Siberia
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 24 August 2012
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 97
Idea from another forum but when the Air Ministry goes through its phase of requesting bomber designs stressed for catapult-assisted take-offs in 1936 someone puts forward the idea rocket-assisted take-off gear (RATOG). It's accepted and after looking around at what other groups are experimenting with they choose high-test peroxide (HTP) and kerosene. Even after the questionability of catapults is recognised and cancelled, due to the project being small both in terms of finances and manpower, it's allowed to continue reflecting its possible utility and they create something similar to our timeline's de Havilland Sprite.
When surface-to-air missile (SAM) projects like Brakemine are initiated during WWII it uses a HTP/kerosene engine rather than a number of Unrotated Projectiles solid-propellant rocket motors. It works well enough that, here the project might need to be started earlier than in our timeline, a small number of successful test firings against enemy aircraft are carried out using experimental pre-production models towards the end of the war. During development the idea is shared with the people looking at the Artemis air-to-air missile (AAM) with it too seeing a couple of successful firings, possibly against V-1s, before the end of March 1945.
So what does the successful use of a very basic beam-riding SAM and semi-active radar homing (SARH) AAM do for British decisions on the future? Do we see an earlier and larger funding of experimental test vehicles by the likes of RAE to investigate the field? Related to this might the government decide to retain development of guided projectiles at government run 'arsenals', as IIRC a couple of civil servants argued for, rather than farming it out to industry? Does the success of liquid-fuelled weapons inadvertently push designs down the wrong design path versus solid-propellant?
Edit: One I forgot, if SARH guidance is being seriously looked at might that be reflected in aircraft specifications requiring decent-sized radar dishes?
When surface-to-air missile (SAM) projects like Brakemine are initiated during WWII it uses a HTP/kerosene engine rather than a number of Unrotated Projectiles solid-propellant rocket motors. It works well enough that, here the project might need to be started earlier than in our timeline, a small number of successful test firings against enemy aircraft are carried out using experimental pre-production models towards the end of the war. During development the idea is shared with the people looking at the Artemis air-to-air missile (AAM) with it too seeing a couple of successful firings, possibly against V-1s, before the end of March 1945.
So what does the successful use of a very basic beam-riding SAM and semi-active radar homing (SARH) AAM do for British decisions on the future? Do we see an earlier and larger funding of experimental test vehicles by the likes of RAE to investigate the field? Related to this might the government decide to retain development of guided projectiles at government run 'arsenals', as IIRC a couple of civil servants argued for, rather than farming it out to industry? Does the success of liquid-fuelled weapons inadvertently push designs down the wrong design path versus solid-propellant?
Edit: One I forgot, if SARH guidance is being seriously looked at might that be reflected in aircraft specifications requiring decent-sized radar dishes?
Last edited:
