Re: Russia's 'Blackjacks' fly again

[Chad Irby]

In article >, "Gunnar" >
wrote:

> > >
> > > :Isn't that plane just a copy of the US B-1 bomber?
> > >
> > > No, it isn't.
> > >
> >
> > Uh-huh, uh-huh. So why is it then that everytime a Russian (Soviet)
> > aircraft comes out, it bears a striking resemblance to a
> > pre-existing aircraft of somebody else's?
> >
> > Tupolev Tu-4, Buran, the list goes on and on.
>
> Physics is universal ! Similar need gives similar result !

In the case of the Tu-4, painstaking measurement of a B-29 gave an
identical result, because they measured a B-29 and copied it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[DM]

> > > >> Uh-huh, uh-huh. So why is it then that everytime a Russian (Soviet)
> > aircraft
> > > comes out, it bears a striking resemblance to a pre-existing aircraft
of
> > > somebody else's?


And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)

[Michael Zaharis]

DM wrote:
>
> And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)
>
>

Some people feel that it was derived from the A-5 Vigilante, but I don't
really see it, except for a few general layout points.

My impression is that the Soviets were very good engineers, given the
economic system that they had to deal with, but were very conservative
with determining what things to build, and tended to copy configurations
quite a bit. With the exception of the TU-4 "Bull", which was a nearly
identical B-29 reverse-engineering job, the Soviets generally designed
from scratch, but to created a vehicle that was similar in role and
outward appearance to western vehicles. They tend to copy western
design parameters and vehicle roles, but then do the detailed design on
their own. I think that one of the reasons is that, in a centrally
planned system, you don't want to be seen as lacking a capability that
your competitor/enemy has, so the easiest way to avoid this mistake is
to design and build a vehicle that is generally similar in layout and
function to your competitor's, even if you don't copy every engineering
detail.

An interesting case study is the Buran. According to the
astronautix.com entry on it, the Soviets actually tried a number of
configurations that were different from the US Space Shuttle, but since
they wanted a vehicle with similar crossrange on entry, along with
similar payload, they ended up using the American vehicle layout and
aerodynamic configuration. Additionally, the simple requirement for a
Shuttle-type vehicle was copied from the Americans, under the belief
that, so as not to be at a disadvantage, they needed a vehicle with the
same capabilities. Having said that, the launch mode and detail design
are completely different, as the Buran launches on a much different
booster. The Buran also had enough differences that the Russians were
not simply "blueprint-copying", but independently designing a vehicle
that had the same aerodynamic configuration, size, and payload bay.

From that article:
"The final analysis of the problems indicated that the rational solution
was an orbiter of the aircraft type. There was severe criticism of the
decision to copy the space shuttle configuration. But earlier studies
had considered numerous types of aircraft layouts, vertical takeoff
designs, and ground- and sea- launched variants. The NPO Energia
engineers could not find any configuration that was objectively better.
This only validated the tremendous amount of work done in the US in
refining the design. There was no point in picking a different inferior
solution just because it was original. "

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

[Jim McLaughlin]

Good post!

--
Jim McLaughlin

Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.

************************************************** *************************
"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
> DM wrote:
> >
> > And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)
> >
> >
>
> Some people feel that it was derived from the A-5 Vigilante, but I don't
> really see it, except for a few general layout points.
>
> My impression is that the Soviets were very good engineers, given the
> economic system that they had to deal with, but were very conservative
> with determining what things to build, and tended to copy configurations
> quite a bit. With the exception of the TU-4 "Bull", which was a nearly
> identical B-29 reverse-engineering job, the Soviets generally designed
> from scratch, but to created a vehicle that was similar in role and
> outward appearance to western vehicles. They tend to copy western
> design parameters and vehicle roles, but then do the detailed design on
> their own. I think that one of the reasons is that, in a centrally
> planned system, you don't want to be seen as lacking a capability that
> your competitor/enemy has, so the easiest way to avoid this mistake is
> to design and build a vehicle that is generally similar in layout and
> function to your competitor's, even if you don't copy every engineering
> detail.
>
> An interesting case study is the Buran. According to the
> astronautix.com entry on it, the Soviets actually tried a number of
> configurations that were different from the US Space Shuttle, but since
> they wanted a vehicle with similar crossrange on entry, along with
> similar payload, they ended up using the American vehicle layout and
> aerodynamic configuration. Additionally, the simple requirement for a
> Shuttle-type vehicle was copied from the Americans, under the belief
> that, so as not to be at a disadvantage, they needed a vehicle with the
> same capabilities. Having said that, the launch mode and detail design
> are completely different, as the Buran launches on a much different
> booster. The Buran also had enough differences that the Russians were
> not simply "blueprint-copying", but independently designing a vehicle
> that had the same aerodynamic configuration, size, and payload bay.
>
> From that article:
> "The final analysis of the problems indicated that the rational solution
> was an orbiter of the aircraft type. There was severe criticism of the
> decision to copy the space shuttle configuration. But earlier studies
> had considered numerous types of aircraft layouts, vertical takeoff
> designs, and ground- and sea- launched variants. The NPO Energia
> engineers could not find any configuration that was objectively better.
> This only validated the tremendous amount of work done in the US in
> refining the design. There was no point in picking a different inferior
> solution just because it was original. "
>
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm
>

[Michael Zaharis]

Jim McLaughlin wrote:
> Good post!
>
> --
> Jim McLaughlin
>

Thanks!

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:31:10 -0500, Michael Zaharis
> wrote:

>DM wrote:
>>
>> And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)
>>
>>
>
>Some people feel that it was derived from the A-5 Vigilante, but I don't
>really see it, except for a few general layout points.

Actually IIRC Mikoyan himself is said to have requested the A-5 be
used as a starting point when designing the Mig-25. IMO I'd think
they'd have taken a look at the F-108 too.

[Krztalizer]

>Where did they pirate
>the design of the ZSU-23-4 from?

Flakvierling..?

[[email protected]]

Not quite 'copied', not like the B-29/Tu-4.

[Andy Dingley]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:31:24 +0000 (UTC), "DM"
> wrote:

>And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)

Saunders-Roe SR53

Need an interceptor with ridiculous climb performance and top speed ?
- that's what you end up with. The British just chose to do it with
a HTP rocket, the Soviets stuck with gas turbines.

The the British (and Americans) realised that it wasn't really a role
that needed filling and cancelled.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

[Keith Willshaw]

"Andy Dingley" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:31:24 +0000 (UTC), "DM"
> > wrote:
>
> >And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)
>
> Saunders-Roe SR53
>
> Need an interceptor with ridiculous climb performance and top speed ?
> - that's what you end up with. The British just chose to do it with
> a HTP rocket, the Soviets stuck with gas turbines.
>
> The the British (and Americans) realised that it wasn't really a role
> that needed filling and cancelled.

Not really , the English Electric Lightning filled the role instead.


Keith

[Jim Doyle]

> wrote in message
...
> Not quite 'copied', not like the B-29/Tu-4.
>

Tried spot-the-difference with the Yak-100 -vs- the Sikorsky S-51?.

Nope, I'm sill looking.

Jim D

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Krztalizer
> writes
>>Where did they pirate
>>the design of the ZSU-23-4 from?
>
>Flakvierling..?

Putting a quad gun on a tracked chassis wasn't original. The radar
control was: I'm not aware of preceding Western equivalents.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Fred J. McCall]

Andy Dingley > wrote:

:On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:31:24 +0000 (UTC), "DM"
> wrote:
:
:>And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)
:
:Saunders-Roe SR53

They don't look ANYTHING alike.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Andy Dingley]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:57:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>:>And the Mig 25 resembles which plane? ;-)
>:
>:Saunders-Roe SR53
>
>They don't look ANYTHING alike.

I'm not claiming they look alike. With the totally different wing
geometry, they don't even have similar handling (the SR-53 has more in
common with the (N)F-104)

What they do have in common is a design requirement from high command.
Get up there quick, kill something fast, then return to base.

Keith's right - the Lightning is an even closer match. Similar engine
technology to the Foxbat, even if the wings and inlets are barely
related. The surprising thing about the Mig-25 is its long range. Yes,
_long_. Can you imagine a reconaissance version of the even-thirstier
Lightning ?

There's a visual resemblance between the Mig-25, the F-15, the Tornado
and even Concorde :- 2-D ramped inlets. If you design a Mach 2
aircraft in the '60s, using Fortran running on punch-cards, then
movable flat ramps are what you end up with. They'll work at a higher
speed and AoA than something like an F-4 or F-5's side-mounted pitot
and splitter plate inlets, or even the F-104's or Mirage's half-cones.
A "simpler" high-performance inlet like Eurofighter needs a great deal
more gas-flow modelling to make it work, and it just wasn't possible
back then.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

[Brian Allardice]

In article >,
says...

>There's a visual resemblance between the Mig-25, the F-15, the Tornado
>and even Concorde :- 2-D ramped inlets.

Hmmm... all copied from the Arrow, then.....

Cheers,
dba

[Andy Dingley]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:17:45 GMT, (Brian
Allardice) wrote:

>Hmmm... all copied from the Arrow, then.....

Oh no ! He mentioned the Arrow ! Abandon thread !

[[email protected]]

If one is going to bring up "copying", how about within only the US? The
Lockheed Electra (as in Amelia Earhart) & the Beech 18? DC-10 & L-1011?
B707 & DC-8? Luscombe 8 & Cessna 120/140? Piper Cherokee & Beech
Musketeer? And there are more examples. Who "copied" whom? These are as
much copies of each other as any of the USSR stuff is.

[Felger Carbon]

"Andy Dingley" > wrote in message
...
>
> What they do have in common is a design requirement from high
command.
> Get up there quick, kill something fast, then return to base.
>
> The surprising thing about the Mig-25 is its long range. Yes,
> _long_.

Interceptors are designed for defensive, not offensive, work. The
Mig-25 was designed to defend the Soviet Union from mach 3 atomic
bombers. The Soviet Union was _big_, really big. Hence the long
range of the Mig-25.

The WWII Spitfire/Hurricanes were also interceptors, but Great Britain
is a tiny country. Hence their short legs.

Form follows function. Have you ever noticed that despite the
superficial similarity of the Mig-25 to the later F-15, that the
Mig-25 is a much larger aircraft?

[Kristan Roberge]

Felger Carbon wrote:

> "Andy Dingley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > What they do have in common is a design requirement from high
> command.
> > Get up there quick, kill something fast, then return to base.
> >
> > The surprising thing about the Mig-25 is its long range. Yes,
> > _long_.
>
> Interceptors are designed for defensive, not offensive, work. The
> Mig-25 was designed to defend the Soviet Union from mach 3 atomic
> bombers. The Soviet Union was _big_, really big. Hence the long
> range of the Mig-25.
>
> The WWII Spitfire/Hurricanes were also interceptors, but Great Britain
> is a tiny country. Hence their short legs.
>
> Form follows function. Have you ever noticed that despite the
> superficial similarity of the Mig-25 to the later F-15, that the
> Mig-25 is a much larger aircraft?

Needed it to stuff in the fuel and engines for the performance.

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval Andy Dingley twisted the electrons to say:
> Can you imagine a reconaissance version of the even-thirstier
> Lightning ?

I'm sure there was a reconaissance pod available for the Lightning
(replacing the guns in the ventral tank), however this was probably a
creation for Saudi Arabia / Kuwait (if indeed, it existed at all?).
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Krztalizer]

>But even if the designers, engineers, and technicians were slaves
>forced to labour for an evil regime, that does not, and should not,
>be used to denigrate their accomplishments.


I agree with that.

Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Zamboni]

"Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
...
> Hardly copying to put more than 1 barrel on a single anti-aircraft mount.
> Everybody had
> mobile anti-aircraft guns in WW2.
>
But quad 20mm/23mm mount centered on a tank turret is a rather unique
configuration. Besides, Wirbelwind and Shilka, what else was there?
--
Zamboni

[Kristan Roberge]

Zamboni wrote:

> "Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hardly copying to put more than 1 barrel on a single anti-aircraft mount.
> > Everybody had
> > mobile anti-aircraft guns in WW2.
> >
> But quad 20mm/23mm mount centered on a tank turret is a rather unique
> configuration. Besides, Wirbelwind and Shilka, what else was there?

Never heard of a Maxon mount?! 4 .50Cal's in a turret, often mounted on
half-tracks. The russian
equivalent used four 14.5mm KPV heavy machineguns. The shilka was actually
evolved from a twin 57mm
anti-aircraft gun, the ZSU-57. Whereas the ZSU-23-4 is based on the PT76 hull,
the ZSU-57 is based
on a T-54 hull.

[Krztalizer]

>
>Or they could get deported to Israele. I'm sure Von Braun would have been
>popular there.

Hey, bright one, you do know that von Braun led an entire baggage trail and
dozens of engineers, all eagerly looking for Americans to surrender to, right?

[BUFDRVR]

>I don't know what a Concord is, but neither Concorde nor the B-1 have
>pods for the engines

And to throw a little flame on the fire, neither does the Tu-160....


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[[email protected]]

The USSR built under license, not copied, the PBY during WWII, IIRC.
OTOH, after Powers' U-2 was downed, Beriev proposed a copy of the U-2.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Alistair Gunn > writes:
> In sci.military.naval Andy Dingley twisted the electrons to say:
>> Can you imagine a reconaissance version of the even-thirstier
>> Lightning ?
>
> I'm sure there was a reconaissance pod available for the Lightning
> (replacing the guns in the ventral tank), however this was probably a
> creation for Saudi Arabia / Kuwait (if indeed, it existed at all?).

I'm sure somebody thought to propose one. But how useful would it be?
The volume's pretty limited, and there are cheaper an easier ways to
take picures of you're own airfields. :)


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[[email protected]]

Sounds like it could be the Arado Ar-242(?) transport.

[[email protected]]

ISTR reading somewhere some time back (NOT on the internet so it MUST be
true!) about an F-105 in Viet Nam bringing back a dud Soviet Atoll
(Sidewinder look-a-like) stuck in the fuselage. The crew chief &
mechanics tore it down & piece for piece would interchange with a
Sidewinder.

[BUFDRVR]

>actually the TU-95 is an almost exact copy (in concept) of the late 40s
>original version of the Boeing B-52(a very swept wing with 4 engine pods
>each with 2 contra rotating props driven by 2 turbine engines) later in the
>design program the prop engines were replaced by the new "jet" engines being
>developed at the time. Perhaps BUFDRVR has enough background to confirm
>this?
>

The original BUFF was designed to be a prop, but when the USAF demanded an all
jet bomber, Boeing designers were forced (over a weekend) to redsign her as an
all jet bomber. I don't believe the design was for counter-rotating props
though. Additionally, I doubt the Bear was a "BUFF rip-off", they have very
little in common design wise.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[William Wright]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >actually the TU-95 is an almost exact copy (in concept) of the late 40s
> >original version of the Boeing B-52(a very swept wing with 4 engine pods
> >each with 2 contra rotating props driven by 2 turbine engines) later in
the
> >design program the prop engines were replaced by the new "jet" engines
being
> >developed at the time. Perhaps BUFDRVR has enough background to confirm
> >this?
> >
>
> The original BUFF was designed to be a prop, but when the USAF demanded an
all
> jet bomber, Boeing designers were forced (over a weekend) to redsign her
as an
> all jet bomber. I don't believe the design was for counter-rotating props
> though. Additionally, I doubt the Bear was a "BUFF rip-off", they have
very
> little in common design wise.

Yes the original design shown to the Air Force by George Schairer (the same
Boeing engineer that had found the German swept wing data at the Goering
Aeronautical Research Institute in May 1945) had counter rotating props. The
recommendation to continue development of the swept wing pure jet bombers
along the lines of B-47 and B-55 came from Dr. Waldemar Voight, a German
advisor to the USAF. The Air Force dumped on the Boeing proposal on a
Thursday, the three man Boeing team (Schairer, Carlsen, Blumenthal) was
augmented by Ed Wells from Seattle and two members of the B-55 team already
in Dayton on other business. Wells drew the plan, Wells and Schairer made
the model and the others did the weight and performance calculations. The
Air Force told the Boeing team the following Monday that they had a winner
and to forget about the B-55. The original of course had a tandem cockpit
that LeMay demanded be changed. Anyway these six guys created one of the
most significant if not THE most significant aircraft ever conceived over a
working weekend in the Van Cleve Hotel in Dayton Ohio.


>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[B2431]

>From: Kristan Roberge
>Date: 2/2/2004 12:17 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>Stinky Moron wrote:
>
>> "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The Russians were doing ASM standoff missiles when we were still
>> > piddling about with gravity bombs. So, again, who copied who here?
>> >
>>
>> Well I guess the Russians copied the US once again.
>> They must have heard of the US Azon guided bomb which was used during WWII.
>
>No, if anything the concept of ASM standoff missiles is something they
>learned
>from the germans
>inWW2. Ya know, the country that actually HAD them and managed to sink a few
>major ships with them.
>
How many "major ships" and how do you define "major ships?" As far as I know
no battlewagons, heavy cruisers, light cruisers or aircraft carriers were sunk
by ASMs.


>> Don't those Russkis ever get an original idea?
>
>The same could be asked about the americans.

True, considering the Russians scientists have never been dummies despite
having abysmal leadership going back to the Czars. It can be said that the U.S.
first successful satellite looked a lot like Sputnik.

Not everything of great technical importance comes from the Russians and the
U.S. alone. It's just that those countries have been willing to spend the most
money over the long haul in the 20th century. Now go back to preceding
centuries. Where was the steam engine first made practical? Who invented the
chronometer which made ship navigation more accurate? Who discovered a small
pox vaccine? Who invented lighter than air flight? That's just going back to
the 1700s when the U.S. and Russia were both in existance.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
B2431 > wrote:
>>inWW2. Ya know, the country that actually HAD them and managed to sink a few
>>major ships with them.
>>
>How many "major ships" and how do you define "major ships?" As far as I know
>no battlewagons, heavy cruisers, light cruisers or aircraft carriers were sunk
>by ASMs.

HMS Spartan (Black Prince class light cruiser) was certainly sunk by
an air-launched guided missile (Hs-293) in, IIRC, 1943. The same year
the Italian battleship Roma was sunk by a guided bomb (Fritz-X) while
on her way to Malta to surrender, and the battleship Warspite was
mission-killed, completely immobilised and only saved from sinking
by some very good damage-control work.

That said, Germany certainly didn't invent guided missile (certainly not
the surface-to-surface guided missile) as both Britain and the US trialled
such devices around the end of WW1 - there's a nice picture around of
a British destroyer in about 1918 with a SSM launcher mounted forward
(a catapult for a small radio-controlled bomb-carrying aeroplane).

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Keith Willshaw]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Kristan Roberge
> >Date: 2/2/2004 12:17 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >

> >
> How many "major ships" and how do you define "major ships?" As far as I
know
> no battlewagons, heavy cruisers, light cruisers or aircraft carriers were
sunk
> by ASMs.
>

At least one battleship (Roma) and the cruiser HMS Spartan were sunk
another battleship (HMS Warspite) was severely damaged as were
two cruisers (HMS Uganda and USS Savanna).

Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: Kristan Roberge
> > >Date: 2/2/2004 12:17 AM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
>
> > >
> > How many "major ships" and how do you define "major ships?" As far as
I
> know
> > no battlewagons, heavy cruisers, light cruisers or aircraft carriers
were
> sunk
> > by ASMs.
> >
>
> At least one battleship (Roma) and the cruiser HMS Spartan were sunk
> another battleship (HMS Warspite) was severely damaged as were
> two cruisers (HMS Uganda and USS Savanna).

To keep things in perspective regarding Fritz-X, it had a reported 20%
success rate ( www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an41a.htm ). Probably better
than the US Azon (VB 1 thru 3), and quite an accomplishment by the standards
of the day, but still a mediocre performer overall.

Brooks

>
> Keith
>
>
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>

> >
> > At least one battleship (Roma) and the cruiser HMS Spartan were sunk
> > another battleship (HMS Warspite) was severely damaged as were
> > two cruisers (HMS Uganda and USS Savanna).
>
> To keep things in perspective regarding Fritz-X, it had a reported 20%
> success rate ( www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an41a.htm ). Probably better
> than the US Azon (VB 1 thru 3), and quite an accomplishment by the
standards
> of the day, but still a mediocre performer overall.
>
> Brooks
>

The success rate would probably have been rather higher had
a jammer for the radio control system not been rushed into
operation.

Keith

[Krztalizer]

>
>How many "major ships" and how do you define "major ships?" As far as I
>know
>no battlewagons, heavy cruisers, light cruisers or aircraft carriers were
>sunk
>by ASMs.

Roma springs immediately to mind - speared and sunk by Major Bernd. Jope, who
Hitler personally decorated for the act. To me, that would be a 'major ship',
as it was a front line, modern battleship. I have a small collection of things
from Jope, recording this action, including a photo of Roma's death throes.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > >
> > > At least one battleship (Roma) and the cruiser HMS Spartan were sunk
> > > another battleship (HMS Warspite) was severely damaged as were
> > > two cruisers (HMS Uganda and USS Savanna).
> >
> > To keep things in perspective regarding Fritz-X, it had a reported 20%
> > success rate ( www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an41a.htm ). Probably
better
> > than the US Azon (VB 1 thru 3), and quite an accomplishment by the
> standards
> > of the day, but still a mediocre performer overall.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
>
> The success rate would probably have been rather higher had
> a jammer for the radio control system not been rushed into
> operation.

Which led to the first use of wire guided variants, IIRC--without really
changing the success rate.

Brooks

>
> Keith
>
>

[Krztalizer]

>
>Actually, both would probably be a better approximation, though I am unaware
>of any German scientists being used by the US to develop PGM's--do you have
>any evidence of that?

I know of one - but I dont know how he would feel about me identifying him
online so I need to leave it at that. Guy worked directly on the land-attack
cruise missile, retiring from GD after 30 years on our team, following a stint
working with geheime stuff in the old Last Reich.

[B2431]

>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 2/2/2004 8:27 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: Kristan Roberge
>> >Date: 2/2/2004 12:17 AM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>
>> >
>> How many "major ships" and how do you define "major ships?" As far as I
>know
>> no battlewagons, heavy cruisers, light cruisers or aircraft carriers were
>sunk
>> by ASMs.
>>
>
>At least one battleship (Roma) and the cruiser HMS Spartan were sunk
>another battleship (HMS Warspite) was severely damaged as were
>two cruisers (HMS Uganda and USS Savanna).
>
>Keith
>
I stand corrected.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>

> >
> > The success rate would probably have been rather higher had
> > a jammer for the radio control system not been rushed into
> > operation.
>
> Which led to the first use of wire guided variants, IIRC--without really
> changing the success rate.
>

The Hs-293 which did indeed have a wire guided version which was
not terribly successful.

In the case of Fritz-X development of the The Duran/Detmold FuG 208/238
wire control system was abruptly curtailed by the destruction of the
factory in an air raid.

For both weapons wire guidance reduced further the range of the weapon
requiring the aircraft fly much to close to the target than was healthy once
proximity fuses were available.

Keith

[Krztalizer]

>
>:... though I am unaware
>:of any German scientists being used by the US to develop PGM's--do you have
>:any evidence of that?
>
>There weren't any.
>

My acquaintance wasn't a scientist, but he was an engineer at GD for over 30
years after a somewhat shorter career in the German jet programs of late WWII.
He was featured in a local newspaper article with a B-24 bombardier that bombed
his barracks in 1945 - the two worked down the hall from each other at General
Dynamics working on the Tomahawk (?) or somesuch.

[Dave Kearton]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
| >
| >:... though I am unaware
| >:of any German scientists being used by the US to develop PGM's--do you
have
| >:any evidence of that?
| >
| >There weren't any.
| >
|
| My acquaintance wasn't a scientist, but he was an engineer at GD for over
30
| years after a somewhat shorter career in the German jet programs of late
WWII.
| He was featured in a local newspaper article with a B-24 bombardier that
bombed
| his barracks in 1945 - the two worked down the hall from each other at
General
| Dynamics working on the Tomahawk (?) or somesuch.



That's when you call him up on the phone and go....


"left a bit, ...... left ...... a bit more ...."






Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Krztalizer]

>
>
>That's when you call him up on the phone and go....
>
>
>"left a bit, ...... left ...... a bit more ...."

Actually, the newspaper arranged for the bombardier to meet with Mr. B. at a
restaurant, so he could "replace" the bottles of wine that he destroyed when
his barracks got pasted. Fitting, I thought.

yf
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.