WesWorld

Shennong ST-205 "Songshu"
Shenyang Aircraft Cooperation
TYPE: Antisubmarine bomber

Engine:
2x Mitsubishi MK10B air-cooled radial piston engines, 2,400 hp each


Speed / Ceiling / Range:
MAX. SPEED: 666 km/h (414 mph ; 360 kn) at 18,600 feet (5,700 m)
CEILING: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)
RANGE: 975 mi (847 nmi; 1,569 km) internal fuel at 172 miles per hour (277 km/h)
COMBAT RANGE: 395 mi (343 nmi; 636 km) radius with two 150 US gallons (570 l; 120 imp gal) drop tanks


Weight:
EMPTY WEIGHT: 17,288 lb (7,842 kg)
GROSS WEIGHT: 26,171 lb (11,871 kg)


Dimensions:
SPAN: 59 ft 4 in (18.08 m)
LENGTH: 46 ft 4 in (14.12 m)
HEIGHT: 16 ft (4.9 m)
WING AREA: 500 sq ft (46 m2)


Crew:
2 (Pilot and radar operator)


Sensors:
Type 3 radar
Magnetic anomaly detector


Armament:
Guns:
4x 12.7mm machine guns wing mounted with 1200 rds.


Fuselage bomb-bay (internal):
Torpedo: 1x 17,7" aireal torpedo (850kg)

bombs: one 2,000 pounds (910 kg) or two 1,600 pounds (700 kg) or four 1000 pounds (450 kg)

depth charges: 2x 650 pounds (300 kg) or 4x 325 pounds (150 kg)
Mines: 1x 2,000 pounds (910 kg) or 2x 1,000 pounds (450 kg)

droppable fuel tank (internal): 250 gallons

Note:
Bombs can not be carried internally with internal fuel tank installed


Wings (external):
bombs: 2x 1,000 pounds (450 kg) or 2x 500 pounds (225 kg)

droppable fuel tanks: 2x 150 gallons



[size=1]Thanks to Gromo for this fantastic drawing[/size]

For an aircraft intended to combat OPFOR submarines, this design is far too fast and far too short legged.

As a maritime strike aircraft however, it has promise.

I do think that the bombload is a bit much for an aircraft of its size, and the thought of jettisoning a fuel tank from the bomb-bay in flight is rather daunting. But I can't see anything totally impossible off the bat.

Nice drawing!

Ditto for all of that. You could probably drop the speed by 100mph and have something just as decent.

The radial engines are perhaps over-powerful for what you need, as well. Could probably reduce them to 1600-1800 horsepower.

Quoted

Magnetic anomaly detector

How did China manage to get such highly-classified technology? This inventor of MAD is still working in Russia, and nobody else, not even world leaders like Britain or the US, have made a peep about fielding a MAD (which is reasonable, since they're not involved in a do-or-die Battle of the Atlantic).

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Magnetic anomaly detector

How did China manage to get such highly-classified technology? This inventor of MAD is still working in Russia, and nobody else, not even world leaders like Britain or the US, have made a peep about fielding a MAD (which is reasonable, since they're not involved in a do-or-die Battle of the Atlantic).

From Wikipedia ...
Magnetic anomaly detectors employed to detect submarines during World War II harnessed the fluxgate magnetometer, an inexpensive and easy to use technology developed in the 1930s by Victor Vacquier of Gulf Oil for finding ore deposits.[2][3] MAD gear was used by both Japanese and U.S. anti-submarine forces, either towed by ship or mounted in aircraft to detect shallow submerged enemy submarines. The Japanese called the technology jikitanchiki("Magnetic Detector").

And onboard of OTL Kyushu Q1W (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyushu_Q1W) there was such a magnetic anomaly detector.

So with japanese help in this case in my eyes it will be no problem for China to use this detector in own aircrafts.

You might want to read the history bit in the file here...

Quoted

Originally posted by parador

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Magnetic anomaly detector

How did China manage to get such highly-classified technology? This inventor of MAD is still working in Russia, and nobody else, not even world leaders like Britain or the US, have made a peep about fielding a MAD (which is reasonable, since they're not involved in a do-or-die Battle of the Atlantic).

From Wikipedia ...
Magnetic anomaly detectors employed to detect submarines during World War II harnessed the fluxgate magnetometer, an inexpensive and easy to use technology developed in the 1930s by Victor Vacquier of Gulf Oil for finding ore deposits.[2][3] MAD gear was used by both Japanese and U.S. anti-submarine forces, either towed by ship or mounted in aircraft to detect shallow submerged enemy submarines. The Japanese called the technology jikitanchiki("Magnetic Detector").

And onboard of OTL Kyushu Q1W (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyushu_Q1W) there was such a magnetic anomaly detector.

So with japanese help in this case in my eyes it will be no problem for China to use this detector in own aircrafts.

Harnessing a fluxgate magnetometer for an airborne application is not that difficult, if the need is foreseen or demanded by experience. Placing one on this aircraft, while viable from a technical perspective, could be seen as falling into the gray area of foreknowledge.

China's experience with Philippine submarines in the South China Sea war could be painted as justifying such an application, though it seems that China's submarine force had the better results in the conflict.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
From Wikipedia ...
Magnetic anomaly detectors employed to detect submarines during World War II harnessed the fluxgate magnetometer, an inexpensive and easy to use technology developed in the 1930s by Victor Vacquier of Gulf Oil for finding ore deposits.[2][3] MAD gear was used by both Japanese and U.S. anti-submarine forces, either towed by ship or mounted in aircraft to detect shallow submerged enemy submarines. The Japanese called the technology jikitanchiki("Magnetic Detector").

And onboard of OTL Kyushu Q1W (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyushu_Q1W) there was such a magnetic anomaly detector.

So with japanese help in this case in my eyes it will be no problem for China to use this detector in own aircrafts.

So because the Japanese saw the need to design and field MAD late in WWII while suffering massive casualties from a major submarine warfare campaign which was destroying their economy, peacetime China can introduce MAD, too?

I guess it's not worth fighting about. I guess I'm just feeling the rate of technological progress is just going ahistorically fast, particularly given the lack of WWII.

China's experience with Philippine submarines in the South China Sea war and the constant threat of such philippine submarines are certainly enough incentive to find an adequate way to detect submarines.

And of course such a MAD wouldn't be such effective as the WW2, but it's a first step in this direction. (if i will never mention such a method - how i can i develop it. Hope you understand what i meant)

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
China's experience with Philippine submarines in the South China Sea war and the constant threat of such philippine submarines are certainly enough incentive to find an adequate way to detect submarines.

I would agree, in principle, on this point. China's experience might well plant the seed for requirements for MAD gear.

Quoted

And of course such a MAD wouldn't be such effective as the WW2, but it's a first step in this direction. (if i will never mention such a method - how i can i develop it. Hope you understand what i meant)

This too I can agree with in principle. A single aircraft flying a MAD search pattern would have a great deal of difficulty detecting a moving submarine, and would be hard pressed to localize for an attack. Against a stationary target (such as a sub lying doggo on the bottom) it might be more effective. In either case, it would rudimentry at best.

Thumb up for the drawing.

Dare I ask why no cannons? Would they be cruisal for a fast maritim strike craft?

I got she is meant to be something like a 2nd or 3rd generation Beaufighter. However, her specs and size scream Tigercat to me. So how are you going to fit s torpedo in an internal bomb bay? Ok, you left out the canons but that wont buy you a torpefo-sized bomb bay. And you have to install your MAD somewhere too, including power supply etc.

Speaking of MAD: Wouldnt that bird need a sponson or rear boom for it?

Cheers,
HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Thumb up for the drawing.

Dare I ask why no cannons? Would they be cruisal for a fast maritim strike craft?

If you look at the stats, you can see it has Guns:
4x 12.7mm machine guns wing mounted with 1200 rds.

Quoted

I got she is meant to be something like a 2nd or 3rd generation Beaufighter. However, her specs and size scream Tigercat to me. So how are you going to fit s torpedo in an internal bomb bay? Ok, you left out the canons but that wont buy you a torpefo-sized bomb bay. And you have to install your MAD somewhere too, including power supply etc.

It's NOT a tigercat but it's based on real blueprints, so there should / is enough space for an internal bomb bay, because the original has also one.

Quoted

Speaking of MAD: Wouldnt that bird need a sponson or rear boom for it?

Cheers,
HoOmAn

I don't think so, because as i have written before, the OTL Kyushu Q1W had also such a type of MAD and i couldn't find any sponson or rear boom on photos or drawings.

Those are MGs. I think Hoo meant 20mm or 30mm, something with more punch.

The picture looks great!
I agree that the engine power is too high and the speed too high and the range too low. I'm confused as to what the aircraft is; a submarine hunter or a submarine killer or a hunter-killer? And do these roles make sense?
To make full use of the radar and MAD you would want to maximise the loiter time, the combat range you quote I would guess to be a typical strike profile, but in reality this aircraft is going to spend most of its time at 100-150mph circling around ships - the kind of boring patrol work flying boats and seaplanes do all the time.
Looking as the historical MAD stats of the IJN equipment the range isn't great, high-speed is of no use when you're 90-120 metres away (you say your equipment is inferior to this WW2 standard so let's suppose 90m is a super-good result). A submerged contact isn't going to move that far or fast. You've got radar so with surfaced contacts I agree a hgh-attacking speed would be benefical for suprise etc. and to allow you to catch the submarine on the surface or in the process of diving.
Also, the nose radar looks good but surely a 360 degree coverage from a ventral blister would be of far more use. Right now your radar only sees to either side of the nose along the flight direction (especially with early radar tech). Even a wing pod might be a better solution. I'm interested where the MAD was on the Kyushu Q1W, I'm guessing the need for reducing interference to get better performance drove the post-war boom-mounted method.
The armament is also of mixed usefulness in my view, the wing-mounted 12.7mm are probably useful for strafing but lacking the power of a cannon to do serious damage. I'm guessing the high speed and wing armament presupposes some kind of defensive performance against enemy fighters (there are no rear-defensive guns for example), but that would be a lower threat and could be countered with fighter escort. The bombload looks good to me, you want to carry as much as you can. But why the torpedo? What realistic anti-submarine use has this got unless the intention is to make this into a general-purpose strike aircraft than can be used for anti-submarine and anti-ship strikes? But you already have such aircraft and surely the intention here is to fulfill a niche role?
This is why I ask if its a hunter, or a killer or both. It's capable of doing both but it does not do both well. A hunter would have the radar and MAD and low economic cruising speed and long range (the longer the better), a killer would have the cannons and bombs and high speed and defensive ability. A hunter-killer would have both but I'm not sure this airframe has the right characteristics. It's too hunter-like, really you want a patrol aircraft. My ideal would be a twin-engined patrol type, long range, slow cruising speed, bombs and pairing this with existing strike aircraft for extra firepower. These ASW types are going to work in groups anyway so one plane does not have to do everything. If you just want another strike aircraft my advice is to ditch the MAD and keep the radar. From what I've read the Q1W only had MAD because its radar wasn't available. If you just want an ASW type my advice is ditch the torpedo, fit smaller radials and add more fuel tanks.

Maybe I wanted to press on too many tasks into this aircraft.

So if i take a longer look on the design, i think the better role of this aircraft is the torpedobomber / attacker role or ?

I think those antennae thingies at the back of the fuselage is what it is.

A few more pictures here.

Maybe you should go for two versions like the US did with the AF-2S and AF-2W.

You meant a pure scout- and a pure attack version ? That's a good option ..... and sure the best solution.

Quoted

ST-205H:
This is the scout version of the Hunter/Killer Team. Unarmed Hunter version with fuel tanks, Magnetic anomaly detector and Type 3 radar.

[Size=1]Thanks to Gromo for the great drawing.[/size]

Quoted

ST-205K:
This version was the armor-bearer of the Hunter / Killer Team. Internal bombload up to 1000kg. Mounting points under the wing for additional fuel tanks or depth charges / bombs. Also this aircraft has a Type 3 radar and a powerfull searchlight.

[Size=1]Thanks to Gromo for the great drawing.[/size]

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
It's NOT a tigercat but it's based on real blueprints, so there should / is enough space for an internal bomb bay, because the original has also one.

For curiosity's sake, I'd ask what real design it is based upon. The silhouette looks vaguely Douglas DB-7-ish, in an early variation, but it could be something else.

Having two versions of the aircraft - one hunter, one killer, make slightly more sense, but such changes haven't completely addressed the excessive speed and short range issues raised - perhaps the intent is to clarify these in subsequent posts.

Unless these aircraft *are* expected to operate with fighter escort - or in waters devoid of OPFOR air threats (which one might expect in Chinese coastal waters) the lack of defensive armament tells against them, unless this is the thinking behind the excessive speed. However, the heavy weight of a powerful airborne radar or other electronic system will have an adverse impact on that performance.

Quoted

Having two versions of the aircraft - one hunter, one killer, make slightly more sense, but such changes haven't completely addressed the excessive speed and short range issues raised - perhaps the intent is to clarify these in subsequent posts.

The Harbin Ha-37 has a range of 1300km and this design 1500km. Sure the combat range of this design is far less (600km), but in my eyes combat range is with full speed in an dogfight and not on a patrol flight. For long range subhunting China has the EW-301S (Range: 3500km)

It is also planned to use this design on a hypothetical chinese super-carrier, where the other two types couldn't operate.

Quoted

Unless these aircraft *are* expected to operate with fighter escort - or in waters devoid of OPFOR air threats (which one might expect in Chinese coastal waters) the lack of defensive armament tells against them, unless this is the thinking behind the excessive speed.

I think in chinese coastal waters will be chinese air superiority, so the lack of defensive armament hasn't a very negative impact.
Is, contrary to expectations, an enemy aircraft in the vicinity, this aircraft can escape due to it's excessive speed before a dogfight will happen.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
Maybe I wanted to press on too many tasks into this aircraft.

So if i take a longer look on the design, i think the better role of this aircraft is the torpedobomber / attacker role or ?

I think that is a valid thing to evaluate. The ST-205, as it stands now, doesn't appear to be designed at all for the antisubmarine role, but for something far different. Making it a torpedo bomber rather than an ASW aircraft would be more to the aircraft's strengths.

I'm still curious what real aircraft the drawing is based upon. Could you enlighten us, please?