P6M Seamaster Bomber Defense Missile proposals

[Grey Havoc]

A little bit of info on the Grumman Design 143 Bushfire rear-firing SARH missile system that would have been fitted to production Seamasters: http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20500

Attached image courtesy of MKSheppard at the above link.

 

[RyanC]

Text from that is:

One of the least-known projects undertaken by Grumman during the late 1950s was the Bushfire rear defence system for the P6M-2 strategic flying-boat then being developed by Martin for the Navy. Whereas the two XP6M-1 prototypes had a twin-gun tail turret, production P6M-2s were to have been fitted with the Grumman Design 143 Bushfire system using SARH (semi-active radar homing) missiles launched to the rear. As shown in the accompanying drawing dated 15 January, 1957, one missile was carried in a launching tube, ready to be fired as soon as an enemy aircraft was detected by the Aero X23B search radar. Four to six additional missiles were carried on a revolver-type housing forward of the launching tube. Cancellation of the P6M-2 programme resulted in the demise of the Bushfire system.

 

[RyanC]

I found some stuff from research I did in 2009.

The competitors for the P6M Bomber Defense Missile circa 1 JULY 1957 were:

Grumman -- best of the submittals, but the missile and its complete system was considerably overweight.

Bendix

Motorola

Avion

Sperry

Emerson (Spherical missile)

Westinghouse (Spherical missile)

Admiral

Solar

In the end none of the submittals fully met the specifications, and they couldn't be developed in time to meet Seamaster deliveries. Plus, the weight of the BDM system aggravated the already serious balance problem in the P6M.

This combined with budget cuts, killed the Seamaster BDM.

...

The P6M BDM program was initiated in 1952 and an operational requirement CA-09701 was issued June 1957.

Requirements were:

Target surveillance/Detection
Threat Evaluation
IRCM
ECM
Active Defense by minimum of 4 guided missiles

Countermeasures required spherical coverage in S Band (radar), X Band (Radar), VHF (Radar) and IR.

Missile coverage was rear hemisphere, 120 degrees in azimuth and 60 degrees in elevation.

Missile range was:

Directly Aft: 16,000 feet at sea level to 30,000 feet at altitude:

Extreme of Azimuth: 11,000 feet at sea level to 25,000 feet at 50,000 ft altitude.

Combat environment envisaged in 1961-1965 period was:

Interceptors, of which 50% would be gun/rocket armed and the other 50% armed with missiles with a 5 to 8 mile range using radar or IR homing. A few interceptors would have mach 2.0 capability and have 15 mile ranged missiles.

SAMs would be of the NIKE and TALOS type

AA Guns would be radar controlled guns.

The ECM system would work against:

Early Warning Radars
CGI Radars
Air Intercept (AI) Radars
Communications
Missiles

Passive warning would have been provided via detection of radiation and pulsed radar signals, with attacking missiles being detected and automatically countered via chaff dispensing or infrared decoy launches.

Weight goals were 300 pounds per missile and 2500 lbs for the total installation (incl. 4 missiles).

 

[RyanC]

Here are the proposals Part I

EDIT: Of note is that it appears ADMIRAL used Beech Aircraft of Wichita as a subcontractor for its BDM Project, per the drawing having Beech markings on it.

 

[RyanC]

Entrants, Part II

 

[youROKer]

Grumman Design 143 "Bushfire" P6M Bomber Defense Missile
Source: https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/25262/lot/12/

 

[Pioneer]

Windtunnel model of Grumman Design 143 'Bushfire' self-defence AAM for Martin P6M SeaMaster.

(Source: https://www.lotsearch.net/lot/martin-p6m-seamaster-missile-defense-contractors-model-47376020)

Regards
Pioneer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Spilt to own topic. Grumman's BDM proposal seems to be quite related to their airframe for the Bendix Eagle.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Too bad this didn't get further developed for USAF bombers. Forget quad .50s or even a 20mm Vulcan, chew on some SARH missiles for the tail "gun" of a B-52!

 

[Dilandu]

Too bad this didn't get further developed for USAF bombers. Forget quad .50s or even a 20mm Vulcan, chew on some SARH missiles for the tail "gun" of a B-52!

If I recall correctly, the general consensus was that by the time such missiles would be combat-ready, enemy interceptors would have head-on attack capability with SARH missiles of their own - so the whole concept of long-range tail defense would be moot. The addition of more chaffs, decoys and jammers instead was viewed as more practical solution.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If I recall correctly, the general consensus was that by the time such missiles would be combat-ready, enemy interceptors would have head-on attack capability with SARH missiles of their own - so the whole concept of long-range tail defense would be moot. The addition of more chaffs, decoys and jammers instead was viewed as more practical solution.

And yet B-52s kept tail guns, as have all the Russian heavy bombers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Also, those spherical missiles are weird. I thought Pye Wacket flying saucers were weird, exploding softballs take the cake.

 

[Dilandu]

And yet B-52s kept tail guns, as have all the Russian heavy bombers.

They retained them because they might be useful against visual range attacker (and because they already were installed). The logic was mostly that missiles could be diverted by decoys or jammers, but guns couldn't, and if missile attacks failed, enemy fighter would most likely attempt the gun attack.

 

[Dilandu]

Also, those spherical missiles are weird. I thought Pye Wacket flying saucers were weird, exploding softballs take the cake.

Well, the idea was to attack enemy supersonic fighters head-on on late 1950s tech. The electronic was bulky and only analogue circuits could be fit into missile. The supersonic aerodynamic was a quite novel area of research. So the idea of spherical missile - which would not have much difference turning sharply in any direction - was quite attractive.