WesWorld

Ladies (if around) and Gentlemen,

using diplomatic and business channels the SAE is looking for (a) partner(s) on the field of research and development of rocket and missle technology.

Anybody interested?

The idea is to develop several devices over the course of the next five to seven years.

1. Solid fuel rocket to be used as addition to conventional field artillery. That is, an easy to use projectile of relatively small size with a range of no less than eight kilometers, that can carry a high explosive shrapnell warhead of no less than five kilograms.
   
2. A solid fuel rocket for air-to-ground use from ground attack aircraft against (point) targets with either an armor piercing or high explosive warhead that can be fired either in shallow or deep dive at various speeds and either in pairs or in full salvos.
   
3. A solid fuel light weight air-to-air missle with a high explosive shrapnell warhead and a range of no less than 1500 meters than can be attached to and fired from interceptors against bombers.
   
4. A liquid fuel missle to test and master this technology.
   
5. A liquid fuel ground-to-ground missle with a range of no less than 150 kilometers that can hit area no larger than 50mx50m as addition to conventional field artillery.
   
6. A liquid fuel missle with a range of no less than 1000 kilometers than can hit an area of 500mx500m and carry a warhead of no less than 500 kilogramms.
   [/list=a]

I probably should add why the I posted as above:

I have a book written by von Braun, I have lecture on Peenemünde, I have technical data on the R4M, Wasserfall, Feuerlilie and other German missle projects but I lack anything on other countries programms. Hence I have no idea what is realistic and what is not. So there is a severe need for support which is best covered in a story line about a joint R&D program.

A second point is that I don´t want to pop up with such technology in say 1940 and everybody blaming me for not starting officially a R&D program early enough. Hence the idea was born to start that in 1937, based on the experience from the South American War.

So if interested, please contact me on the issue. Thanks.

Ireland and Bulgaria would both be interested, but both lack experts on the subject, and neither really have the high level of political and military contacts with the SAE that would be necessary for joining a mutual development program.

Chile will most likely benefit from the Atlanto-Argentine program at some point in the future, and a cooperative project with the SAE could be a political sticky wicket in ABC, so that's probably a no-go.

If I look hard enough, I could probably find some obscure Canadian rocket scientist.

In an effort to improve Ibero-South African relations, Iberia would be willing to offer it's assistance.

Or if you're looking for a leap forward, Denmark might be willing to help.....

... or create one. How about Vern van Bruin (slightly altering the name Werner von Braun). Canadian rocket scientist extraordinaire whose parents came from Holland.

a, b and c are fairly easy to do and shouldn't prove a great problem. You could almost use the same rocket motor for all those roles. I don't think it would be a stretch for SA to develop such weapons themselves. Its the requirement itself that is more the stretch, but given Argentinean use of rockets probably justified.

d is fine, depending what exactly it is.

e is ridiculously optimistic unless you employ active guidance and its still optimistic then. Far too accurate.

f is pretty optimistic, especially the accuracy. It would probably be possible to get a missile with that range but accuracy would be more like tens of kilometers.

Its not to say you can't work on such a program, but I wouldn't expect the results to meet the specifications laid down.

I think for 'e' an 'f' it is a good starting point. As time progresses, they will find out that the demands are indeed optimistic and they are unable to get the required accuracy no matter how hard they try so they might settle for less accurate rockets.

Thanks for your replies everybody.

A to D is what I´m seriously looking for. E and F were just added because that´s what some high ranks would expect if somebody told them about something that can easily outrange conventional artillery. 100m x 100m surely is way too optimistic but that cannot be known without starting into such programs and learning it the hard way....

If A to C could be expected from a high-tech power like the SAE in ~1940/41 I´m fine. It might not be necessary to set up a detailed story arc then.

Liuid fuel however..... Bad news is I personally simply don´t know enough about it....

If you want a weapon to outrange conventional artillery you use a bomber. Guidance is the main problem at range as you're pretty much limited to spin stabilisation, fin stabilisation or primitive inertial systems, which add up to accuracy measured in km.

Liquid fuelled rocket engines are possible, it just depends what you want it to actually do. Something with low thrust of maybe 1000lbf is relatively easy. Bigger gets more problematic. Also depends what sort of lifetime you want. For a rocket program like Germany's you'd have to pour in massive amounts of resources and it wouldn't really pay off until the 1950s.

Whats the in-game date of this? Just roughly.

Various factions within the Dutch Govt. would be interested, the greater political setting would matter a bit as factions wax and wane.

Dates........

I think A to D I want to have in service 1940, assuming the SAEs program started in late 1936 or early 1937. I´m not sure which of those rockets would be first and which could be based on the other one technologically.

For liquid fuel stuff I want to have a running test program in 1940 with probably some early success in getting liquid fuel engines running (limited thrust and time) and some early prototypes flying.

Until 1943 I´d like to have a first version of a ground-to-ground missle starting production. With much less accuracy as wished above of ocurse.

Regarding a surface-to-air missle I´m not sure ho long it would take to develope somethig useful and visually guided, either based on solid or liqiud fuel. 1944 probably?

How difficult it is to get an anti-tank rocket which is guided through cable I also don´t know...

Quoted

Until 1943 I´d like to have a first version of a ground-to-ground missle starting production. With much less accuracy as wished above of ocurse.

Something like the Soviet Frog rocket might be possible. Pretty limited accuracy but fairly simple and portable. I'm not sure what sort of targets you'd be going after.

Quoted

Regarding a surface-to-air missle I´m not sure ho long it would take to develope somethig useful and visually guided, either based on solid or liqiud fuel. 1944 probably?

MCLOS guidance isn't particularly useful unless at low altitude like SeaCat. For low level i think light AA is more practical and would give better results. A missile like wasserfall has limited accuracy and is probably only useful against large boxes of slowly moving bombers. Developing something that could be put into service and give reasonable results is probably a bit further away. A useful missile using beam riding or semi active radar guidance is 1950s. I think its easier to go for large calibre automatic AA guns.

Quoted

How difficult it is to get an anti-tank rocket which is guided through cable I also don´t know...

Late 1950s/early 60s unless you want something with really limited capability.

Any SAM would be radar guided, the British Brakemine being one early British foray into the field in 1944 and BEN using photoelectric sensors so a radar-controlled searchlight could gudie it onto a target, when the light is switched off...BOOM. Also proposed for naval use.

Brakemine and BEN merged into the big LOP/GAP project, that become the RTV.1 test vehicle and then eventually emerged as Sea Slug. By 1945 the British were studying no less than seven future requirements.


Frog isn't useful until you have a destructive warhead (nuke, bio, chemical) or unless you rely on its disruptive effects to hamper enemy preperations etc. Of course Argentina and Brazil are the prime targets for such a weapon.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Regarding a surface-to-air missle I´m not sure ho long it would take to develope somethig useful and visually guided, either based on solid or liqiud fuel. 1944 probably?

MCLOS guidance isn't particularly useful unless at low altitude like SeaCat. For low level i think light AA is more practical and would give better results. A missile like wasserfall has limited accuracy and is probably only useful against large boxes of slowly moving bombers. Developing something that could be put into service and give reasonable results is probably a bit further away. A useful missile using beam riding or semi active radar guidance is 1950s. I think its easier to go for large calibre automatic AA guns.

IIRC in one of my books I had a quote from a Luftwaffe paper where they calculated the costs to down a bomber. They calculated how many AA shells were necessary and their costs and compared that to an AA missle. The latter - technical difficulties set aside - would be the much cheaper solution.

Anyone have any info on how effective the German Föhn rocket launchers were against aircraft?

The cost per bird of a GAP (guided anti-aircraft projectile) is quite low and on a cost effective measure is much superior to gunfire. However, factor in the development cost and things don't look too rosy. Given the time frame you probably end up with a weapon that isn't much more effective than heavy AA anyway.

I feel the technical challenges are too great for a useful weapon. It took until the late 1950s to develop useful weapons and they were still unreliable with low kill probabilities. The targets had changed to higher, faster aircraft but I don't see the problems being solved a decade earlier for less strenuous requirements.

A lot of the push behind the development of anti-aircraft missiles was from the experience of bombing. The UK's program from 1940, Germany from 1943/44 and the US from 1945 after experience with kamikazes.

Quoted

Anyone have any info on how effective the German Föhn rocket launchers were against aircraft?

Probably not that great. Very limited range with small warhead.

a & b look possible, given your desired date of 1940, though the accuracy of period air-to-ground rockets is pretty low until you get CLOSE.

c's range seems slightly long (based on the historical Wgr.21) but doable at the cost of more weight than that weapon or or a smaller warhead. Any weapon like this is likely to be of limited value, though, until a guidance system can be added.

d is of course possible.

As RA said, e & f are too accurate for the period.

Germany's planning on fielding (as previously noted) the historical 15cm Nebelwerfer in the 1937-1938 time frame, but currently I have no plans to field the WGr.21 (barring a war, of course). Work is progressing on air-to-air rocketry (the RZ-65 is being developed, but will be as successful as it was historically), but I don't expect Germany to actually field any air-to-air rockets before 1941 or so. Air-to-ground rockets, barring a war, will probably not be fielded until 1942 or so.

The US is, in 1937, not overly interested in rocketry, though the historical 4.5" M8 rocket is being developed and will probably be tested in 1939 or so. It won't be very successful, but will point the way towards the 5" FFAR and the 5" HVAR, which would probably follow in 1941 & 1943 (barring a war to accelerate development).