Guys what if anything caused the end for the dive bombers? Are they still used today. I don’t think so? Was it precision weapons? When were they stopped being used?
Interesting question! I don’t know the answer, but I can not really think of any dive-bomber post WWII… The advent of radar-orientated weapons machine guns and missiles (guided or not) as anti-aircraft weapons sure meant that dive-bombing would get even more expensive in terms of airframes and crew…
Dive bombing was considered more accurate plus gravity gave the aircraft, and bomb more speed-something that today’s “smart” weapons and high speed aircraft have rendered moot.
Dan I neve thought of it that way.
I believe the last purpose-built production dive bombers built as such were the SB2C Helldivers, shortly after which the Navy (by then the only employer of dive bombers) felt the multi purpose attack aircraft was the future, hence the Skyraider. Germany, with it’s Stukas inspired the USAAF to order dive bombers but none were really successful in this role, and the Stuka was obsolete in the presence on enemy air superiority. Dive bombing, IIRC, was originally evolved to give an a/c bomb added velocity to penetrate a hardened target (a ship) with some degree of precision. If you consider the the “dive bombing” technique to be high angle precision (as oppossed to guided) bombing than it hasn’t really disappeared until very recently (but still practiced). Sorry to run on but HTH.
gary
Very good point Gary… I’d never thought of it that way.
Increased aircraft speeds with the advent of jet warplanes would have meant dive bombers would have been a practical impossibility. Could you imagine the mess trying to pull a divebomber out of its dive at post WW2 speeds?? Bye bye wings!!! And strawberry jam pilots from G forces! Improved weapon accuracy and performance would also have removed the dive bombers raison d’etre.
I never thought of that one either. Good point Chris. I think I understand now. Thanks guys.
The whole point of the dive bomber is that is far more accurate than any other line-of-sight optical bombing method. This means that you can use a smaller bang and still score a target kill. The problem is that the dive bomber depends for its effectivness for a steady and predictable flight path almost sharing the bomb’s ballistic trajectory. The arrival of the most primative guided point defence munitions ( beyond "There he is! shoot at the F**********!) rendered the dive bomber obsolete. Son of dive bomber is probably the various tecniques for “lobbing” neuclear weapons.
Interesting question - I don’t believe defensive systems had anything to do with it initially, although there may be something about ballistics that results in a simpler fire control solution on something coming straight down at you as opposed to straight at you from a lower angle.
As noted, the highest accuracy with an iron bomb is achieved by going straight down (strictly speaking, at the angle of zero lift) and releasing at a very low altitude, since the bomb doesn’t change trajectory at release and the target doesn’t have time to get out of the way after release. In 1946, The US Navy defined dive bombing as 60 to 90 degrees, with glide bombing at 30 to 55 degrees.
The difficulty with keeping the speed from increasing too much in a high angle dive became apparent before jets. The AD (originally BT2D) Skyraider was designed in 1944/5 as a dive bomber. It had three huge fuselage mounted dive brakes to keep the airspeed within reason in high angle dives, and an explosive cartridge in the centerline pylon to blow the bomb away from the aircraft and keep it out of the prop (up until then, a mechanical trapeze - or bomb displacement device - provided that function).
However, it wasn’t possible to keep the heavier, cleaner airplanes from accelerating too much in a vertical dive. According to Heinemann, “After much soul-searching and dialogue with BuAer, it was decided to design the BT2D dive brakes fof 70 degree dives.”
In addition to dive brakes, the propellor helps keep the speed within reason. In fact, a reversing prop was considered in place of or to augment dive brakes. If you can’t keep an AD from accelerating too much in a dive greater than 70 degrees, then there’s no way to keep a jet airplane’s speed from building up too much in a high angle dive with just dive brakes, so glide bombing was the usual default, even in the face of radar directed guns/SAMs, up until laser guided bombing became available.
Another problem with dive bombers is the fact that after the bomb is dropped, the plane is now low and slow. Germans learned that very well and the Dauntlesses at Midway had all their problems after bombing - the Zero CAP had been sucked down to low altitude by the various airborn torpedo strikes and were “hopping mad” because the only flight decks they has access to had just been destroyed.
I’m kinda suprised no one mentioned the Skyraiders, that technically were dive bombers, and were used in the Vietnam war. I think that it was a weapons issue…once there was a weapon designed that could be launched from a decent distance, and be somewhat accurate, the need for divebombers went the way of the Dodo’s!!
More or less it’s been covered but the bottom line to the Defense Department is: Why risk a multi-million dollar plane AND it’s pilot or crew in a slow, low-level attack?
Laser Guided Bombs, Unmanned Aerial vehicles, and Medium or Short range missles do a superior job in this respect.
What about the 5 Skyraiders modified to carry smart bombs? Most rumors about it are still just that. All we know for sure is that control panels were installed, the planes were sent out carrying something, and a bridge was knocked out in PITCH BLACK. Sounds suspicious.
Braking propeller - I remembered that there was more on the subject and I found it. Vought tried a Hamilton Standard braking propeller on the SB2U, the first US Navy monoplane dive bomber and therefore in need of more drag in a dive. There were problems with actuating the blades and overspeeds were experienced, so they eventually gave up on the idea. They couldn’t reduce the buffeting from their wing mounted dive brake. The eventual “dive brake” in service was the landing gear.
There were subsequent attempts to make the braking propeller work but overspeed was generally a problem (at high airspeeds, the prop had to move through zero pitch really fast to avoid overspeed) and the hub had to be designed for high negative thrust as well as positive thrust.
Grumman was successful in eliminating the overspeed problem using a Curtiss electric prop on an F6F-3, only to discover that they got rudder reversal (standing on the left pedal in a dive) and a lot of buffet, which affected accuracy.
Finally, the pilot would be in a really awkward position if the prop didn’t come out of reverse pitch on pull out. The actuation of a dive brake is pretty simple and most actuator failure modes cause the brake to close, assuming it’s hinged on the leading edge - there were a few that weren’t.
How about the A-4? Was it intended to be dive-bomber in the beginning? It has some feautures for it, like those speedbrakes and that big centreline pylon. And wasn’t it a succesor to the A-1?
Almost all jets have dive brakes to get them slowed down and control airspeed in descents. (I’d say all, but there may be a few that don’t.) Navy carrier jets really need speed brakes so the engine rpm can be kept relatively high on approach, thereby reducing the time to achieve takeoff thrust in the event of a waveoff.
Heinemann is a little coy about it in his book, but the primary mission for the A-4 was probably tactical delivery of a nuclear weapon. The small nuclear “shape” at the time was big and long, and needed more ground clearance than the usual bombs. When the shape was carried by it’s predecessor, the F2H-3/4s, their landing gear oleos were reportedly extended with blocks to provide acceptable ground clearance. The blocks fell out at liftoff. This was acceptable because the aircraft was not going to come back still carrying the weapon.
The FJ-4 was developed in parallel with the A-4 - used the same engine, too - and was also qualified with the shape, but apparently wasn’t required to have the same ground clearance.
If by definition dive bombing is a manuever accomplished at an angle of 60 degrees or more at a reasonably low and constant air speed, then that capability went out with the AD/A-1/Skyraider. I don’t know what the A-10 can do.