Service life was over when last Essex class were retired. For some reason the Navy was unable to operate the Hawkeye off the converted Essex class. I’ve only ever found one picture of an E-2 Hawkeye operating off an Essex.
the essay. i convinced the History and English department that i wrote good essays and for papers i should submit essays in stead of research papers. you should put a tread mill between the office and the kitchen. The Early warning aircraft was suggested the version be used by several services, The navy Bought it.
Hi Doc just took my Nissan 4 wheel drive king cab, in 4 wheel in high range at 2000 rpm 100 mph uphill at 2500 rpm 85-90mph depending on the grade. i am building a channel car, spending 2000 US from Wheel Bearings in all new ball joints etc. I am an Essayist. it takes longer to type a bibliography than
The Navy Version of the F-111 carrier version cost General Dynamics i think cost over 100 million for no Contract. Wonder why Aircraft companies consolidate?
As for your final question, In WWII, while an E1 would have been fantastic, it would have likely been an issue on smaller carriers due to it's size being a double engine aircraft taking up more space at the expense of other aircraft. But if the AEW variant of the Skyraider had been available, it would have been a game changer, for both the Med and Pacific, for any carrier that could operate an Avenger size aircraft. Being able to detect a raid much further away would have enabled having a larger CAP in position to intercept further out, allowing for a more practical multi layered CAP. If they were able to bring in some of the airborne command and control aspects, that is now taken for granted, they would have been able to more accurately positioned the CAP for the intercept, as there were several cases in '42 where the CAP missed the intercept completely. As airborne ground radar became better able to work in higher sea states, you could even allow an escorted one to act a type of scout, relying on it's radar to find enemy fleets and direct a more traditional scout plane to visual identify it, if needed, and to direct the follow on strike to the moving target.
the crew called it the Guppy, a very good friend and employee flew 2 Viet Nam tours in the turbo prop versions had the same turbo an the Electra also in inventory as a mad Aircraft.
For me, the biggest WOW would be if the USN had the Tracer at Midway. That battle would have been very different, since instead of three Japanese Carriers being taken out in the first strike, all four would have been hit. And, at the same time, the Hornet's aircraft would have been effective, rather than flying in circles. On another note. It is my understanding that you originally wrote your thesis to include both American and Japanese Aircraft Carriers, but when limited by word count, erased those sections. I'd like to suggest that you add those erased sections back in and self-publish it with photos. Who knows? You might get offers from commercial publishers to publish a slightly modified version of that book, AND in any case, it might sell as well (if not even better) than TBD's.
Some Commencement Bay-class escort carriers operated early S-2 Trackers. I bet landing that on a postage stamp runway with a maximum 19 knot headwind was fun.
I grew up in Soithern Califorjia. The S2 was ised to fight fores for a very long time In the 1980's the field looked like wW2 with b17 14 PBY and A20 and of couse the ugly C119
You still see CAL Fire's S2's fighting fires in California. They use ones that were converted to use Turbo Props. I remember watching one attack a fire in 2009 when I was hiking the PCT.
@@SeanTheSarcastic I remember that convention before I left there. The sound was so different. The child in me said that is not THE S2. Are they still using Broncos for the spotter? They had just switched from the.. cannot remember the name it was a. Pusher pull prop with a P 38 tail.
@@jagsdomain203 They seem to still use them as they are listed on their website. I remember reading that 2 years ago they picked up another 4 OV-10's from NASA to be converted for use as command and control aircraft.
Airborne Early Warning began for the U.S. with the Navy’s Project Cadillac in WWII. It produced two airplanes: the TBM-3W (modified Avenger) for carrier work and the PB-1 (modified B-17 Flying Fortress) for land-based work. The TBM-3W was about to get to the fleet at the end of the Okinawa campaign, and probably would have been a game changer. You obviously understand the vital importance of AEW in fleet operations. Maybe a history of the subject would be in order.
BZ. If the British & Americans were able to develope a joint radar concept based of the E-1's radar, ship based by 1943, it would have made the Pacific campaign far easier to prosecute than historically. In the Atlantic it would possibly aid when near occupied Europe, from an aircraft detection point of view, how well it would pick up U-boats, I wouldn't know. A land based system, on the other hand, would have improved air defence from bomber attacks, if it could be linked to the fire controle of the anti aircraft batteries, compared to wha was available at the time.
Sir the reason for the relative low maximum hight, is possible that without the fuselage being pressurised,at any greater altitude all of the crew would have to be on oxygen. And well wrapped up against the cold, with particular attention to ensuring that the electronics are protected against condensation.
I've often wondered what a rotating dome would have looked like on the E-1 instead of the fixed dome hut as it would have looked better, though would have required more electronics miniaturization that came later. Then thin rotating dome on the Hawkeye does provide some lift instead of being an air brake. I also wondered why the USN never converted them to Turbo Props so they could do away with carrying Aviation Gas on their carriers. Other operators eventually did.
Check out Secret Projects Forum. They have a few threads on upgraded E-1's, there's even something on the Warning Star with a roto dome. Some countries that used the Tracker for a bit used turboprops, look up Super Tracker.
I actually really love the S-2/C-1/E-1 family, especially the later turboprop equipped versions. They aren’t as ‘clean’ looking as the Viking or Hawkeye, but they were great looking aircraft. I’d love to have seen the Royal Navy operating them as Gannet replacements, at least for AEW. Obviously with the drawdown of the carrier fleet that wasn’t to be, but I’d argue that, as ungainly as the E-1 was, it looked better than the British ‘big nose’ AEW proposals!
11:20 Brazil and Argentina still have Trackers on the books and you can add Venezuela , Peru , Uruguay , Thailand , South Korea , Taiwan and other countries using it ashore (basically the non Orion users but US allies countries)
A helpful and informative bit of context would be a discussion of the US Navy's aircraft designation system prior to the Tri-Service changes in the early '60s.
Hi Dr clarke. I´m from Argetina. I start to saw many of your videos . i lern a lot information about ships, absoluyly amazing. Is correct we still service, us a S-2T Turbo Tracker. Unfortunately the are not operational, actualy
The difference is the US Business does the inventing at the Company's expense. US Navy buys the new tech. it is different here. They do not pay a cent until carrier qualification.
The Tracer is not THAT bad looking of an aircraft! The Short Seamew is, but not the Tracer. If the moving target indicator comes into service in 1943 the ability to position escorts/CAP aircraft in response to airborne attack improves significantly. This is especially true in the later stages of the Mediterranean war and in the archipelago regions of the Pacific, where clutter is highest. This has an impact on the ability of the Axis forces in those regions ability to perform the types of strikes they became infamous for. The guided weapons of the Luftwaffe do not have the range to consistently surprise allied ships already so if the interception is farther out due to earlier identification they cannot hit some of their more famous victims. In the Pacific this technology possibly saves lives, the Kamikaze attacks of the last couple years of the war are blunted earlier and may well be less heavily leaned on. That improves survival rates on both sides. In terms of ship design, the moving target indicator allows for better interception of aircraft at range and so it probably encourages development of rapid fire heavy cannons. I can see more emphasis on the getting the autoloading 3 inch into service from the USN during the war and the RN might see an autoloading 5.25 inch system enter service after the war. We might even see a version of the SAM-N-2 Lark anti-aircraft missile enter service for a time given the more capable long range detection from the radars. One of the things I like about the Tracker/Trader/Tracer combo is that these aircraft are carried in relatively small numbers but their similar airframes allow a good number of shared parts. It seems that this commonality would make logistics and maintenance easier at sea due to allowing for pooled spares.
Looked up the Tracker's predecessor and it was the Grumman AF Guardian - was there a 1950s ugliest aircraft contest? Target indicator capabilities in 1943 would be a logistics headache to get all the ships, land stations equipped. Priority would go to key theatres where air threat was greatest. A E2 sized plane would be to small for the eras electronics but a B-29 or B-24 modification or even a Martin Mars modification would be doable with shrinking systems down. The fight between Admirals wanting 4 engine airframes for warning verse strategic bombing advocates would make for some fine drama. More effective air defence and air dominance might shave a few months off the war.
Skyray....The aircraft it reminds me of is the Skyhawk, not really a surprise its made by the same company. There is even s photo of USS independence lanchinf both aircraft at yhe same time
giving all the literature and a couple working MTIs from the 60s in 42 , i do not thing will do any good in the radar systems build in 43 , you need better magnetrons ,antenas ,accurate and sharp anti-tr ,stable transmiting frequency and more time to develop filters for all the electronics handling high frequency .The whole new set of problems from implementing a mti in those early radar systems will lower the reputation and increase the time for the radar crews and their superiors to trust the radars On the other hand if you sent back in time a lets say sps12 or even a sps 6 late (systems not even a decade away) ,we are talking about a mature technology even without mti that would help the culture of "if its not on radar , then does not excist" grow very fast
Every nation had their fair share of... well... look the aircraft is nice, add the carbuncle on to it and that spoils the looks, especially from the front
Sorry but I have to say it the British have made some of the ugliest planes in the history of mankind so when you say like the S2 tracker is an ugly plane got to disagree it's actually it's actually a pretty plain especially when you compare yourself to some of the British
@DrAlexClarke Thanks for responding before I did because your response was,. let's, let's say nicer than what mine was going to be. Oh, by the way, I'm an American veteran and have 0 problem with calling out ugly. The fact that another country may have made ugly also has absolutely nothing to do with it. Fortunately, the navy was smart enough to grasp that form follows function, especially in a vehicle that must fly through the medium we call air.😊
@@stevewhite3424 maybe it's a country thing but a lot of British aircraft to me fall into the meh or ugly category. Tornado looks great and the Voilcan Bomber was astonishing but most of the rest fall into the meh to ugly category
Service life was over when last Essex class were retired. For some reason the Navy was unable to operate the Hawkeye off the converted Essex class. I’ve only ever found one picture of an E-2 Hawkeye operating off an Essex.
My understanding was most cases of a hawkeye being on an Essex was training or exercises
the essay. i convinced the History and English department that i wrote good essays and for papers i should submit essays in stead of research papers. you should put a tread mill between the office and the kitchen. The Early warning aircraft was suggested the version be used by several services, The navy Bought it.
Hi Doc just took my Nissan 4 wheel drive king cab, in 4 wheel in high range at 2000 rpm 100 mph uphill at 2500 rpm 85-90mph depending on the grade. i am building a channel car, spending 2000 US from Wheel Bearings in all new ball joints etc. I am an Essayist. it takes longer to type a bibliography than
The Navy Version of the F-111 carrier version cost General Dynamics i think cost over 100 million for no Contract. Wonder why Aircraft companies consolidate?
As for your final question, In WWII, while an E1 would have been fantastic, it would have likely been an issue on smaller carriers due to it's size being a double engine aircraft taking up more space at the expense of other aircraft. But if the AEW variant of the Skyraider had been available, it would have been a game changer, for both the Med and Pacific, for any carrier that could operate an Avenger size aircraft. Being able to detect a raid much further away would have enabled having a larger CAP in position to intercept further out, allowing for a more practical multi layered CAP. If they were able to bring in some of the airborne command and control aspects, that is now taken for granted, they would have been able to more accurately positioned the CAP for the intercept, as there were several cases in '42 where the CAP missed the intercept completely. As airborne ground radar became better able to work in higher sea states, you could even allow an escorted one to act a type of scout, relying on it's radar to find enemy fleets and direct a more traditional scout plane to visual identify it, if needed, and to direct the follow on strike to the moving target.
the crew called it the Guppy, a very good friend and employee flew 2 Viet Nam tours in the turbo prop versions had the same turbo an the Electra also in inventory as a mad Aircraft.
I think the S-2 is absolutely beatiful, and we know it's tough.
Nowadays it has found a fire fighting role in General Aviation.
S2 I'll agree with, C-1 I think has great too... it's the E-1 & it's carbuncle I object to
For me, the biggest WOW would be if the USN had the Tracer at Midway. That battle would have been very different, since instead of three Japanese Carriers being taken out in the first strike, all four would have been hit. And, at the same time, the Hornet's aircraft would have been effective, rather than flying in circles.
On another note. It is my understanding that you originally wrote your thesis to include both American and Japanese Aircraft Carriers, but when limited by word count, erased those sections. I'd like to suggest that you add those erased sections back in and self-publish it with photos. Who knows? You might get offers from commercial publishers to publish a slightly modified version of that book, AND in any case, it might sell as well (if not even better) than TBD's.
Some Commencement Bay-class escort carriers operated early S-2 Trackers. I bet landing that on a postage stamp runway with a maximum 19 knot headwind was fun.
There were plans to put an angle flight deck on the Commencement Bay class.
I grew up in Soithern Califorjia. The S2 was ised to fight fores for a very long time
In the 1980's the field looked like wW2 with b17 14 PBY and A20 and of couse the ugly C119
You still see CAL Fire's S2's fighting fires in California. They use ones that were converted to use Turbo Props. I remember watching one attack a fire in 2009 when I was hiking the PCT.
@@SeanTheSarcastic I remember that convention before I left there. The sound was so different. The child in me said that is not THE S2.
Are they still using Broncos for the spotter?
They had just switched from the.. cannot remember the name it was a. Pusher pull prop with a P 38 tail.
@@jagsdomain203 They seem to still use them as they are listed on their website. I remember reading that 2 years ago they picked up another 4 OV-10's from NASA to be converted for use as command and control aircraft.
Airborne Early Warning began for the U.S. with the Navy’s Project Cadillac in WWII. It produced two airplanes: the TBM-3W (modified Avenger) for carrier work and the PB-1 (modified B-17 Flying Fortress) for land-based work. The TBM-3W was about to get to the fleet at the end of the Okinawa campaign, and probably would have been a game changer. You obviously understand the vital importance of AEW in fleet operations. Maybe a history of the subject would be in order.
Thank you for this video. I will watch it at work tonight during lunch.
A Stoof. And a Stoof w/ a Roof.
This aircraft is beautiful , one my all time favorites
BZ.
If the British & Americans were able to develope a joint radar concept based of the E-1's radar, ship based by 1943, it would have made the Pacific campaign far easier to prosecute than historically. In the Atlantic it would possibly aid when near occupied Europe, from an aircraft detection point of view, how well it would pick up U-boats, I wouldn't know. A land based system, on the other hand, would have improved air defence from bomber attacks, if it could be linked to the fire controle of the anti aircraft batteries, compared to wha was available at the time.
Sir the reason for the relative low maximum hight, is possible that without the fuselage being pressurised,at any greater altitude all of the crew would have to be on oxygen. And well wrapped up against the cold, with particular attention to ensuring that the electronics are protected against condensation.
I've often wondered what a rotating dome would have looked like on the E-1 instead of the fixed dome hut as it would have looked better, though would have required more electronics miniaturization that came later. Then thin rotating dome on the Hawkeye does provide some lift instead of being an air brake. I also wondered why the USN never converted them to Turbo Props so they could do away with carrying Aviation Gas on their carriers. Other operators eventually did.
Check out Secret Projects Forum. They have a few threads on upgraded E-1's, there's even something on the Warning Star with a roto dome. Some countries that used the Tracker for a bit used turboprops, look up Super Tracker.
I worked on the Hawkeye in the 80's and painted a static display E-1 and S-2. I thought they were both interesting aircraft.
I actually really love the S-2/C-1/E-1 family, especially the later turboprop equipped versions. They aren’t as ‘clean’ looking as the Viking or Hawkeye, but they were great looking aircraft. I’d love to have seen the Royal Navy operating them as Gannet replacements, at least for AEW. Obviously with the drawdown of the carrier fleet that wasn’t to be, but I’d argue that, as ungainly as the E-1 was, it looked better than the British ‘big nose’ AEW proposals!
11:20 Brazil and Argentina still have Trackers on the books and you can add Venezuela , Peru , Uruguay , Thailand , South Korea , Taiwan and other countries using it ashore (basically the non Orion users but US allies countries)
It looks like a pit bull breed with a chihuahua, and then someone gave it a stupid hat.
Its a good looking radial prop. Love the fat engines!!!
A helpful and informative bit of context would be a discussion of the US Navy's aircraft designation system prior to the Tri-Service changes in the early '60s.
Well that's coming in next weeks US naval aviation doctrine video, I felt that it sits more naturally there than in one of the key aircraft series
@@DrAlexClarke Thanks! Once it's understood, the system is very logical and informative!
As a child of the ‘50s and ‘60s, I thought of the Tracer is a rather cute aircraft. To me the Hawkeye was a rather dumpy-looking kite.
I've seen it been described that the USMC is the brunch of the US Armed services.
Not quite the Army, not quite the Navy.
Hi Dr clarke. I´m from Argetina. I start to saw many of your videos . i lern a lot information about ships, absoluyly amazing. Is correct we still service, us a S-2T Turbo Tracker. Unfortunately the are not operational, actualy
the mid to late 50s has so many forgotten aircraft.
In one of your series, Sir, you should profile Leroy Grumman.
Think of saving him for the year of leadership... 2025... think it might be more appropriate
@@DrAlexClarke I was hoping to get him on the list.
The difference is the US Business does the inventing at the Company's expense. US Navy buys the new tech. it is different here. They do not pay a cent until carrier qualification.
The Tracer is not THAT bad looking of an aircraft! The Short Seamew is, but not the Tracer.
If the moving target indicator comes into service in 1943 the ability to position escorts/CAP aircraft in response to airborne attack improves significantly. This is especially true in the later stages of the Mediterranean war and in the archipelago regions of the Pacific, where clutter is highest. This has an impact on the ability of the Axis forces in those regions ability to perform the types of strikes they became infamous for. The guided weapons of the Luftwaffe do not have the range to consistently surprise allied ships already so if the interception is farther out due to earlier identification they cannot hit some of their more famous victims. In the Pacific this technology possibly saves lives, the Kamikaze attacks of the last couple years of the war are blunted earlier and may well be less heavily leaned on. That improves survival rates on both sides.
In terms of ship design, the moving target indicator allows for better interception of aircraft at range and so it probably encourages development of rapid fire heavy cannons. I can see more emphasis on the getting the autoloading 3 inch into service from the USN during the war and the RN might see an autoloading 5.25 inch system enter service after the war. We might even see a version of the SAM-N-2 Lark anti-aircraft missile enter service for a time given the more capable long range detection from the radars.
One of the things I like about the Tracker/Trader/Tracer combo is that these aircraft are carried in relatively small numbers but their similar airframes allow a good number of shared parts. It seems that this commonality would make logistics and maintenance easier at sea due to allowing for pooled spares.
Looked up the Tracker's predecessor and it was the Grumman AF Guardian - was there a 1950s ugliest aircraft contest? Target indicator capabilities in 1943 would be a logistics headache to get all the ships, land stations equipped. Priority would go to key theatres where air threat was greatest. A E2 sized plane would be to small for the eras electronics but a B-29 or B-24 modification or even a Martin Mars modification would be doable with shrinking systems down. The fight between Admirals wanting 4 engine airframes for warning verse strategic bombing advocates would make for some fine drama. More effective air defence and air dominance might shave a few months off the war.
Skyray....The aircraft it reminds me of is the Skyhawk, not really a surprise its made by the same company. There is even s photo of USS independence lanchinf both aircraft at yhe same time
Whut? That's a cute aircraft.
giving all the literature and a couple working MTIs from the 60s in 42 , i do not thing will do any good in the radar systems build in 43 , you need better magnetrons ,antenas ,accurate and sharp anti-tr ,stable transmiting frequency and more time to develop filters for all the electronics handling high frequency .The whole new set of problems from implementing a mti in those early radar systems will lower the reputation and increase the time for the radar crews and their superiors to trust the radars
On the other hand if you sent back in time a lets say sps12 or even a sps 6 late (systems not even a decade away) ,we are talking about a mature technology even without mti that would help the culture of "if its not on radar , then does not excist" grow very fast
If you want to know what ugly looks like, take a gander at what France came up with in the 1930's. In comparison the Tracer is merely plain.
Every nation had their fair share of... well... look the aircraft is nice, add the carbuncle on to it and that spoils the looks, especially from the front
Sorry but I have to say it the British have made some of the ugliest planes in the history of mankind so when you say like the S2 tracker is an ugly plane got to disagree it's actually it's actually a pretty plain especially when you compare yourself to some of the British
Honestly I've done videos about the Blackburn Blackburn... I'm happy to call out ugly no matter the country...
@DrAlexClarke Thanks for responding before I did because your response was,. let's, let's say nicer than what mine was going to be. Oh, by the way, I'm an American veteran and have 0 problem with calling out ugly. The fact that another country may have made ugly also has absolutely nothing to do with it. Fortunately, the navy was smart enough to grasp that form follows function, especially in a vehicle that must fly through the medium we call air.😊
@@DrAlexClarke I watched iit. Just some friendly banter. I love your channel it's got great info.
@@stevewhite3424 maybe it's a country thing but a lot of British aircraft to me fall into the meh or ugly category.
Tornado looks great and the Voilcan Bomber was astonishing but most of the rest fall into the meh to ugly category
@@jagsdomain203 I still don't get what relevance that has to the subject of the podcast?
I rather liked the look of the Tracker and its family. Chunky, square, and honest. The right idea for the roles it did.