike aircraft carrying the fuel tank and drogue system.

As the 1980s drew on, the Navy began to push the operational limits of the aircraft out ever further, and to great success. The S-3 took on the aerial mining mission, and during the Northern Wedding and United Effort exercises of 1982 and 1983, the operational search range of the Viking was pushed out to 1000 nmi with the use of airborne tankers. Even more noteworthy, they were able to detect and track submarines at that range during the exercise. While the S-3 Viking was initially introduced to serve a single, and very specialized purpose, the aircraft would end up proving extremely versatile and provided a number of new services to the carrier fleet, far beyond the expectations of its designers.

Operation Desert Storm and Late Career

An S-3B tanker launches from the deck of the USS Nimitz. [National Archives]
As the Cold War came to a close, events in the Middle East soon culminated in the largest armed conflict since the end of the Vietnam war. As Iraq invaded the neighboring country of Kuwait over oil disputes, a coalition was built among Arab and Western militaries to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait and deal a serious blow to Saddam’s forces. Along with a massive USAF contingent, the US Navy would deploy six aircraft carriers in order to dislodge the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Of the force, USS Kennedy, Saratoga, America, Ranger, and Roosevelt carried embarked squadrons of S-3B’s. USS Midway lacked a squadron of Vikings, as it did not possess an ASW analysis center.

A total of 43 Vikings would be active across these carriers by February 1991, where they would serve in a number of roles. Ironically, due to Iraq’s lack of a submarine force, ASW was not a role they performed during this conflict. These aircraft flew a total of 1,674 sorties between January 17 and February 28, 1991. The majority, with 1043 flights, were aerial refueling missions supporting other coalition aircraft. However, they also flew a number of reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and several surface air combat patrol sorties, these numbering 263, 101, and 20, respectively. The rest of their flights were categorized as unspecified support missions, or ‘other’.

Apart from aerial tanker duties, these Vikings flew most of their patrols to survey the Persian gulf, in order to track what few warships Iraq had, and to mark the location of mines. Some Vikings were also involved in the search for Iraq’s short range Scud ballistic missiles, a great fear at the time being that some of them may have carried chemical weapons payloads. They also performed a number of unorthodox tasks. For instance, the US carrier air groups could not electronically receive their daily air tasking orders from the coalition headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Their solution was to dispatch an S-3B to pick them up on a near daily basis. Among the most imaginative uses of the aircraft was in delivering photos from carrier based reconnaissance services to units fighting on the ground. This was done by placing the photos in an empty sonobuoy tube and parachuting them to units. One Viking also sank an unidentified class of Iraqi patrol ship on February 20, 1991, after dropping three unguided mk82 bombs on it. Offensive patrols were comparatively restricted and were conducted in areas with limited anti-aircraft threats.

A long exposure shot of deck crew preparing an S-3B on the USS Truman during Operation Desert Shield. [National Archives]
After the end of the war in the Gulf, the S-3B was used for continued surveillance of the area and to uphold the sanctions on Iraq during Operation Desert Shield. It likewise performed similar support roles in the numerous NATO air operations over the former Yugoslavia. Their roles during those conflicts were almost entirely restricted to airborne tanker duties, though a number of Vikings, including a specialized ELINT model, performed signals intelligence missions.

As a result of the collapse of the USSR, the global submarine threat to the US Navy declined to almost nothing, and thus the Viking squadrons transitioned from anti-submarine, to surface control units to better represent their more multipurpose role. They would eventually discard their ASW equipment, with the anti-submarine mission being made the purview of the US submarine fleet and long range maritime patrol squadrons. Several new upgrades were initiated during the turn of the millennium, mostly in regards to new avionics and improvements to carrier landing aids. They would also include the Maverick Plus upgrade, which would enable the S-3B to use IR guided models of the AGM 65 missile, and the AGM-84H family of ground attack missiles. However, after the KA-6D left the service in the late 90s, the Viking would become the fleet’s primary aerial tanker.

The last major operation where the Vikings saw use was during the later invasion of Iraq, during which they primarily acted as tankers. There were, however, some strikes carried out by S-3Bs using the new Maverick Plus system, but these were comparatively rare. As the 2000’s came to a close and the US carrier force wished to divest itself of all but the most essential airframes, the Viking had fully left the service by 2010. The fleet was thus without a dedicated aerial tanker, and instead employed F/A-18s carrying ‘buddy stores’ to refuel other fighters.

Perhaps its later most publicized use was in delivering President George H.W. Bush aboard the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln after the invasion of Iraq. There, he delivered an address to the nation regarding the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in front of the long derided banner which simply read ‘Mission Accomplished’.

NASA

While the Viking’s military career came to a close, a number of aircraft were transferred to NASA as test aircraft in 2004. One of these planes was further developed into a dedicated testing platform in 2006 and was subsequently demilitarized. Most of the existing avionics were replaced with more contemporary civilian equipment and provisions for adding experimental equipment were installed. The Viking was given the civil air registration code N601NA and would see heavy use by the administration for the next 15 years, with the remaining Vikings being used for ground testing.

The NASA Viking proved to be an ideal platform to run a variety of experiments that required steady, precise flying at low speeds. [aionline]
The plane was used for a variety of missions regarding aeronautic safety, aerodynamic studies, and Earth studies. Operating out of the Glenn research center, the plane tested engine icing under harsh conditions, flew communication equipment tests over much of the US to determine FAA guidelines for unmanned aircraft, and flew over the Great Lakes to study algal blooms. This Viking was the last airworthy example of the entire line, and was finally retired in July of 2021. NASA has since donated the plane to the San Diego Air and Space Museum.

Operating Characteristics

The high and broad wings of the Viking presented good low speed flight characteristics and high maneuverability. This was also aided by the lateral control system of the aircraft, which consisted of a set of small outboard ailerons, a pair of spoilers above the wing and one on the underside, and a leading edge flap. Pilots in both the Navy and NASA test programs praised the responsiveness and stability these systems provided. This ability was well valued during low altitude MAD searches and during low level communications testing for NASA and the FAA. However, at higher speeds, pilots needed to be aware of a degree of oversensitivity, as the aircraft did not possess a fly by wire system.

A view of a carrier flight deck from the cockpit of a Viking. [The Drive]
The Viking had an extremely high carrier boarding rating thanks to its dynamic lift system, which in combination with the spoilers, gave the pilot a high degree of control during their final approach. The slow descent of the aircraft also permitted both the pilot and the LSO considerable time to make alterations. This is not to say this was a simple affair, as the aircraft was fairly sensitive to the air disturbance that forms immediately behind the moving carrier, and thus the pilot is still required to make the approach with caution. The engines had to be practically idled on the glide slope, and still often felt overpowered. The DLC system was essential, though the flaps were not, with many recoveries being flap up. Getting off the carrier was a far easier affair, as the aircraft only had a speed requirement of 120 kts under a normal load. Off wind catapult launches were made easily and some pilot and ground crew would remark that the Viking seemed like it could just fly off on its own. In both launching and recovery, the aircraft was remarked to handle well under poor conditions.

The addition of an APU in this aircraft greatly simplified and accelerated the start up procedure, as it did not require the pilot to request external power from the deck crew. A relatively simple start up enabled the aircraft to be ready some 15 to 20 minutes before its scheduled launch, and helped in speeding up the turn-over in deck operations. The only inconvenience the aircraft presented was that its low mounted engines were considerably quieter than most other embarked aircraft, meaning ground crew needed to pay particular attention to these aircraft as they moved across the deck. In short, the S-3 was very well suited to carrier operations.

A technician checks over the TACCO’s multipurpose display on an S-3B. The displays at each station were of slightly different dimensions. The TACCO station’s monitor was enlarged on the B model of the aircraft. [National Archives]
A high level of crew cooperation was possible on the Viking thanks to the centralized nature of its avionics, sensors, and weapon systems. In managing all of these functions through its central computer, most crew functions were visible across all stations and, in some cases, could actually be managed between them. This was primarily achieved through the multipurpose displays at each station, which allowed crewmembers to share information. This made the SENSO and TACCO stations far more capable than they were on other aircraft, allowing for some division and management of the workload. The TACCO position likewise possessed a high degree of integration with the pilot and copilot, and in certain autopilot modes, could guide the aircraft to the weapon release point. All stations effectively had a high degree of situational awareness outside the aircraft, as the multipurpose displays could be set to show various airborne, surface, and subsurface contacts relative to their positions from the aircraft. The computer system itself proved fairly easy to manage, and designed with self-maintenance in mind. In the event of a system error, the computer could run a diagnostic and be reset in flight. Thanks to this level of digital integration, the Viking was viewed as being as capable as a number of patrol aircraft with significantly larger crews.

In the submarine hunting role, the Viking was in no shortage of equipment. The primary means of conducting an anti-submarine search were its sonobuoys. The aircraft carried a variety of these devices, which allowed for passive listening, or actively sending out an echolocating ping which revealed the positions of nearby submarines. These were often arrayed out in a grid like pattern in an aircraft’s patrol area to allow for the surveillance of a much larger area. They were typically dropped in line-like, or triangular patterns when used to try and get an accurate fix on the submarine’s location. Through acoustic analysis, the Viking was able classify submarine contacts by comparing them to existing sound profiles and was capable of gathering new profiles on vessels which had not yet had one compiled. Sonobuoys were usually dropped from the aircraft’s cruising altitude of 35,000 ft, though often from lower altitudes when a contact had been found and a finer pattern of the devices needed to be sown. The sonobuoy system was the first of its kind capable of accurately pinpointing the position of each device.

Sonobuoys provided a screen through which a transiting submarine could be detected, though they were not used for basic open ocean searches. The limited effective range of the individual devices meant that they were used for screening areas ahead of surface groups, filling gaps between other patrol areas, and investigating contacts that were beyond the range of other warships. The aircraft could hand off its sonobuoys to other aircraft from a shared channel, and could receive information from other, off-aircraft sensor sources through their datalink. Thus, in the submarine hunting role, the aircraft could either be a proactive tool, in performing its own searches, or reactive, in responding to suspicious or identified subsurface contacts from other aircraft and vessels. In concert with more modern anti-submarine assets, like the Spruance class destroyer or underwater hydrophone lines, the Viking could prove an incredible asset well beyond the limitations of its own sensors. The Viking was one of, if not the, best equipped ASW aircraft of the entire Cold War. Designed primarily around countering the threat of nuclear submarines, it would of course prove even more capable against diesel-electric submarines which presented more opportunities for detection.

Carrier deck crew load a sonobuoy into the aircraft’s external chutes. Viking’s could carry passive, active, dual purpose, oceanographic, and search and rescue beacon buoys. [National Archives]
In conjunction with sonobuoys, the aircraft possessed its radar, FLIR optics, and a magnetic anomaly detector. The radar of the aircraft was designed to detect periscopes and snorkels deployed by near surface submarines. The key was to look for contacts that either appeared or disappeared from the scope without explanation, and was otherwise a very straight forward system. The FLIR sensor was used to detect heat sources, and in the submarine hunting mission, was used to spot submarines at a shallow depth, and the extended snorkel and exhaust of diesel-electric submarines recharging their batteries. Last was the MAD, which detected the magnetic field of a submarine, which caused slight disruptions in measurements of the earth’s magnetic field, hence the anomaly. This was the only sensor which required the aircraft to fly low, and the limited range of the sensor also meant a contact was typically only revealed if it was overflown. The radar and infrared systems were also important tools in conducting long range surface reconnaissance for the entire fleet. These systems were also necessary in providing targeting data for the Harpoon anti-ship missile.

In employing weapons, the majority of the work was done through the TACCO position. This crewmember assigned weapons to targets, and in coordination with the pilot and copilot/COTAC, delivered them. Originally, this meant he would deploy the Mk.46 lightweight torpedoes and depth charges, with the plane being capable of deploying nuclear models as well. Unguided munitions, typically Zuni rockets, Mk 82 iron bombs, or Mk 20 Rockeye cluster bombs, were the responsibility of the pilot and would have been used against surfaced guided missile submarines, or damaged warships. Later in the aircraft’s career, the TACCO would deploy mines, launch AGM 84 Harpoons, and later operate a variety of air to ground missiles with the introduction of the Maverick Plus upgrade.

The aircraft later excelled as an airborne tanker, where its ability to operate for long periods and at range from the carrier were crucial. The task was relatively simple enough, fly straight ahead while offloading fuel onto another aircraft through a hose and basket fuel transfer line. The asymmetric load of the fuel tank and drogue mount required constant trimming, which grew worse as the tank was drained, but this was a largely simple job the plane was well suited for.

Construction

A general diagram of the S-3B. [S-3B manual]
The S-3 was a high wing, twin engine, carrier based anti-submarine aircraft. It possessed a very durable semi-monocoque airframe with three folding flight surfaces, being the wings and the vertical stabilizer. The fuselage was wide enough to permit the fitting of a considerable set of ASW gear, and an internal weapons bay. The general construction of the aircraft was fairly conventional in comparison to other carrier based aircraft. Lockheed was the primary contractor for the aircraft,  with LTV building the wings, engine pods, tail assembly, and landing gear, while Univac provided the digital computer and some of the avionics.

The nose of the aircraft contained the radar, followed by the cockpit which seated the pilot and copilot, behind them were the weapons and sensor operators. Aft of the crew sat the forward avionics bay, which itself was over the internal weapons bay, and to the rear of it all was the MAD boom and rear avionics bay. On the underside of the aircraft were the sonobuoy shoots, which in addition to the 48 outer slots, held additional internal stores for 12 more devices. All critical systems had redundancy built in.

The landing gear, and catapult launch bar, were derived from those of the LTV F-8 Crusader and A-7 Crusader II. These consisted of a forward, upward retracting gear and two rear landing gear which retracted inward toward the fuselage. These are hydraulically actuated, though in an emergency, they could be extended by bypassing the hydraulics and letting gravity, and a leaf spring to force the gears into the extended position.

The wings of the aircraft were designed to permit a high degree of control and stability at both low and high speeds at low engine power, up to the maximum permitted speed of 429 kts. These were mounted high on the fuselage and possessed a high aspect ratio of 7.73 and a rearward sweep of 15 degrees. The wings consisted of an outer panel, which could fold inward, and an inner panel, roughly a third the length of the outer panel, which contained a fuel tank, and supported an engine nacelle and a pylon which could fit external fuel or weapons. The tall vertical stabilizer also folded down and to the port side to permit the aircraft to fit the carrier’s hangar doors. The extendable airborne refuel probe was stored just ahead of the wings.

Spoiler, aileron, and flap deployment diagram. [S-3B Manual]
The Viking possessed an unusual flight control system which combined six large spoilers with a set of small ailerons and a leading edge flap. Lateral control was greatly aided by the inclusion of the spoilers in combination with the leading edge flap, which permitted effective control at very low speeds with low engine power settings. All control surfaces on the aircraft were deflected using hydraulically actuated servos, with an artificial feel system designed to give the pilot an idea of the extent of control surface deflection. These controls did however prove to be somewhat oversensitive at high speed. Overall, the control surfaces were very effective on patrols at low speed, though they could prove rather clumsy in a carrier landing pattern. This was largely due to the overpowered engines, which gave the aircraft a somewhat unorthodox glide slope and its large wings increased its sensitivity to the ‘burble’ air disruption behind the carrier. To compensate for this, the Viking was equipped with a dynamic lift control system which provided 12 degrees of speed brake extension and retraction through the upper spoilers.

The S-3 was powered by a pair of either General Electric T34-GE-2 or T34-GE-400A high bypass turbofan engines. These both produced 9,275 pounds of thrust at sea level, and the former was used only on pre-production aircraft. These engines used a dual-rotor, single stage, front-fan configuration with a bypass ratio of 6.23 to 1. These were divided into four major sections, being the fan, compressor, combustor, and turbine. The fan was driven by the low pressure turbine and produced 85 percent of the engine’s total thrust. The compressor was composed of 14 stages which compressed air prior to the combustion section, and provided the air for the pneumatic systems aboard the aircraft. The combustor section was where the compressed air was mixed with a fuel air mixture and ignited. The resultant flow drove the high and low pressure turbines within their own section, the high pressure turbine being responsible for driving the compressor, and the low, the fan. The air flow continues out the back of the low-pressure turbine to comprise the remainder of the engine’s thrust.

Standard and exploded views of the General Electric T34-GE-400A turbo fan engine. [S-3B Manual]
The aircraft was fitted with a number of surface and subsurface sensors. The Viking originally possessed an AN/APS-116 search radar, which was primarily designed to detect the masts of submarines near the surface, but doubled as a general purpose surface search radar. This was replaced on the S-3B with the APS-137 inverse synthetic aperture radar which was more than twice as effective at detecting low RCS masts and had improved surface search capability. Specifically, it gained the ability to identify surface vessels at long range by comparing radar returns to existing 2D profiles of vessels. The aircraft also carried an AN/ASQ-81 magnetic anomaly detector fitted to an extendable boom at the rear of the aircraft often called the ‘Stinger’. The boom allowed the sensor to be placed farther away from ferrous objects on the aircraft, which might interfere with any measurements taken. They also carried the OR-89 FLIR sensor, it being mounted in an extendable turret on the forward, starboard side of the aircraft. The sensor would display surface and near surface contacts, making it extremely useful in detecting mines, submarines at a shallow depth, and the exhaust of diesel-electric submarines charging their batteries.

The Viking’s FLIR turret in its deployed position. [replane]
What could be considered the primary anti-submarine sensor were the aircraft’s sonobuoys. Up to 60 could be carried in the chutes that sat flush with the outside of the aircraft and internal stowage. The aircraft communicated with minimal signal emissions and was capable of displaying their exact positions. Data from the devices was processed using an OL-82/AYS data processor and, coupled with its original receiver, was initially capable of monitoring 31 buoys. When upgraded, the acoustic data processor incorporated a new standardized UYS-1 signal process which had improved reliability and had parts and software commonality with other ASW platforms. A more advanced sonobuoy reference system, AN/ARS-2, would also boost the number of usable sonobuoy channels from 31 to 99 and an automatic channel scanning capability to search for available RF channels. The last upgrade to this system saw the analogue tape recorder switched from AN/ASH-27 to the AQH-4(V)2, which was both smaller, more reliable, and was compatible with the new UYS-1 signal processor.

The rear two stations of the S-3A Viking. The SENSO’s dual screens allowed him to monitor multiple sonobuoys simultaneously, this information being only partially available to the single screen displays at all of the other positions. [S-3B Manual]
The aircraft’s countermeasures initially came in the form of the AN/ALR-47, a passive sensor which displayed radar emissions from search and track radars. This was later supplemented with the ALE-39, which included countermeasure dispensers. It also received electronic support measures, which allowed it to detect a wider variety of radar emissions to allow it to classify their emitters. In the event of being shot down, the aircraft was equipped with ejection seats. These could be used on the ground while the aircraft was still, and had a preset ejection sequence to prevent any collisions in air.

All of these systems were managed through a single Univac AN/AYK-10 digital computer. The system allowed for a much higher ability to process information compared to the isolated systems in use on virtually all other maritime patrol craft. Additionally, and perhaps much more importantly, it allowed the crewmembers to display information from their own stations to one another through a set of multipurpose display screens at every station. This allowed for the sharing of most sensor data across all four positions, though it was more limited in the case of sonobuoy readouts, as they were half displayed on a secondary screen at the SENSO station. These displays would give crews the ability to coordinate during surface and subsurface searches, and improve planning when preparing to attack. This was particularly valuable to the copilot/COTAC, whose job was to essentially direct the aircraft in achieving its mission. The addition of this system essentially gave them access to every senor and allowed them to work closer with the TACCO when it came time to deploy weapons.

Initially, the Viking could be armed with up to four Mk 46 torpedoes, being either the Mod 1 or Mod 5 NEARTIP during the 1980s. Both types measured 8.5 ft long with a diameter of 12.75 inches, and both carried a 95 lb warhead. The Mod 1 possessed a maximum speed of 45 kts,with the NEARTIP being considerably faster. The NEARTIP provided better tracking of faster targets and better countermeasure rejection, having incorporated a new sonar transducer, control and guidance group, and a new engine which switched from solid propellant to liquid monopropellant. The Viking would also receive the new electric Mk 50 torpedo in the early nineties, but it would shortly after transition away from the ASW mission. There were provisions for mounting up to four torpedoes internally from hardpoints rated up to 600 lbs each. The bomb bay could also carry up to four mines and depth charges, or two B57 nuclear depth charges.

Crewmen prepare to load a Mk 46 torpedo aboard an S-3A. [National Archives]
The pair of external hard points could carry a combination of weapons, external fuel tanks, and airborne refueling systems. Initially, this was restricted only to unguided weapons and fuel tanks. Each hardpoint had a mounting capacity of 2,500 lbs and could carry up to three bombs through the use of the TER-7 bomb mount. The S-3B upgrade would allow the aircraft to use the AGM 84 Harpoon and was able to carry two of these sea skimming missiles. The last major upgrade package, which was installed around 2002, included a variety of avionics improvements, and the Maverick Plus system. This allowed the Viking to mount the AGM 65 Maverick, one per hardpoint, and the AGM-84E SLAM. The Maverick was to be used mostly against light shipping, with the SLAM providing stand off capability against ground targets. The SLAM could be guided manually after launch if a guidance pod was installed on one of the outer hardpoints. Both missiles were otherwise supported and targeted through a common display.

The S-3B could use any of the AGM-84’s in the Navy’s arsenal by the time of its introduction. The first of these was the Block 1B introduced in 1982, which had improved radar guidance allowing it to fly at lower altitudes. The subsequent 1C entered service in 1984 and incorporated a denser fuel, which increased its range by five nautical miles out to 80 nmi when launched from sea level, and added an alternate pop-up attack mode. The 1D entered service in 1992, with the lengthened missile possessing a range of 150 nmi and re-engagement capability, which allowed the missile to circle back to its target if it was deceived by chaff or electronic countermeasures on its first pass.

These sea skimming, turbojet powered missiles were exceptionally difficult to detect and intercept during the Cold War and flew at a constant Mach .85. These utilized active radar terminal homing, carried a 510 lb high explosive warhead, and had a flight reliability of over 93 percent.

Conclusion

A Viking prepares to launch after an F-14B Tomcat aboard the USS Nimitz during Operation Southern Watch, 1999. [National Archives]
With the exception of the parts shortage, the Viking can be said to be among the most reliable and versatile tools the US Navy has ever possessed. The aircraft proved a phenomenally capable anti-submarine aircraft, which entered service long before high capability threats entered service in the Soviet Navy. When that particular threat had gone, the plane continued to serve ably, as a tanker, a reconnaissance aircraft, and limited strike aircraft. Finally, the venerable aircraft ended its career as a research aircraft.

S-3A Viking

Specification

Engine T34-GE-400A
Maximum Continuous Engine Output (Maximum) 6,690 lbs (7,365 lbs for 5 minutes)
Combat weight at catapult 44,947 lbs
Gross Weight 36,574 lbs
Empty weight 26,581 lbs
Range [4x Mk.46 60xSonobuoys] 2,506 nmi
Combat radius [4x Mk.46 60xSonobuoys] 826 nmi for 6.9 hours at 346 kts
Maximum speed 429 kts at sea level
Crew Pilot, Copilot/COTAC, TACCO, SENSO
Length (Folded) 53.33 ft (49.42 ft)
Height (Folded) 22.75 ft (15.25 ft)
Wingspan (Folded) 68.67 ft (29.50 ft)
Wing Area 598 sq.ft

S-3 variant

General Description

Number built/converted

YS-3A Prototype/Preproduction 8 built
S-3A ASW Aircraft 180 built
S-3B ASW/ASuW Aircraft 160 converted from S-3A
US-3A Cargo Aircraft 4 converted from YS-3A
KS-3A Airborne Tanker 1 converted from YS-3A
ES-3A ELINT Aircraft 16 converted from S-3A

Viking Squadrons

VS-21 ‘Fighting Redtails’ VS-31 ‘Topcats’
VS-22 ‘Checkmates’ VS-32 ‘Maulers’
VS-24 ‘Scouts’ VS-33 ‘Screwbirds’  
VS-27 ‘Grim Watchdogs’ VS-35 ‘Blue Wolves’
VS-28 ‘Gamblers’ VS-37 ‘Sawbucks’
VS-29 ‘Dragonfires’ VS-38 ‘Red Griffins’
VS-30 ‘Diamondcutters’ VS-41 ‘Shamrocks’

(wikimedia, popular patch)

Credits

  • Article written by Henry H.
  • Edited by  Henry H. and Stan L.
  • Ported by Henry H.
  • Illustrated by Hansclaw

Illustrations

Gallery

The Viking flying alongside the older S-2 Tracker maritime patrol aircraft. The S-3A rapidly replaced the Tracker from 1974 to 78, when the last Viking left the production line. [jrdavis]
An S-3 is brought up to the flight deck in its stowed condition. The vertical stabilizer folds just below the rudder. [National Archives]
A member of the USS Enterprise’s deck crew warms their hands in a turbine. Taken during the Fleet EX’88 Exercise off the coast of Alaska. [National Archives]
A Viking prepares to launch from USS America. [National Archives]
The evaluation S-3B aircraft passed its final trials in 1985. A rapid upgrade program would begin in 1987. [flight manuals online].
S-3Bs on the crowded deck of the USS John C. Stennis in 2007. [National Archives]
An SH-60 Seahawk comes in to land on the USS Kitty Hawk. [National Archives]
A Sikorsky Sea King comes in to land on the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These helicopters and the Sh-60’s represented the inner circle of fleet anti-submarine defense. [National Archive]
 

A Viking, among other aircraft, aboard the USS John F. Kennedy. [National Archives]

An aircraft prepares to take on fuel from an S-3B tanker. Note the missing MAD boom and the covered sonobuoy chutes. [National Archives]
The most publicized use of the Viking. ‘Navy One’ lands on the USS Abraham Lincoln with President George W. Bush aboard to deliver a less than well received speech after the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. [US Navy]
The ES-3 Shadow was an electronic surveillance aircraft which replaced the aging Skywarrior. It saw considerable use during the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia, where it monitored communications and radar emissions. It is easily distinguished by its dorsal equipment fairing [FAS]
A Viking with its MAD ‘stinger’ deployed. [The Drive]

Sources

Primary

Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model S-3A Aircraft. Commander of the Naval Air Systems Command. NAVAIR 00-110AS3-1. January 1973.

NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model S-3B Aircraft. Commander of the Naval Air Systems Command. NAVAIR 01-S3AAB-1. September 2000.

NATOPS Weapon System Manual Navy Model S-3B Aircraft. Commander of the Naval Air Systems Command. NAVAIR 01-S3AAB-1.1. December 2002.

Fiscal year 1976 and July-September 1976 transition period authorization for military procurement, research and development, and active duty, selected reserve, and civilian personnel strengths : hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, first session, on S. 920

NASA fiscal year 2010 budget request : hearing before the Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, first session, May 21, 2009.

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1982 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, on S. 815.

Department of Defense appropriations for 1984 hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, first session / Subcommittee on the Department of Defense.

NASA’s aeronautics R & D program : status and issues : hearing before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, second session, May 1, 2008.

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal years 1988 and 1989 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One hundredth Congress, first session on S. 1174.

Department of Defense appropriations for 1985 hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, second session / Subcommittee on the Department of Defense.

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1983 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, second session, on S. 2248.

Secondary

Chambers, Joseph R.. Partners in freedom: contributions of the Langley Research Center to U.S. military aircraft of the 1990’s.

Brown, Ronald J. Humanitarian operations in northern Iraq, 1991: with marines in Operation Provide Comfort.

Knaak, Jerry. A Hunting We Will Go. Naval Aviation News. March-April 1997.

Vikings Sweep the Seas & Viking. Naval Aviation News February 1983.

LSO School and the Paddles’s Profession. Naval Aviation News V70, November-December.

Benjamin, Dick. A Sea Rover for ASW. Naval Aviation News January 1972.

Richman, John P. The Viking at Home in the Fleet. Approach, July 1975.

Francillon, Rene J. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913. Naval Institute Press. 1987.

Polmar, Norman & Moore, Kenneth J. Cold war Submarines The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines. Potomac Books. 2004.

Polmar, Norman. Aircraft Carriers a History of Carrier Aviation and its Influence on World Events Volume II 1946-2005. Potomac Books. 2007.

Kaman SH-2F Seasprite

United States of America (1974)

Anti-Submarine & Utility Helicopter

190 total airframes built: 85 converted to SH-2F w/ 48 new airframes.

A SeaSprite takes on fuel aboard the Destroyer USS Briscoe. (National Archives)

Introduction

Kaman’s SH-2 proved an exceptional asset for the US Navy through the mid to late Cold War, serving a variety of roles across nearly the entirety of the surface fleet. Beginning its service as a multipurpose naval helicopter designed to ferry equipment and rescue downed fliers, the light helicopter soon played an even greater role as an anti-submarine aircraft. Replacing the outdated and clumsy DASH drone, the Seasprite incorporated cutting edge sensors to become a sub chaser that could fit on even the lightest modern frigates in the US Navy. Spanning the early sixties to the new millenium, the Seasprite served as an able light transport, search and rescue, and anti-submarine helicopter before finally being phased out by the UH-60 Seahawk.

Whirlybirds

Of all the world’s navies, that of the United States was the first to employ helicopters enmasse. While helicopters had undergone considerable development since the first usable designs had been conceived in the 1920s, they remained a clumsy novelty into the 1940s. This was until the Sikorski R-4 was developed. Igor Sikorski, born in the Kiev Governorate in the reign of Alexander II, was already an aviation legend before the Russian Civil War saw him emigrate to the United States in 1919. Having previously designed four engine biplane airliners in the Russian Empire, and several of the flying boats that saw Pan Am span half the globe, Sikorski was a name known for breaking new ground. His R-4 helicopter would build this reputation further. The greatest advantage the R-4 had over its foreign contemporaries, most notably the Focke-Anchleis 223, was its simplicity and ruggedness. The use of a main lifting rotor and anti-torque tail rotor would prove a far lighter, and more robust method of control than the transverse and intermeshing rotors that drove a number of contemporary types.


Igor Sikorskiy (right) aboard a test flight of his R-4 helicopter (wikimedia).

The R-4 reached the notice of the US armed forces through Commander William J. Kossler of the Coast Guard, after the officer had seen the XR-4 undergo a test flight in April 1942. Impressed, he invited fellow officer CDR W.A. Burton to see the helicopter. The report on the aircraft took note of its ability to conduct patrols at low speeds, and unlike US Navy airships, did not require a large hangar for storage. Initially skeptical, the Navy was later convinced of the aircraft’s anti-submarine and convoy surveillance properties. Limited production began in 1942 and testing was conducted through 1943 and ‘44, though its sub chasing capabilities were not pursued. Instead, the helicopter proved itself as an air rescue vehicle. Its first trial came on January 3, 1944, when it delivered vital blood plasma from New York City to Sandy Hook, New Jersey, through a violent storm, in order to treat sailors after a fire had sunk the destroyer USS Turner. In all, several dozen R-4s would be delivered to the Coast Guard and Navy, where they took part in a number of rescue missions across North America and the Pacific.

While the R-4 was still limited in its carrying capacity and presented pilots with challenging flight characteristics, it demonstrated the utility of helicopters to every branch of the US armed forces. Sikorski would capitalize on this over the coming decade with their heavy H-19 and H-34 helicopters. Entering service in the early fifties, these helicopters were all metal and equipped with heavy radial engines. In civilian and military service, they would prove exceptional, capable of airlifting cargo to otherwise unreachable areas. However, a new, revolutionary advancement would soon render them obsolete. In 1955, the French Allouette II became the first production helicopter to feature a geared gas turbine. The turbine provided a far better power to weight ratio than the radial engines, and it was compact, allowing it to be placed at the center of the helicopter and thus avoided the forward engine placement that made some earlier helicopters nose heavy. This engine also allowed the nimble Alloutte to possess a speed and range far beyond comparable piston engined models. From then on, it was clear that turbine power would be the future of helicopter design.

 

A Sikorsky ‘Choctaw’ helicopter hovers to recover astronaut Alan Shephard and a Mercury reentry capsule after the first manned US space flight. The addition of a powerful radial engine made these among the first successful heavy lift helicopters. (wikimedia)

In the US, the first experiments for this type of helicopter propulsion were pioneered by Charles Kaman’s aircraft company. The first successful experiment was achieved through combining the Boeing 502 turbine with his company’s K-225. Kaman, a former employee of Sikorsky, would develop this new helicopter along with his head designer, Anton Flettner, a German engineer who pioneered the use of intermeshing rotors. The experimental K-225 proved promising enough to warrant further development, and soon, the Kaman Aircraft company would produce a new utility helicopter along its lines. The firm’s HH-43 Huskie fire fighting and rescue helicopter fit the bill, and its later models were equipped with turboshaft engines in the late 50s.

 

However, the firm’s greatest success was soon to arrive, when the navy sent out a request for a new carrier-borne, lightweight helicopter.

Seasprite

The US Navy’s request for a light multipurpose and rescue helicopter was soon met with Kaman’s newest design, the Kaman Seasprite. The helicopter would settle the requirements, being capable of carrying up to 12 people, remaining compact and fuel efficient, and taking up little space aboard aircraft carriers. In the 1956 competition, Kaman’s design won handily and the next year saw a contract issued for procurement. The helicopter was the first Kaman design to feature a single main rotor, and in conjunction with the servo-flap rotor system, it was cutting edge, reliable, and possessed smooth flight characteristics.

The design, then named HU2K, first flew on July 2, 1959, and was introduced fully in December 1962. It proved to be robust with good handling, however, the single General Electric T58GE turbine left it fairly underpowered. This prevented it from taking on any new missions, but it was sufficient for the basic role it was designed for. These helicopters, later designated UH-2A and UH–2B, though largely identical, were produced until 1965, with a total of 142 airframes built.

A Kaman UH-2A/B flies alongside the USS Enterprise as a plane guard as it launches a Grumman E-2a Hawkeye. (wikimedia)

The Seasprites, supplied to utility helicopter squadrons, were distributed amongst US aircraft carriers and saw widespread use during the Vietnam War. There, they served largely as plane guards, where they took up a position alongside aircraft carriers when large scale air operations were underway. In case of an accident during take off or landing, the Seasprites would move in quickly to recover downed pilots. Search and rescue also fell under their purview, and alongside a number of other models, they pulled hundreds of airmen from the sea. As a fleet utility helicopter, they also flew ashore and between various vessels in order to transfer personnel and equipment. Medical evacuations were also among tasks these helicopters performed, moving injured personnel to ships with more substantial medical facilities. The small size and smooth controls of the Seasprite made landing on the basic helicopter facilities of most ships an easier affair compared to the bulkier Sikorsky Sea King. Its only drawback was the relatively little power offered by its small turbine engine. It could make for tricky takeoffs as the small helicopter was slow to climb.

In spite of it being underpowered, it proved to be a valuable asset to the fleet and was respected by its pilots. Naturally, the Navy wished for improved models. Kaman’s first move was to add a second turbine engine to the helicopter, the improved model being the UH-2C. As the production run had already been completed, the Navy sent Kaman the older A and B models back to the company in order to receive the upgrade. The C model was introduced in 1966, though now with its much higher speed and carrying capacity, it was soon deemed that the Seasprite was to take on a much wider scope of duties.

Sub Chaser

During the late sixties, the increased threat posed by ever more advanced models of submarines was of great concern to the US surface fleet. Even more concerning was a lack of long range anti-submarine weapons. While many ASW vessels did carry the ASROC missile, tipped with either a nuclear depth charge or a Mk 46 torpedo, there was some concern of submarines attacking from beyond the 6 to 8 mile range of this weapon. The existing long range anti-submarine weapon was the Gyrodyne DASH drone, a small drone helicopter capable of carrying depth charges and torpedoes. While it was compact, it was inflexible, and with no means of collecting additional data in the area of the suspected submarine, accuracy was very poor.

The UH-2D was an interim ASW model to test the helicopters ability to carry the equipment needed for the role. These are differentiated from the later 2F’s by their tail wheel being further out. This aircraft lacks the sonobuoy rack. (wikimedia)

This left most of the US Navy’s light surface forces, which often operated too far from the carrier to be covered by its airborne ASW umbrella, under threat from more modern submarines. The solution was found in the re-engined Seasprite. The new SH-2D represented the greatest change thus far, with the new aircraft sporting a chin mounted surface search radar, a rack to carry a Mk 46 lightweight torpedo, and a 15 chute sonobuoy rack. The small size of the helicopter would allow it to operate aboard some of the lightest frigates in the fleet, these being the Garcia-class.

The performance of the helicopter, and its ability to operate on nearly every major surface combatant, would see this mission expanded even further. Thus came the Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System, a fleet-wide program to equip most warships with helicopters in order to boost their anti-submarine and anti-surface capabilities. LAMPS I would place a now standardized SH-2F aboard nearly every frigate, destroyer, and cruiser in the fleet. In addition to the long standing utility missions, the helicopters were datalinked to their host ship to allow them to prosecute possible submarine contacts, provide long range surface surveillance, and allow for more effective over the horizon targeting of enemy surface threats.

The new SH-2F was largely the same as the proceeding UH-2D model, though it standardized the use of composite rotor blades which existed on some previous models, and its tail wheel was moved forward to enable it to better operate off of smaller ships. Some 85 Seasprites were converted to this type, and a further 48 were produced in the early 80s in order to cover a shortfall before the introduction of the SH-60B Seahawk. The new, standard LAMPS helicopter entered service in 1973.

LAMPS I

The LAMPS I program vastly increased the offensive and surveillance capabilities of participating vessels. This encompassed some half dozen ship classes ranging from the workhorse frigates of the fleet, such as the Knox and Oliver Hazard Perry, to the nuclear guided missile cruiser, Truxton. In the ASW mission, on detecting a suspected submarine, whether attacking or transiting, the ship would launch its SH-2F. Capable of using sensor data from the ship, the helicopter would move in and begin to deploy its sonobuoys, being either passive AN/SSQ-41’s or active AN/SSQ-47’s. The helicopter then relayed the sonobuoy data back to the ship for processing, and if the contact was found and classified, the helicopter would move in to attack with its Mk 46 torpedo. The onboard magnetic anomaly detector could also mark the position of a submarine if over flown by the helicopter. A ship equipped with ASROC could also join the helicopter in the attack, provided the target was in range. In the ASW role, the helicopter was a largely reactive measure, as it was unable to process its own sonobuoy data and lacked a dipping sonar, and thus required other platforms to detect the submarine first. This is not to say it lacked considerable offensive potential, as the powerful hull mounted sonar arrays aboard the Knox class frigates and Spruance class destroyers, and the OHP’s short range but highly sensitive sonar, were among the most advanced systems of their kind and could give early warning to submerged threats. The presence of the helicopter thus allowed ships to prosecute, classify, and engage submerged contacts that would otherwise be beyond the effective range of their sensors and weapons.

The Spruance class Destroyers were among the most capable anti-submarine warships used during the Cold War. With their advanced sonar systems and two helicopters, they could pose a serious threat to even the most modern nuclear submarines. (National Archives)

The Spruance class in particular could prove very dangerous to submarines at range thanks to its convergence zone sonar. The AN/SQS-53 could make use of the aforementioned phenomenon, and under ideal conditions, detect submarines at extreme ranges. These zones are where sounds are bounced off the seafloor or thermal layers into a concentrated area and are thus made dramatically louder. Convergence zones are exploited by all ASW vessels, though the specialized sonar aboard these ships allowed them to exploit sound propagated at distances far in excess of the norm. A Spruance class ship making use of a convergence zone could dispatch helicopters against submarines potentially dozens of miles away, making them among the most capable ASW vessels of the Cold War. In the absence of a convergence zone, it switched to a short to medium range mode. It shared this system with the Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser, and the Kidd class destroyer, both of which used the same hull, however their role was air defense. These ships all transitioned to LAMPS III once it became available in the mid 1980s.

The LAMPS system featured most prominently in escort and screening vessels, namely the Knox and Oliver Hazard Perry (OHP) class frigates. The Knox class was an anti-submarine frigate with limited anti-surface capability that entered service in 1969, with 46 vessels being commissioned in all. These ships carried a single Seasprite and were armed with an ASROC launcher, which later received the capability to launch Harpoon anti-surface missiles. The OHP class carried no ASROC launcher, though they instead carried two helicopters. The last 26 of the class were LAMPS III ships and carried the heavier and more capable Sikorski Seahawk. In place of the ASROC launcher was a Mk 13 mod 4 launcher for Standard missiles and Harpoons. Both frigates carried hull sonar and towed arrays, the Knox possessing a larger hull array, and the OHP carrying a short range, high resolution hull sonar system, with a towed array being used for longer range surveillance. The difference in systems was due to the OHP being designed as a fast escort, and needed the capability to conduct passive sonar searches at speeds faster than a typical surface group. The resulting hull sonar system was thus highly sensitive, but had a decreased maximum effective range.

The Knox class was initially classified as a destroyer escort and later designated as a frigate. For mid to late Cold War vessels, they were very capable anti-submarine patrol vessels for their size with good anti-surface capabilities, featuring both a dual purpose ASROC-Harpoon launcher and a LAMPS I helicopter. (wikimedia)

In addition to the added anti-submarine mission, the Seasprite performed anti-surface support and anti-ship missile defense roles. In performing these missions, the Seasprite used its search radar to track and identify potentially hostile surface vessels. This allowed the host vessel to build a picture of enemy forces while putting itself in comparatively little direct danger. With this information, any LAMPS I vessel had early warning against potentially hostile surface vessels, and could also use the relayed information to more accurately fire Harpoon and Standard missiles over the horizon, without using its own radar and revealing itself. The extended surveillance range of a LAMPS vessel was pushed beyond 170 miles with the use of the Seasprite.

LAMPS I thoroughly improved the anti-submarine and anti-surface capabilities of much of the US fleet, with the Seasprite itself being an almost perfect off the shelf solution. While there were limitations, like the inability to perform an independent ASW search, the overall benefit of the ship not needing to prosecute sub surface contacts alone or having to reveal itself to perform a radar search in its patrol area was well worth the resources devoted to the Seasprite.

Late Career

Beyond ASW duties, Seasprites also allowed their host vessels to conduct surface surveillance over a much wider area. Here, an SH-2F identifies a natural gas carrier during Operation Desert Shield. (National archives)

By the end of the Cold War, the Seasprite had incorporated a number of improvements. These comprised a number of on board and weapon systems, perhaps most notably the introduction of the Mk 46 Mod 5, or NEARTIP, lightweight torpedo. The new model was designed to counter the latest advancements in Soviet nuclear submarine design, with the torpedo possessing an improved engine to make for a higher speed, an improved sonar transducer to increase the effective detection range of the weapon and add better countermeasure resistance, and had a new guidance and control group. The new weapon entered service in 1979, with kits being produced to convert old stocks to the new standard.

An improved model of the helicopter equipped with T700-GE-401 engines was also developed in 1985, though few were procured, as the Navy sought to increase supplies of the SH-60 Sea Hawk. Some of the improvements from the scaled back Super Seasprite did however make their way into the SH-2F. A number of LAMPS I helicopters during the mid 80s were equipped with FLIR pods for IR searches, IR jammers, chaff and flare dispensers, and an infrared sea mine detection system. Their service during the Gulf War saw them mostly perform ship to ship material and personnel transfers, mine detection, and medical evacuation roles, as Iraq possessed no submarines. Their primary mission in the theater was mine hunting duties, for which they used IR sensors in their search. They were only carried aboard lighter surface combatants during Operation Desert Storm, and weren’t present among the air wings of any of the aircraft carriers during the conflict.

After almost thirty years of service, the SH-2F was withdrawn along with most of the vessels that carried them. Its end was hastened by the withdrawal of the Knox class frigates from service and the sale of most of the short hull OHP frigates to foreign navies. The Navy would fully transition over to the Sikorsky Seahawk, a much larger and more powerful helicopter which carried two torpedoes, a dipping sonar, and incorporated sonobuoy processing capabilities.

Construction and Flight Characteristics

The Kaman SH-2F Seasprite was compact, and while conventional for a modern helicopter, was very advanced for its day. Its fuselage was watertight, possessed forward retractable landing gear, and was equipped with a variety of onboard sensors. While it could not perform waterlandings, its sealed canopy allowed it to float until the helicopter’s crew could be recovered. The pilot sat on the port side of the cockpit and the copilot/tactical coordinator, who operated the weapon systems, was seated starboard. The systems operator sat behind the pilot and operated the sonobuoy dispenser, the magnetic anomaly detector, and radar system. The systems operator lacked the equipment to process the sonobuoy data, which was instead processed aboard the LAMPS I host vessel and sent back via a data link.

An SH-2F instrument panel (wikimedia).

At the nose of the helicopter was the LN-66 surface search radar, designed for detecting both surface vessels and submarine snorkels. On the starboard pylon was the MAD streamer which worked in conjunction with an extendable antenna on the underside of the helicopter. This system worked by measuring the local strength of Earth’s magnetic field, and would spike if it encountered a large magnetic object, or in other words, a submerged submarine. Triggering a readable detection required the aircraft to over fly the contact and was thus typically used to pin the exact position of the submarine while preparing to attack after closing in during the sonobuoy search. The Seasprite carried a mix of AN/SSQ-41A passive and AN/SSQ-47B active sonar sonobuoys. The AN/SSQ-41A omni-directional passive sonobuoys operate at a depth of 60 ft for shallow searches and 300 ft for deep, and have a frequency range of 10 Hz to 20 kHz. Depending on their settings, they lasted between one to eight hours. The SSQ-47B active sonobuoy provided ranging information and operated at either 60 or 800 ft and possessed a maximum endurance of thirty minutes. Sonobuoy data was processed aboard the supporting ship and was used to localize submarine contacts that were otherwise too distant or quiet to be effectively tracked by the ship’s sensors alone. The information provided from the data link allowed the helicopter to detect, classify, and engage subsurface contacts in cooperation with the host vessel.

Re-detecting a submarine at longer ranges from the ship was difficult, as passive sonobuoys laid out in a large search pattern gave little chance of success. The best chances of re-detection on a lost contact was when it was near the surface, transiting, or maneuvering to avoid attacks from other vessels and aircraft. The standard procedure for sub chasing was to head down the azimuth of the ship’s sonar contact and to begin to lay a sonobuoy field to uncover its exact location.

The Systems operator station. To the left is the MAD readout, in the center is a scope for the surface search radar, and on the right is the (shuttered) sonobuoy display. (National archives)

The Seasprite was initially powered by a single General electric T58-GE-8F turboshaft before a second was installed on the UH-2C. These each produced up to 1,350 shp and allowed the SH-2F to travel at a top speed of 152 mph at sea level and allowed the small helicopter to carry up to 2000 lbs worth of equipment in the vertical replenishment role, with a maximum cargo hook capacity of 4000 lbs. To save fuel during emergencies, the helicopter could run on one engine on the way back to the ship. These engines were well regarded and considered very reliable.

The helicopter’s lift was provided by a 44 ft main rotor which used composite blades which were directed with servo operated flaps. These flaps are easily visible on the rotors, each having a wider chord than the rest of the blade. The flap is used to change the angle of attack of the rotor in flight and allows for smooth altitude adjustment. The anti-torque rotor at the rear of the helicopter had its blades increased from three to four going from the C to D model. The Seasprite handled well and was easy to perform a hover in, an important capability when it comes to search and rescue, and transfers to vessels without any landing areas. This was particularly important when landing on Knox class frigates, which both had significant air disturbance aft of the ship, and a very claustrophobic landing area.

In the air rescue role, the copilot would coordinate with divers and rescue crew. The cargo space of the helicopter could fit two stretchers or three seats. For water recovery of personnel, divers were carried aboard and recovered downed airmen through the use of a rescue hoist mounted on the starboard side of the helicopter. Mechanically driven, it had a capacity of 600 lbs.

Throughout the 1980’s, Seasprites were often equipped with a variety of new devices. This aircraft features two ALQ 144 IR jammers for missile defense, chaff and flare dispensers, and a FLIR imager. Crews also often removed the doors from these helicopters for faster entry and exit. (National Archives)

The Seasprite could carry a variety of unguided weapons, but rarely carried anything other than the Mk 46 torpedo, being either the Mod 0, or Mod 5 NEARTIP during the 1980s. On paper, the Seasprite could carry two torpedoes, but in practice, the second equipment position was taken up by an external fuel tank on ASW patrols. Both torpedo types measured 8.5 ft long with a diameter of 12.75 inches. The Mod 0 weighed 568 lbs, and both carried a 95 lb warhead. The Mod 0 possessed a maximum speed of 45 kts, with the NEARTIP being considerably faster. The NEARTIP provided better tracking of faster targets and better countermeasure rejection, having incorporated a new sonar transducer, control and guidance group, and a new engine which switched from solid propellant to liquid monopropellant. Prior to the introduction of the Mod 5, there was little hope for successful attacks against the fastest nuclear submarines of the 1970s. However, in confirming the location of a submarine, its position also became revealed to long range ASW aircraft which could make follow up attacks.

Other weapons included unguided 2.75 inch unguided rockets, and some rare, late examples possessed FLIR optics and could carry AGM-65 Maverick missiles. These weapons, however, were rarely ever carried. Later Seasprites carried a variety of countermeasures including an ALQ-144 tail mounted IR jammer and an ALE-39 flare and chaff dispenser. A considerable number of these helicopters were equipped with infrared jammers and flares during the 1980s.

Conclusion

An SH-2F is being used to evacuate a sailor who received severe burns, necessitating treatment off-vessel. (National Archive)

The Kaman Seasprite can be said to be among the most versatile aircraft ever operated by the US Navy. Entering service as a plane guard, the number of roles it served grew considerably over the years to encompass everything from medical evacuation, to anti-submarine duties. As the core of the LAMPS program for nearly 10 years, it gave US warships a boost in their offensive and defensive qualities against both surface and subsurface opponents.

Specification

SH-2F Seasprite Specification
Engine 2x General Electric T58-GE-8F
Output (maximum) 2300 SHP (2700 SHP)
Maximum Weight 12800 lbs
Empty Weight 8652 lbs
Range for Utility 234 N.MI
Radius of Action for Utility 111 N.MI
Endurance for Utility (ASW) [Ferry] 2 hours (1.9 hours) [2.8 hours]
Standard Armament 1 Mk 46 Mod 0/5 Lightweight torpedo
Crew Pilot, copilot/tactical coordinator, systems operator
Length of fuselage 40.5 ft
Width of fuselage 10 ft
Designation Sub type
HU2K/UH-2A Basic single engine utility helicopter
UH-2B Minor differences in avionics, later made identical to A model
UH-2C First two engine model
H-2 Army project, single engine
HH-2C Combat rescue model, 7.62 side door gun emplacements, M134 rotary gun turret. Two engines.
HH-2D Same as HH-2C but without armament. Used to test ASW equipment and loading. Two engines.
NUH-2C/D Test helicopter, two engines.
YSH-2E Testing helicopter for radar and ASW gear for canceled LAMPS II program
SH-2D Early ASW model
SH-2F Standard LAMPS I helicopter
SH-2G SH-2F with T700 turboshaft engines, improved avionics. Small production run.
Avionics Type
Surface Search Radar LN-66HP
IFF AN/APX-72
Transponder Computer KIT-1A/TSEC
UHF Radio Set AN/ARC-159
Secure Speech KY-28
ICS AN/AIC-14
TACAN AN/ARN-52
Doppler Radar AN/APN-182
Attitude Heading AN/ASN-50
NAV Computer AN/AYK-2
Plotting Board PT-492
UHF Direction Finder AN/ARA-25
OTPI R1047A/A
Radar Altimeter AN/AP-171
RAWS AN/APQ-107
Sonobuoy receiver AN/ARR-52
Acoustic Data Processor AN/ASA-26B
Data Link AN/ASK-22
Magnetic Anomaly Detector AN/ASQ-81
Radar Warning Receiver AN/ALR-54

Profile:

The SH-2F Seasprite was a simple, but excellent conversion of a proven airframe. Installed aboard much of the US surface fleet, it was a potent force multiplier.
During the mid 80’s, the Seasprite fleet received a number of improvements. These included the ALE-39 countermeasure dispenser, the AN/ALQ-144 IR jammer for use against heat seeking missiles, and later FLIR optics.

Gallery:

 

The Knox class’s helicopter facilities were quite claustrophobic, and precluded the use of a larger helicopter. (National Archive)
A forward view of a Seasprite aboard a Spruance class Destroyer. (National Archives)
Despite its small size, the Seasprite could carry a considerable sling load between vessels. (wikimedia).

A Knox class frigate during a visit to La Roche, France with its LAMPS helicopter on deck. Curiously, this ship’s Sea Sparrow launcher has been removed. (Wikimedia)
The colorful MAD streamer. (Wikimedia)
A Seasprite responds to a medical emergency aboard a freighter near a naval exercise. (National Archives)

A Seasprite flies as a plane guard alongside the USS America. An Essex class refit carrier sails in the background. (National Archives)
An SH-2F undergoes checks aboard the USS Iowa during the Northern Wedding naval exercise, 1986. (National Archives)

A small number of combat rescue helicopters were converted to recover airmen from potentially dangerous coastal areas. In practice, the nose mounted gun was typically not retained. (wikimedia)
With its rotors folded, the crew of the USS John Hancock prepare to stow their Seasprite. (National Archives)
A snapshot taken by a Seasprite: Soviet Submarine K-324 and frigate USS McCloy (Knox class) were engaged in mutual surveillance when the submarine’s screw became entangled in the frigate’s towed sonar array. The emergency was responded to by the Soviet oceanic survey ship SSW 506 and the American destroyer USS Peterson. The K-324 was a Victor III class nuclear submarine, this type being the most numerous modern Soviet nuclear submarine of the late Cold War.

Credits: 

  • Article written by Henry H.
  • Edited by  Stan L. and Henry H.
  • Ported by Henry H.
  • Illustrations by Godzilla

Sources

Primary:

Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model SH-2F aircraft. NAVAIR 00-110AH2-8. Commander of the Naval Air systems Command. July 1974.

Andrews, Harold. Sea Sprite. Naval Aviation New 1983 (Feb).

Naval Aviation News 1985 (May-June)

Naval Aviation News 1983 (Jan-Feb & May-Aug)

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1982 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, on S. 815.

Department of Defense appropriations for 1984 hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, first session / Subcommittee on the Department of Defense.

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1986 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-ninth Congress, first session, on S. 674.

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1979 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, second session, on S. 2571

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1980 : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth Congress, first session, on S. 428.

CDR Rausa Rosario. LAMPS MK III. Naval Aviation News 1980 (June).

Defense Department authorization and oversight hearings on H.R. 5167, Department of Defense authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 1985, and oversight of previously authorized programs before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, second session.

Secondary:

Polmar, Norman. Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet. Fifteenth Edition. US Naval Institute Press. 1993.

Sikorsky HNS-1 “Hoverfly”. United States Coast Guard.

Stuyvenberg, Luke. Helicopter Turboshafts. University of Colorado at Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering. 2015.

Garcia Class Frigate. NAVsource online.

Heinkel He 114

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1936)
Shipborne and coastal reconnaissance aircraft – 98~118 Built

The He 114 Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com

In the mid-thirties, the German Ministry of Aviation (Reichsluftfahrtministerium – RLM) tasked the Heinkel company with developing a replacement for the He 60 shipborne and reconnaissance aircraft. While Heinkel fulfilled the request by building the He 114, its overall performance was deemed insufficient for German standards.

History

During the early thirties, the He 60 was adopted for service as the main German shipborne and coastal reconnaissance aircraft. As it was considered outdated, in 1935, the RLM issued to Heinkel a request for a new shipborne and coastal reconnaissance aircraft that was to replace the He 60. The next year, two prototypes were completed. While it was originally planned to test these aircraft with the BMW 132 engine, due to lack of availability, this was not possible. The first prototype (with D-UBAM marking) made its maiden flight in September 1936. It was powered by a Daimler Benz DB-600A which gave out 900 hp. The test results of the first flight were disappointing, as it proved difficult to control on the water but also in the air. The second prototype, V2 (D-UGAT), powered by a 740 hp Jumo 210 E, made its first flight in December 1936. It was used to test the catapult launching capabilities of this aircraft. It had some modifications in comparison to the first prototype, like having a larger tail and redesigned floats. Despite some improvements, the catapult launch testings from the Gneisenau showed that the He 114 was not suited for this role.

Despite not having a promising start, further prototypes were ordered. The V3 (D-IDEG) prototype was powered by an 880 hp BMW 132 K (or D, depending on the source) engine. The floats were once again redesigned and the pilot had a better-glazed shield. This aircraft was tested in April 1937 with similar performance as previous versions.

V4 (D-IHDG) made its maiden test flight in August 1937. It had many modifications in order to improve its performance. The wing’s edges were redesigned, new floats were used and it was also fitted with machine gun armament. V5 (D-IQRS) had new improved floats which enabled it to take-off even from ice. While most sources mention only five prototypes, some note that there were two more. The V6 and V7 prototypes were tested with similar equipment and were armed with two machine guns, one firing through the propeller and the second mounted to the rear. Additional armament tested consisted of two 50 kg (110 lb) bombs.

A side view of the V4 prototype, during a test flight. Source www.warbirdphotographs.com

Technical characteristics

The He 114 was designed as a single-engine, all-metal, twin crew biplane aircraft. It had a monocoque oval-shaped fuselage design. It was powered by one BMW 132K 960 hp nine-cylinder radial engine. The fuel load consisted of 640 l.

The He 114 BMW 132K 960 hp nine-cylinder radial engine. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com

Somewhat unusual for biplanes of the era, the lower wings were much smaller than the upper ones. They had a half-elliptical design and were thicker than the upper wings. The upper wing was connected to the fuselage by two ‘N’ shaped struts. There were also two ‘Y’ struts connecting the lower and the upper wings. The upper wing was constructed using three parts with two ailerons. The upper wing could, if needed, be folded to the rear. The landing gear consisted of two floats which could also act as auxiliary fuel storage tanks with 470 l each.

On later models, the floaters were used as auxiliary fuel tanks. Source www.warbirdphotographs.com

The crew consisted of the pilot and the rear positioned machine gunner/observer. The armament consisted of one MG 15 7.92 mm (0.31 in) machine gun placed to the rear. The ammunition load for this machine gun was 600 rounds. Additionally, there was an option to externally mount two 50 kg (110 lb) bombs.

Close up view of The He 114 pilot control table. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos

Further development

Despite being shown to have poor performance, a small production run was made by Heinkel. Some 10 (or 6 depending on the source) aircraft of the A-0 series, together with 33 of the A-1 series would be built. The only difference was the use of a larger rear tail design on the He 114A-1 series. The small number of He 114 built were given to various test units and flight schools, where its performance was often criticized by all. During its introduction to service, the much more promising Ar-196 was under development, but it would need some time until production was possible. As a temporary solution, the Luftwaffe officials decided not to retire the He 60 from service yet. Heinkel was informed that, due to the He 114’s overall poor performance, it would not be accepted for service and that it would be offered for export if anyone was interested. For this reason, Heinkel developed the He 114A-2 series. The He 114A-2 had a reinforced fuselage, floats that could be used as fuel storage tanks, and, additionally, it was modified to have catapult attach points. The He 114A-2, while tested, was not operated by the Luftwaffe, and it was used for the export market.

The following B-series (including B-1 and B-2) were actually just A-2 planes with some slight improvements, meant primarily for export. The history of the C-series is somewhat unclear, as it appears to be specially developed for Romania. It was much better armed, with either two 20 mm (0.78 in ) MG 151 cannons, two 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131 heavy machine guns, or even two MG 17 7.92 mm (0.31 in) (the sources are not clear) placed inside the lower wings. Some sources also mention that additional machine guns were installed inside the engine compartment and could be fired through the propeller. Additionally, it appears that its fuselage was modified to be able to carry two additional 50 kg (110 lb) bombs. The rear positioned MG 15 was unchanged. This version also had a new Junkers type 3.5 m diameter propeller. The floaters were also slightly redesigned and it received smoke screen trovers. Additionally, to provide better stability while positioned near shore, a small anchor could be realized.

Operational use

Despite not being accepted by the Luftwaffe, due to the Kriegsmarine’s (German war navy) lack of sufficient seaplanes, some He 114 had to be used for this purpose. The distribution of the He 114 began in 1938 when the 1./Küstenfliegergruppe 506 was equipped with this aircraft. In 1939, it was 43equipped with the older He 60, as these proved to be better aircraft. Some German ships, like the Atlantis, Widder, and Pinguin, received these aircraft. During their use, the He 114 floater units proved to be prone to malfunctions. These were reported to be too fragile and could easily be broken down during take-off from the sea during bad weather.

While designed to be able to take-off from German ships, the He 114 construction was not strong enough and was prone to breakdowns with many aircraft being lost this way. Source /www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos
Despite intended as a replacement of the He 60 this was never implemented due to He 114 poor performance. Source www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos

A group of 12 He 114 C-1 aircraft that were to be sold to Romania were temporarily allocated to the 2nd Squadron of the 125th Reconnaissance Group (2/125 Aufkl.Sta.). These units operated in the area of Finland’s shore. When the Bv 138 became available in sufficient numbers, the He 114 C-1 was finally given to Romania.

Foreign use

While the He 114 failed to get any large production orders in Germany, it did see some export success. These included Denmark, Spain, Romania and Sweden. The B-series was sold, which was more or less a copy of the A-2 series.

In Danish service

The Danish use of the He 114 is not clear. Depending on the source, there are two versions. In the first, Denmark managed to buy 4 He 114 aircraft and even ordered more, but the German occupation stopped any further orders. In the second, while Denmark wanted to buy some He 114, nothing came of it, once again due to German occupation.

In Spanish service

During 1942, Spain obtained some 4 He 114s from the Germans. In Spanish service, these were known as HR-4. Despite their obsolescence and lack of spare parts, these would remain in use up to 1953.

Small numbers of He 114 were supplied to Spanish State during 1942. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com

In Romanian service

Romania received a group of 12 He 114 in 1939. During the war, the number would be increased to 29 in total. These would be extensively used to patrol the Black Sea. At the end of the war, these were captured by the Soviets, who confiscated them. Some would be returned to Romania in 1947, which would continue to use them up to 1960, when they were scrapped.

The He 114 in Romanian Service.Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos

In Swedish service

Sweden bought some 12 He 114 in March 1941. In Swedish service, these would be renamed to S-12. Despite being an unimpressive design and prone to malfunction, the Swedish used them extensively during the period of 1941 to 1942, with over 2054 flight missions. They would remain in service up to 1945, with six aircraft being lost in accidents.

One S-12 (as it was known in Sweden) of 12 in total was sold to Sweden. Source: www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos

Production

Despite its poor performance, Heinkel undertook a small production of the He 114. The number of produced aircraft ranges from 98 to 118 depending on the source.

  • He 114 Prototypes – Between 5 to 7 prototypes were built
  • He 114 A – Limited production series
  • He 114 B – Export version of the A-series
  • He 114 C – Slightly improved version with stronger armament

Operators

  • Germany – Small numbers of these aircraft were operated by the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, but their use was limited
  • Denmark – Possibly operated four He 114 before the German occupation
  • Spain – Bought four He 114, and operated them up to 1953
  • Sweden – Bought 12 He 114 in March 1941, which remained in use until 1945
  • Romania – Operated 29 He 114, with the last aircraft being scrapped in 1960

Surviving aircraft

While there are no complete surviving He 114s various parts and wrecks have been found over the years. Parts of one wreck were found in lake Siutghiol near Mamaia, on the Romanian Black Sea coast, in 2012. There is a possibility that the wreck of another lays in a lake near Alexeni as well.

Conclusion

The He 114 was an unsuccessful design that failed to gain any larger production orders in Germany. It had difficult controls both in the air and on the water. While it would see some limited service with the Luftwaffe, most would be sold abroad, where some were used up to the ’60s.

Specifications –  He 114A
Wingspan 44 ft 7 in / 13.6 m
Length 38 ft 2 in / 11.65 m
Height 17 ft 2 in / 5.23 m
Wing Area 455 ft² / 42.27 m²
Engine One BMW 132K 960 hp nine-cylinder radial engine
Empty Weight 5.070 lb / 2.300 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 8.090 lb / 3.760 kg
Fuel Capacity 640 liters
Climb Rate to 1 km In 4 minute 20 second
Maximum Speed 208 mph / 335 km/h
Range 572 mi / 920 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 16,075 ft / 4,900 m
Crew One pilot and one rear gunner
Armament
  • One rear-mounted 0.31 in (7.92 mm) machine gun
  • Two 110 lb (50 kg) bombs

Gallery

Illustrations by Ed Jackson

He 114C-1 1./SAGr.125 -Baltic Area 1941
He 114A-2 1.-KuFlGr-506 Devenow 1938
He 114A 1./SAGr.125 Baltic Area 1941
He 114B in Romanian Service Circa 1943

Sources

  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata Nemačka Beograd
  • M. Griehl (2012) X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945, Frontline Book.
  • S. Lonescu and C. Craciunoi, He 114, Editura Modelism
  • Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage Aircraft Of The Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland and Company.
  • Ferenc A. and P. Dancey (1998) German Aircraft Industry And Production 1933-1945. Airlife England.
    https://www.cugetliber.ro/stiri-eveniment-hidroavion-din-al-doilea-razboi-mondial-descoperit-in-lacul-tasaul-201060

Blohm und Voss Bv 222

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1938)
Transport plane – 13 built with 4 uncompleted aircraft

The Blohm und Voss Bv 222 was the largest World War Two flying boat that ever reached operational service. Even though it started as a civilian project, due to wartime demand, it was quickly put into service with the Luftwaffe during the Second World War.

The Bv 222 during a flight over Germany. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos/index.html

The History of Blohm & Voss

The Blohm & Voss Schiffswerft und Maschinenfabrik (shipbuilding and engineering works) company was founded in 1877 by Hermann Blohm and Ernst Voss. After World War I, Blohm & Voss continued production of ships, but also reoriented to the production of aircraft (especially flying boats). In the following years, the company managed to cooperate with Lufthansa (the German Passenger Airline) and later even with the Luftwaffe.
Early on in the development and production of their first aircraft, they received the ‘Ha’ designation (standing for Hamburger Flugzeugbau, the factory’s station at Hamburg). This would be later replaced by ‘Bv’ (also sometimes marked as ‘BV’), which represented the owner’s initials. Blohm & Voss would build a number of flying boat designs like the Ha 138, Ha 139, Bv 222 and BV 238. During the war, the company was also engaged in developing a number of glide bombs like the Bv 143 and Bv 246 Hagelkorn.

The first prototype of the Bv 222, V1 (reg. D-ANTE), was briefly tested by Lufthansa before being taken over by the Luftwaffe. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos/index.html

The Lufthansa Request

In 1937, Lufthansa opened a tender for long-range passenger transport flying boats. The requirements for this tender included that the aircraft had to be able to travel from Berlin to New York in 20 hours. A few well known German aircraft manufacturers responded to this tender, including Heinkel, Blohm & Voss and Dornier. Whilst both Heinkel and Dornier had enough experience in designing seaplanes, Blohm & Voss was relatively new to this. One of the first Blohm & Voss seaplane designs was the Ha 139. While only a few were built, the company gained valuable experience in building such aircraft. The man responsible for designing the flying boat was Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt (chief designer at the Blohm & Voss) and his assistant R. Schubert.

All three aircraft manufacturers presented their models. Heinkel submitted the He 120 (renamed later to He 220), Dornier came up with the Do 20 and Blohm & Voss proposed the Ha 222 (later renamed to Bv 222). The Lufthansa officials, after detailed considerations, decided that the best aircraft was the Bv 222. An official contract between Lufthansa and Blohm & Voss was signed on 19th August 1937 for three aircraft to be built.
By the end of 1937, the Lufthansa officials requested improvements to the Bv 222. One of these regarded the number of passengers. It now had to accommodate at least 24 passengers on shorter trips and 16 during long voyages across the Atlantic.

Change into a Military Project

The design work on the new aircraft began in January of 1938 and lasted almost a year. This was mainly due to the huge task and the inexperience of Blohm & Voss in designing such large aircraft. Nevertheless, the construction of the first Bv 222 V1 prototype began in September 1938, followed a few weeks later by the V2 and V3 prototypes. Work on the Bv 222 was slow and it dragged on into 1939 and 1940. By this time, due to the outbreak of war, a shortage of skilled labour and the decision to concentrate on the Bv 138, the Bv 222 had low priority.

In July 1940, Blohm & Voss presented a mockup of the Bv 222 exterior and interior to Lufthansa officials. They were generally satisfied but demanded some changes. In early August, despite receiving Lufthansa approval, the Bv 222 project was actually slowly being taken over by the Luftwaffe for its own use.

By the end of August 1940, the Bv 222 V1 prototype was completed, and many taxi and loading tests were carried out. The first test flight was piloted by Captain Helmut Wasa Rodig on 7th September 1940. While the general flight performance was deemed satisfactory, there were some issues, such as instability during horizontal flights and staggering from one side to another when floating on water. While still under development and testing for civilian use, the Bv 222 V1 received the registration D-ANTE.

The Bv 222’s cockpit. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos/index.html

Technical Characteristics

The Bv 222 was designed as a six-engined, high wing, flying transport plane. Unfortunately, the sources do not provide us with more precise information about its construction. This is mostly due to the small number of aircraft built.

While the sources do not mention if it was built using only metal or mixed construction, the Bv 222’s fuselage was covered with 3-5 mm thick anticorrosive metal framework. Its large size made it possible to build two floors. The upper floor was designed for the crew of the plane. The lower floor was initially designed to accommodate civilian seats, but as the Bv 222 was put into military service, this area was used to store equipment or soldiers. A large door was provided to access the lower floor.

The wings were constructed using a huge tubular main spar. These were used to provide additional room for spare fuel and oil tanks. The fuel was stored in six fuel tanks with a total capacity of 3,450 litres. Four outboard stabilising floats (two on each side) were carried on the wings. These would split into two halves and retract into the wing. The purpose of these stabilising floats was to stabilise the plane during landings on water.
The crew number varied between each aircraft. It usually consisted of two pilots, two mechanics, a radio operator and, depending on the number of guns installed, additional machine gun operators.

The Bv 222 was initially powered by six Bramo 323 Fafnir 1000 hp strong radial engines. Other engines, for example Jumo 207C, were used later during the production run.

The defensive armament varied between each plane and usually consisted of several different machine guns or cannons. The following different types of weapons are known to have been used: 7.92 mm (0.31 in) MG 81, 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131 and 20 mm (0.78 in) MG 151.

The Bv 222 V2 prototype from the rear. Here we can also see the rear defense turret. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos/index.html

The Bv 222 (V4, V5, V6 and V8) were equipped with the most advanced electronic equipment that the Germans had, such as the FuG 200 surface search radar, FuG 101 A radio altimeter, FuG 25 A friend or foe identification system and the FuG 16 command guided target approach system. The radio equipment used on these four were the Lorenz VP 257 and the Lorenz VP 245 transoceanic relay sets.

First Military Transport Flight Operations

By the end of 1940, Bv 222 V1 was mostly used for testing and correcting any issues. By December of 1940, due to the winter and bad weather, further tests were not possible. As Bv 222 V1 was fully operational and enough fuel was stored, it was deemed a waste of resources to simply wait for the arrival of spring. For this reason, Luftwaffe officials proposed for the Bv 222 V1 to be used in a military transport operation between Hamburg and Kirkenes (Norway). For this operation, the Bv 222 V1 was modified by adding a large side hatch door. During this operation, Bv 222 V1 received a military camouflage paint scheme and received the registration number CC+EQ. By mid August 1941, the Bv 222 V1 achieved a total of 120 hours flight, with some 65 tonnes of cargo and 221 wounded soldiers transported. This mission was a success and the Bv 222 V1 proved to be an effective transport plane.

Bv 222 V5 somewhere in the Mediterranean. Note the left wing’s outboard stabilizing floats designed to provide better balance when floating on water. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos/index.html

After a period of needed general overhaul and repair, Bv 222 V1 was set for a new transport mission, this time to support the DAK-Deutsches Afrikakorps (German Africa Corps). The main bases of operation were from Athens to Derna in Africa. The mission was carried out from 16th October to 6th November 1941. In total, seventeen flights were carried out, with 30 tonnes of supplies and 515 wounded soldiers and personnel transported. As Bv 222 V1, at this time, was not equipped with any defensive armament, two Me 110s were provided for its escort. While it was a prototype plane, no defensive armament was installed. But, after several encounters with the British Air Force in the Mediterranean, the need for defensive armament became apparent. At this stage, the Bv 222 was lucky, as it managed to emerge from these engagements in one piece. It even managed to survive the attack of three British Beaufighters on a flight from Taranto to Tripoli.

During these transport flights, the improved Bramo 323 engines (which replaced the earlier BMW 132) achieved a solid but satisfactory overall flight performance. But the Bramo 323 engines were deemed prone to malfunctions.

Future Service within the Luftwaffe

During the winter of 1941/1942, Bv 222 V1 was again returned to Blohm & Voss for more repairs but also for fitting its first defensive armament. The armament consisted of several 7.92 mm (0.31 in) and 13 mm (0.51 in ) machine guns. Note that the information about armament in this article is taken from H. J. Nowarra’s book “Blohm and Voss Bv 222”, but other authors state that different armament was used. One MG 81 was placed in the nose, four more MG 81s were placed in the fuselage and two additional DL 131 turrets with MG 131s were placed in the upper fuselage. At the same time, Bv 222 V1 received a new registration code, X4+AH. It was attached to Luft-Transport-Staffel 222 (short LTS 222) which mainly operated in the Mediterranean. The LTS 222 official squadron marking was a Viking longship and it is probably for this reason that the Bv 222 were nicknamed ‘Wikings’.

The Bv 222 V8 placed on a ramp, possibly for repairs. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos/index.html

During 1942, LTS 222 was reinforced with four newly built Bv 222s of the A-series. V4 (reg. num. X4+DH) was received in mid April, V5 (reg. num. X4+EH) on 7th July, V6 (reg. num. X4+FH) on 21st August and V8 (reg. num. X4+HH) in late September. These four were provided with defensive armament consisting of two DL 151 turrets, each armed with an MG 151 in the upper fuselage, one MG 131 in the nose position and two MG 81 on the fuselage sides.

After many extensive and dangerous transport missions, Bv 222 V1 finally ran out of luck, and was lost in a tragic accident in early 1943. While on a flight to Athens, due to Allied air raids, the pilot tried to land on water. Because of the total darkness, the pilot was unable to see a half sunken wreckage, which damaged the plane so much that it sank in only a few minutes. Luckily, the crew was safely evacuated.

Bv 222 V2 made its first test flight on the 7th August 1941. It was initially used by the Erprobungsstelle Travemünde for testing and improvements. It had its bottom fuselage redesigned to provide better stability when floating in water. In addition, two reserve thrust propellers were attached to each middle engine on both sides, which improved flight performance. It was not used by LTS 222 but was instead given to the Fliegerführer Atlantik unit. As this unit name suggests, Bv 222 V2 (which later included other Bv 222s) was used to patrol the Atlantic. Its main base of operations was the city of Biscarrosse in occupied France. Bv 222 V2 would remain in use up to the war’s end, when it was captured by the Allied forces in May 1945.

The Bv 222 V3 prototype had a much shorter operational service life. It made its first test flight on the 28th November 1941. It was lost on the 30th June 1943 while on a patrol mission across the Atlantic.

Bv 222 V4 was initially used in a transport mission above the Mediterranean. On 10th December 1942, it was damaged by Allied raids. After the necessary repairs, it would be used for the remainder of the war on patrol missions across the Atlantic. In October 1943, it, together with Bv 222 V2, managed to shoot down a British Avro Lancaster bomber over the ocean. The circumstances of this event are not clear even to this day. Bv 222 V4 was sunk by its crew in May 1945 at Kiel.

Most Bv 222s were powered by six 1000 hp Bramo 323 engines. These were later replaced with Jumo 207Cs. http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos/index.html

V5 was used for transport of materiel and men above the Mediterranean, until the loss of Bv 222 V1. After that, it was recalled to Germany to be structurally strengthened and equipped with stronger defensive armament. From April 1943, it was used in Atlantic patrol missions, until it was shot down by the Allies in June the same year.

V6 was shot down by the British shortly after it was attached to LTS 222. Bv 222 V8 also had a short operational life, as it was lost in action to Allied fighters on 10th December 1942.

It is interesting to point out that, during the Bv 222’s service in the Mediterranean, the British would attack these aircraft only when they were transporting ammunition and supplies to Africa, but they would not attack them on their way back to Europe as they would be transporting wounded soldiers.

After construction of the first three prototypes, the next four aircraft were reclassified as the A-series (V4, V5, V6 and V8). Interestingly, these would also retain their prototype ‘V’ designation, which can lead to some confusion.

Future Improvements and Modifications

Even as the first series of Bv 222 were under construction, there was a proposal for a new improved civilian version named Bv 222 B, which was to be powered by Jumo 208 engines. Due to the war, this was never implemented and remained a paper project.

As the first series of Bv 222 had some issues with the engines, there were attempts to equip them with better models. For this reason, Bv 222 V7 (reg. TB+QL ) was instead powered by Jumo 207 C 680 hp diesel engines. The idea behind using diesel engines was that the Bv 222 could be refueled at sea by using U-boats. The Jumo 207C engines also proved to have some issues, but it was nevertheless decided to use the Bv 222 V7 as the basis for the C-series. Bv 222 V7 was flight tested in April 1943, and it would remain in service up to the war’s end, when it was destroyed by its crew to avoid capture by Allied forces in May 1945.

Due to the bad wartime situation for the Germans and the lack of materials, only a limited number of C-series aircraft were ever built. Of the nine that were under construction, only about five (beside V7) were ever completed. Two of the C-series aircraft were to be used for a new D-series powered by the Jumo 207 D engines. Due to problems with this engine, production was never implemented.

Bv 222 V2 that was captured by the Allies in Trondheim Fjord. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos/index.html

The first aircraft of the C-series (Bv 222 C-9) was allocated to Fliegerführer Atlantik on the west in late July 1943. After the Allied landings in France, the Germans lost their air bases in this area. For this reason, the long-range patrol missions were carried out from occupied Norway. C-9 was lost in early 1945 (or 1944, depending on the source), when it was shot down by a British Hawker Typhoon. C-10 was lost in a crash in February 1944. C-11 was fully equipped but was never used operationally for unknown reasons. C-12 was tested with rocket assisted engines to help during takeoff. The use of the C-13 aircraft is unfortunately unclear. While the C-14 to C-17 were under construction, they were never completed due to a lack of resources.

While the Bv 222 was primarily designed as a flying boat, there were plans to modify it to be used as a standard transport plane. This was to be achieved by adding landing gear wheels to it. The projects received the P.187 designation. Possibly due to a low priority, this project was under development up to the war’s end and was never implemented.

Flight to Japan

During the war, the Germans had plans to establish a flight line connection with Japan. Original flight plans stated that the starting point for the Germans was Kirkenes and then to Tokyo via the Sakhalin Island. The Bv 222 was in the competition for this mission, but was rejected due to the small number built and because it was not designed for this role. Other aircraft considered were the Ju 290 and the He 177. The aircraft ultimately chosen was the Ju 290, but this planned flight was never attempted and the whole project was dropped.

The side view of the Bv 222. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos/index.html

Arctic Rescue Mission

During the war, the Germans managed to set up a secret meteorological station in the Arctic. In the spring of 1944, the crew of this station were sick because they had eaten raw meat. A supply mission was conducted using a Fw 200 for transporting a doctor to this base. The pilot tried to land but, during the landing, one wheel of the landing gear broke down. The base sent back a distress call for further aid. For this mission, one of the Bv 222s was chosen and was loaded with a spare wheel and spare parts. Once it was above the base, the parts were successfully dropped by a parachute. The station crew were eventually rescued once the Fw 200 was repaired.

In Allied Hands

By the end of the war, the Americans managed to capture two Bv 222 aircraft, C-11 and C-13. C-11 would be flown to America and was used for evaluation. While it would eventually be scrapped, it gave the Americans valuable information about designing and building such huge flying bots. C-13 was also flown to America, where it would later be scrapped.

One of the captured Bv 222s used by the British. Source: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/luftwaffephotos/index.html

The British also managed to capture Bv 222 C-12 in Norway. During the flight to the UK, one of the engines stopped working, but the pilot managed to reach the UK. The British also captured the Bv 222 V2 prototype which was also relocated to the UK. These would serve the British in gaining valuable information about the aircraft’s construction.

Production

The only producer of these aircraft was Blohm & Voss at Hamburg. Due to many factors, such as long development and testing time, the substantial resources needed to build them and the pressing need for fighter aircraft, there was only a limited production run. In total, only 13 Bv 222 were ever made. These included three prototypes, four of the A-series and six C-series aircraft. While there were a few more under construction, these were never completed.

Versions

  • Bv 222 V1-V3 – Several prototypes built with different armament and engines tested
  • Bv 222 A – Four aircraft built
  • Bv 222 B – Proposed improved civilian version
  • Bv 222 C – Version powered by the Jumo 207 engine, few built
  • Bv 222 D – Proposed improved C-series to be powered by Jumo 207 D engine, none built
  • P.187 – Proposed land-based version, none built

Operators

  • Lufthansa – Although the original purchaser of this aircraft, only V1 saw limited evaluation and testing service in Lufthansa service
  • Nazi Germany – Operated a small number of these aircraft
  • USA – Captured two aircraft of the C-series which were used for testing
  • UK – Captured two aircraft.

Surviving aircraft

Unfortunately, due to wartime attrition and sabotage by their own crews, not a single BV 222 is known to have survived to this day. There are possibly several wrecks underwater, like the one in Greece, that could maybe one day be salvaged or even restored.

Conclusion

The Bv 222 was the largest operational aircraft built during the war. While it was never used in its original role, it would see extensive service with the Luftwaffe, despite being available only in small numbers. Due to its large transport capabilities, it was vital to the Germans, as they lacked transport planes throughout the war. But, due to the bad military situation in the second half of the war and the need for a large number of fighter planes, the Bv 222 would only be built in limited numbers.

Gallery

Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Blohm und Voss BV 222

Blohm und Voss Bv 222 V7 Specifications

Wingspan 151 ft / 46 m
Length 120 ft / 36.5 m
Height 35 ft 9 in / 10.9 m
Wing Area 2.745 ft² / 255 m²
Engine Six 1000 hp Jumo 270C
Fuel load 3,450 l
Empty Weight 65,430 lb / 29,680 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 99,210 lb / 45,000 kg
Maximum Speed 220 mph / 350 km/h
Cruising Speed 190 mph / 305 km/h
Range 3,790 mi / 6,100 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 23,950 ft / 7,300 m
Climb speed Climb to 6,000 m in 9.7 minutes
Crew
  • Two pilots
  • Two mechanics
  • One radio operator
  • Five machine gunners
Armament
  • Five MG 81
  • Six MG 131

Credits

  • Ferenc A. and P. Dancey (1998) German Aircraft Industry And Production 1933-1945. Airlife England.
  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata Nemačka Beograd
  • Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage (2009), Aircraft Of The Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland & Company, Inc.
  • M. Griehl (2012) X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945, Frontline Book.
  • D.Mondey (2006) Guide To Axis Aircraft Of World War II, Aerospace Publishing
  • H. J. Nowarra (1997) Blohm and Voss Bv 222, Schiffer Military History
  • C. R. G. Bain (2019) High Hulls: Flying Boats Of The 1930s And 1940s, Fonthill Media
  • http://fly.historicwings.com/quietly-awaiting-recovery/

Blohm & Voss Bv 238

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1942)
Transport Floatplane – 1 Built

BV238 on the Water [Colorization by Michael Jucan]
With the success of the previous Blohm & Voss Bv 222 flying boat, Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt, chief designer at Blohm & Voss, began working on an even larger improved design in the form of the Blohm & Voss Bv 238. As the Bv 238 development began in the late stages of the war, only one aircraft was ever completed and used only briefly.

Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt’s Work

In 1937, Lufthansa opened a tender for a long-range passenger flying boat transport that would be able to reach New York in 20 hours. Blohm & Voss eventually would go on to win this tender. The chosen aircraft was the Blohm & Voss Bv 222, designed by Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt.

During 1941, Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt began working on a new aircraft larger even than the already huge Blohm & Voss Bv 222. In July the same year, he presented to the RLM, the German ministry of aviation (Reichsluftfahrtministerium), the plans for the new Blohm & Voss Bv 238. This aircraft was, in essence, a modified and enlarged version of the Bv 222 powered by six Daimler-Benz DB 603 engines. Three aircraft powered with this engine were to be built, belonging to the A-series. Six more aircraft were to be powered by six BMW 801 engines and these would be designated as B-series.

To speed up the development and avoid wasting resources if the project proved to be unsuccessful, the RLM officials asked for a smaller scale flying model to be built first instead of a working prototype. This scale model plane was named FG 227 (or FGP 227, depending on the source) and was to be built and tested at Flugtechnische Fertigungsgemeinschaft GmbH located in Prague.

The FG 227 scale flying model

To speed up the development and avoid wasting resources, the RLM officials asked for a smaller scale flying model to be built first. How it turned out the FG 227’s overall performance was disappointing and it didn’t play any major role in the Bv 238 development. [Histaviation]
The construction of this scale model was undertaken by a group of Czech students under the direction of well-known glider pilot Dipl.Ing. Ludwig Karch. It was to be powered by six ILO Fl 2/400 engines pushing 21 hp each. As it was meant to be tested on the ground and not in water, the FG 227 was provided with landing gear which consisted of two wheels in the nose and two more wheels placed on each side of the fuselage.

The small scale model, designated the FG 227 [Histaviation]
When the FG 227 was completed, it was to be flight tested. From the start, there were issues with it, as it was unable to takeoff under its own power. After the unsuccessful start, it was disassembled and transported to Travemünde for future testing. During transport, French prisoners of war deliberately damaged one of the wings. Once the damage was repaired, it was flight tested. But during the flight, made in September 1944, all six engines stopped working, which caused an accident where the FG 227 was damaged. After yet another major repair, a few more flights were carried out. The FG 227’s overall performance was disappointing and it didn’t play any major role in the Bv 238 development.

The FG 227’s small scale engines being serviced [Histaviation]
The Bv 238

Rear view of the Bv 238 [Warbird Photographs]
Construction of the first Bv 238 parts began in early 1942. The final assembly was not possible until January 1944. Due to a shortage of materials and the increasing assaults by the Allied Air Forces, the Bv 238 V1 first prototype could not be completed until March of 1945. The first flight test we conducted immediately after its completion. However, sources do not agree on the exact year when this happened. This is the timeline of development and construction according to author  H. J. Nowarra.

Author M. Griehl states that the first flight test was made on the 11th of March 1944. Author C. R. G. Bain states, according to post war testimonies of Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt, that the first test flight was actually made in 1943. According to D. Nešić, the first flight was made in April 1944. The results of this test flight showed that the Bv 238 prototype had surprisingly excellent flying performance. For this reason, it was immediately put into operational service.

Front view of the Bv 238 with the nose hatch doors open [Warbird Photographs]
Throughout the Bv 238 development phase, it was often discussed precisely which role it could fulfill. While it was primarily designed as a transport plane, a new idea was proposed to act as a U-boat support aircraft. This would include carrying supplies, fuel, torpedos and men to the U-boats operating in the Atlantic. Of course, by the time the first prototype was near completion, the war was almost over, so this proposal was realistically not possible. Plans to use it as a long range bomber, carrying six 2,400 kg bombs, also never materialized.

Bv 238 V1 was meant to operate from Shaalsee, and for its service with the Luftwaffe, it received the RO+EZ designation. As the Allied bombing raids effectively destroyed the Blohm & Voss factory in Hamburg, orders came down to hide the Bv 238 from the Allied Air Force. The question was how to hide such a huge aircraft. The Germans did try to do so but the aircraft was eventually found by the Allies who managed to sink it. The circumstances are not clear to this day, as both Americans and the British pilots claimed the kill. According to the most well-known story, it was destroyed by a group of American P-51 Mustangs belonging to the 131st Fighter Group. The kill was made by the leading P-51 piloted by Lt. Urban Drew. According to the testimony of the Blohm & Voss workers, the British, in their advance discovered the hidden craft. Once spotted, the British sent attack aircraft to sink it. Its remains would finally be blown up during 1947 or 1948 to make the scrapping process easier. All the remaining Bv 238 that were under construction were also scrapped after the war.

Technical Characteristics

The Bv 238 was designed as a six-engined, high wing, flying transport floatplane. The Bv 238 fuselage was divided into two decks. On the upper deck, the crew and the inboard equipment were housed. The lower floor was designed as a storage area during transport flights. In theory, there was enough room for around 150 soldiers in the Bv 238. A huge front hatch door was provided for easy access to the fuselage interior.

The wings were constructed using large tubular main spars. The wings were used to provide additional room for spare fuel and oil tanks. The wings were provided with flaps  running along the trailing edge. The large size of the wing construction allowed passageways for the crew to be installed, in order to have easy access to the engines. Unlike the Bv 222, which had a pair of outboard stabilizing floats mounted on each side, the Bv 238 had only two. The Bv 238 was powered by six Daimler DB 603G engines.

For self defense, the Bv 238 was to be provided with two HD 151 twin-gun turrets with 20 mm (0.78 in) MG 151 cannons, two HL 131 V turrets with four 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131 machine-guns and two additional MG 131s mounted in the fuselage sides. Despite the plans to arm the V1 prototype, this was never done.

The crew number is mentioned as 11 or 12 depending on the source. The sources do not specify the role they performed. It can be assumed, based on what is known from Bv 222, that there were at least two pilots, two mechanics, a radio operator and machine gun operator.

Production

Despite being based on the large Bv 222, the Bv 238 was even larger [Warbird Photographs]
The production of the Bv 238 was carried out by Blohm & Voss factory at Hamburg. Only one completed prototype would be built during the war. There were also at least two to six more prototypes under construction (depending on the source), but due to the war ending, none were completed.

The small number under construction may be explained by the fact that, in the late stages of the war, the Luftwaffe was more in need of fighter planes than transports planes. In addition, there is a possibility that the Bv 238 project was actually canceled by the RLM officials.

Versions

  • Bv 238 A – Powered by Daimler-Benz DB 603 engines, only one built
  • Bv 238 B – Powered by six MW 801 engines, none built
  • Bv 250 – Land based version, none built
  • FG 227 – Scale test model of the Bv 238, used for testing

Land Based Version

There were plans to adapt the Bv 238 for land based operations by adding landing gear wheels. The project was designated Bv 250 but none were ever built. It was planned to provide this version with heavy defence armament consisting of twelve 20 mm (0.78 in) MG 151 cannons. The engine chosen for this model was the six Jumo 222. As this engine was never built in any large numbers, the DB 603 was meant to be used instead.

Escape Aircraft

There are some rumors that the Bv 238 was actually developed as an escape aircraft for high ranking Nazi officials. It was rumored that Martin Bormann had plans to use it to escape Germany in early 1945. Of course, due to Allied Air Force supremacy and the Bv 238’s large size, this may have not been a viable plan if ever attempted.

Conclusion

The V1 Prototype after its maiden test flight [Warbird Photographs]
If it was put into production, the Bv 238 would have had the honor of being the largest flying boat that saw service during the war. While it only performed test flights and was never used operationally, it was nevertheless an astonishing engineering achievement.

Blohm & Voss BV 238 V1 Specifications

Wingspan 196 ft / 60 m
Length 145 ft / 43.4 m
Height 35 ft 9 in / 10.9 m
Wing Area 3,875 ft² / 360 m²
Engine Six 2900 hp Daimler-Benz DB 603
Empty Weight 120,500 lb / 54,660 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 207,990 lb / 94,340 kg
Maximum Speed 220 mph / 355 km/h
Cruising Speed 210 mph / 335 km/h
Range 3,790 mi / 6,100 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 20,670 ft / 6,300 m
Crew
  • 11-12 (2 pilots, 9 airmen)
Armament
  • none

Gallery

The sole completed Bv238V1 Prototype by Ed Jackson

Credits

 

Fieseler Fi 167

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1938)
Torpedo Bomber – 14 Built

The Fi 167 was developed out of a need for a dedicated torpedo-bomber to be operated on the first German aircraft carrier. While its overall performance proved to be satisfactory, due to the cancellation of the aircraft carrier project, only a small number were ever built. Unfortunately, information about the Fi 167 is not available or precise enough, with many disagreements between different authors.

Fieseler Flugzeugbau

In the early 1930’s, World War I fighter veteran Gerhard Fieseler (1896–1987) bought the Segelflugzeugbau Kassel Company, which mostly produced gliders, and renamed it to Fieseler Flugzeugbau. Gerhard Fieseler had gained experience in aircraft design while working as a flight instructor for the Raab-Katzenstein Aircraft Company in Kassel. In 1926, he managed to design his first aircraft, named Fieseler F1, which would be built by the Raab-Katzenstein company. By the end of twenties, Gerhard Fieseler designed another aircraft, the Raab-Katzenstein RK-26 Tigerschwalbe, of which 25 were built and sold to Swedish Air Force.

With his own company, he changed to focus on sports aircraft. In 1935, Gerhard Fieseler managed to obtain a licence for the production of military aircraft. While his best known design was the Fi 156 ‘Storch,’ he also designed the less known Fi 167 torpedo-bomber. The Fi 167 was built in small numbers and never managed to reach the fame of the Storch.

History of the Fi 167

Engine view of the Fi 167. [Valka.cz]
As the German Navy began construction of its first aircraft carrier, the ‘Graf Zeppelin,’ in 1937, there was a need for a completely new torpedo bomber. For this reason, the German Ministry of Aviation (Reichsluftfahrtministerium) opened a tender for all German aircraft manufacturers who wished to participate to present their designs for such aircraft. The new aircraft was requested to have folding biplane wings, the best possible STOL (short take-off and landing) capabilities, and that the whole construction should have sufficient strength to successfully endure offensive combat operations at high speeds.

Only two manufacturers, Fieseler and Arado, presented their designs. For Fieseler it was the Fi 167 and for Arado the design was the Ar 195. In the summer of 1938, after a series of flight tests, the Fieseler Fi 167 was declared the better design. For this reason, another prototype was to be built for further testing.

The first prototype built, Fi 167 V1 (serial no. 2501), was powered by a DB 601 A/B engine. It was used mainly for testing and evaluation purposes. The second prototype (serial no. 2502) had some changes to the design, such as a modified undercarriage and was powered by the DB 601B. This engine would be used on later production versions. While most sources state that only two prototypes were built, some authors, like M. Griehl (X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945), mention a third prototype being built. This third prototype, Fi 167 V3 (serial no. 2503), according to Griehl, was used to test the equipment used on this plane. While the sources do not give precise details about the fate of the Fi 167 prototypes, after May 1940, they were not present in the Luftwaffe inventory anymore. This may indicate that all three were scraped. After a number of tests with the Fi 167 were completed, series production of 80 aircraft was ordered.

Short lived operational service life

Fi 167 during flight in German service [Nature & Tech]
Despite having promising overall performance, the Fi 167 was directly connected with the Graf Zeppelin project. While the production of a small series was underway, the construction of the Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier was stopped in 1940, so the same fate befell the Fi 167, as there was no longer a need for a carrier capable fighter. In 1942, there was a brief revival of the aircraft carrier concept, but by that time the Ju 87C was deemed better suited for this role. This decision was not without merit, as the Ju 87 was already in production and it would be much easier, quicker, and cheaper to simply modify it for the role of aircraft carrier torpedo bomber than to put the Fi 167 back into production.

As a small number of 12 Fi 167 A-0 were built, they were sent to Holland for evaluation and testing purposes in order not to waste the resources invested in them. These were used to form Erprobungstaffel 167 which operated in Holland from 1940 to 1942. In 1943, the Fi 167 were returned to Germany and Erprobungstaffel 167 was disbanded. Their use by the Germans from 1943 onward is not completely clear in the sources. While the majority were given to Germany’s allies in late 1944, the final fate of the remaining aircraft is not known, but they were probably either lost or scrapped.

Technical characteristics

Designed to operate from an aircraft carrier, the folding wings were necessary [Nature & Tech]
The Fi 167 was an all-metal, single engine biplane designed as a torpedo bomber. The Fi 167’s fuselage was constructed by using thin but with high-strength steel tubes that were welded together and then covered with duralumin sheet metal.

In the glazed cockpit there was room for two crew members, the pilot and the observer/rear gunner. The cockpit was covered with plexiglass but was open to the rear in order to provide the rear gunner with a good arc of fire. The Fi 167 was powered by the Daimler-Benz DB 601B 12-cylinder inverted-V engine putting out 1,100 horsepower. The total fuel load was 1,300 liters.

The Fieseler Fi 167 had a biplane layout. The upper and lower wings were the same in size and had a rectangular shape with rounded edges. The wings were divided into three parts in order to make any necessary maintenance or disassembly easier. Being designed to be used on an aircraft carrier, the Fi 167’s wings could also be folded. In order to be adequately structurally stable, the upper and the lower wings were interconnected by ‘N’ shaped metal rods. There were four of these ‘N’ shaped metal rods in total. These were then held in place with steel cables. For better control during flight, both wings were provided with flaps.

The landing gear consisted of two independent fixed landing wheels which were provided with shock absorbers to ease the landing. The forward landing gear units were covered with duralumin coating to help reduce the aerodynamic drag. To the rear there was a smaller fixed landing wheel. The Fi 167 landing gear was designed to be easily discarded in the case of a forced landing on water. The idea was that it would enable the Fi 167 to float on the water surface and thus provide more time for the crew to successfully evacuate the aircraft.

The armament consisted of two machine guns, one forward mounted 7.92 mm MG 17 with 500 rounds of ammunition and a second MG 15 of the same caliber mounted in a rear, flexible mount with 600 rounds of ammunition. The Fi 167 could be additionally armed with up to 2,200 lbs (1,000 kg) of bombs or one torpedo. In some sources, it is mentioned that there were actually two forward mounted machine guns.

Production

The German Navy was trying to build its first aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin, but due to various reasons it was never completed. [Vaz]
The Fi 167 production run was quite limited, mostly due to cancellation of the Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier. Besides the two or three prototypes, only a small series of Fi 167 (A-0) pre-production aircraft were made. How many were built varies depending on the source. Authors C. Chant (Pocket Guide: Aircraft Of The WWII) and D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata Nemačka) mention that, besides two prototypes, 12 pre-production aircraft were built. Authors F. A. Vajda and P. Dancey (German Aircraft Industry And Production 1933-1945) give a number of 15 aircraft produced. They also mention that a serial production of 80 Fi 176 was to be completed by June 1941 but, due to the cancelation of the project, this was never achieved. On different internet websites, the total number of Fi 167 built varies between 14 and 29.

  • Fi 167 V1 – Powered by the DB 601 A/B engine.
  • Fi 167 V2 – Had modified undercarriage and was powered by the DB 601B engine.
  • Fi 167 V3 – Possibly-built third prototype, but sources are not in agreement about its existence.
  • Fi 167A-0 – 12 aircraft built.

In Romanian hands?

It is commonly stated in many sources that the Fi 167 were sold to Romania in 1943. These were allegedly used to patrol the Black Sea. This is likely incorrect, as another German ally, the Independent State of Croatia ‘NDH,’ received nearly all Fi 167 produced. There is a possibility that the Fi 167 were given to Romanians and then returned back to Germany. But due to the lack of any valid documentation, this is only speculation at best.

In NDH service

Fi 167 (serial no. 4808) in NDH service. This is the aircraft that pilot Romeo Adum deserted to the Partisan side. [Vaz]
A group of 11 (or 10 depending on the source) Fi 167 (serial no. 4801-4812) arrived in NDH during September 1944. These aircraft were given to the 1st Squadron stationed in Zagreb for the necessary pilot training. While during its service in the NDH, the Fi 167 was used in bombing combat operations, but was mostly used as a transport plane for food and ammunition. Due to having no problem carrying significant loads and its ability to take off or to land on short airfields, they were ideal for supplying many NDH garrisons besieged by Yugoslav Partisans.

Due to the overall difficult situation of the Axis forces on all fronts, the NDH Army and Air Force were plagued with frequent desertions, including a number of pilots. On 25th September 1944, while flying a Fi 167 (serial no. 4808), pilot Romeo Adum escaped to the Yugoslav Partisan held airfield at Topusko.

There is an interesting story about one Fi 167 piloted by Mate Jurković, as it is claimed he managed to avoid being shot down by five American P-51 Mustangs. This engagement happened on 10th October 1944 during a Fi 167 ammunition supply mission to Bosanska Gradiška. During this flight, the Fi 167 was attacked by a group of five Mustangs. Outgunned and outnumbered, the pilot could only hope to escape by using the Fi 167’s excellent maneuverability at lower altitudes. He eventually managed to escape his pursuers without taking any damage.

Due to a lack of spare parts, Allied air supremacy and Partisan advance, by April 1945 there were only four Fi 167 still present in the NDH Air Force. The condition of these planes is not known. Of these, at least three would be used after the war by the new JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army) army. During its operational use by the NDH Air Force, the Fi 167 was known as ‘The Great Fiesler’.

In Partisan hands

The Fi 167 operated by the Yugoslav Partisans during the war. The Red Star can be seen painted under the lower wings. [paluba.info]
As mentioned earlier, the Partisans managed to acquire one Fi 167. It would be redeployed to the island of Vis and included in the group of NDH aircraft that had defected earlier (one FP 2, two Saiman 200s, one Bü 131, and one Fiat G. 50).

On the 17th of October 1944, while on a liaison mission from Vis to the village of Vrdovo, after delivering orders to the command of the Partisan 20th Division stationed there, the Fi 167 piloted by M. Lipovšćak and with General Ćetković as a passenger began taking to the sky. Unfortunately for them, a group of four P-51 Mustangs attacked the lone aircraft. The Fi 167 was hit in the engine and the tail and the wounded pilot was forced to land on a nearby open plateau. While the pilot was only wounded, General Ćetković was dead, being directly hit by machine gun fire. Circumstances of this accident are not clear even to this day. The P-51 pilots later claimed that, due to bad weather, they could not see the Partisan markings. By the later account of the Fi 167 pilot, he claimed that the visibility was such that the Partisan markings could have been easily seen.

In JNA service

At least three Fi 167 were put into use by the JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army) after the war. Due to the lack of spare parts, their use was probably limited. They would remain in use up to 1948, but unfortunately they were probably all scrapped, as none survive to this day.

Conclusion

Despite being considered an overall good design, the Fi 167 was never put into mass production. The main reason for this was the cancellation of the Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier. Nevertheless, the Fi 167 did see some limited service within the Luftwaffe, mainly for testing, but also with the Croatia NDH, where its performance was deemed sufficient.

Operators

  • Nazi Germany – Used the small number of Fi 167, mostly for various experimental purposes.
  • Romania – Allegedly supplied with Fi 167 in 1943, but this is not confirmed.
  • Independent State of Croatia NDH – Operated 10 to 11 aircraft between September 1944 and April 1945.
  • SFR Yugoslavia – Operated a small number of Fi 167 during the war and up to 1949.
Specification: Fi 167
Wingspan 44 ft 3 in / 13.5 m
Length 37 ft 5 in / 11.4 m
Height 15 ft 9 in / 4.8 m
Wing Area 490 ft² / 45.5 m²
Engine One 1100 hp (820 kW) Daimler-Benz DB 601B
Fuel load 1,300 l
Empty Weight 6170 lb / 2,800 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 10,690 lb / 4,860 kg
Maximum Speed 200 mph / 325 km/h
Cruising Speed 168 mph / 270 km/h
Range 800 mi / 1,300 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 26,900 ft / 8,200 m
Crew One pilot and one observer/rear gunner
Armament
  • One 7.92 mm MG 17 forward-firing machine gun
  • One 7.92 mm MG 15 rear mounted machine gun
  • Bomb load of 1.000 kg (2.200 lbs)or 750 kg (1650 lbs) torpedo

Gallery

Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Fi 167A-0 in service with Erprobungsstaffel 167 in the Netherlands 1940 – Equipped with a centerline rack and torpedo
Fi 167A-0 (W.Nr.08) in service with Erprobungsstaffel 167 in the Netherlands 1940 – Seen here sporting a different camo pattern
Fi 167 No. 4806 in Croatian Service
Fi 167 in Partisan Yugoslav service circa 1944
Artist Concept of the Fi 167 in Romanian Service in 1943

While the Fi 167 proved to have excellent handling characteristics, due to the cancelation of the German aircraft carrier project, it was not accepted for service. [Vaz]
Another view of a flying Fi 167. [Valka.cz]
Sources