Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Armor thickness question

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Jeffrey phpbb3, Feb 13, 2005.

  1. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Or in our case, think fighter aircraft. :roll:
    That bloomin' government white paper that stopped all work on aircraft because in the future, missiles will do everything. :roll: :angry:
     
  2. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Thats one of the problems when governments and generals are bought by technology firms and believe the hype.

    Sometimes I think the US defence industry is more powerful and more important that the US military.

    FNG
     
  3. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Governments and Generals are quite capable of making poor decisions on their own and without any help from the technology firms. The firms after all have no agenda beyond turning a profit for their stockholders (as it should be). They will gladly design and manufacture whatever the military is willing to issue a contract for. Do they hype their products over that of their competitors in order to gain these contracts? Absolutely. It's part of the process. A very successful process thus far. :wink:
     
  4. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Except where the army buys a duff product (compared to its rival product, obviously!) because of salesmanship.

    And do I need to mention the effective death of sales for a particular American aeroplane engine manufacturer after an accident (pilot error!) during a publicity photoshoot... :wink:

    And potentially bribes, but we won't go there! :grin:

    P.S: and yes, I am referring to all nations here
     
  5. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky wrote:

    There is always some element of salesmanship present however with fly-off competitions and such there is less chance of that being the deciding factor.


    What incident are you referring to? More details needed.


    Specifics?
     
  6. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    This:

    http://w1.rob.com/pix/oops-xb70

    The photoshoot was set up by General Electric - basically a bunch of different USAAF aircraft (including the new prototype XB-70 Valkyrie) with GE engines. A Starfighter flew into the back of the Valkyrie, and both crashed. After the acident, P&W became the chief supplier of jet engines for new USAAF planes.

    Or am I talking rubbish (I might be - this theory was one of those things I read somewhere :grin: - please present proof if you are going to rubbish it though...).

    As to corruption etc, again, this is a fairly commonly reported 'fact' (note inverted commas!!) about the armament industry... Unproven, I know. I personally remain undecided - hence my 'we won't go there' ccomment.

    But whatever, we are a lot better than 1930s Germany, where equipment was apparently occaisionally chosen/rejected on the basis of the friendships between politician & designer... :roll:
     
  7. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Rickey wrote:

    What is there to prove? GE got some bad press over the incident even though it wasn't their fault. I question your assertion that P&W became the chief supplier of USAF planes though..many USAF planes used and continued to use GE engines. F-4 Phantoms,F-15s(export version), F-16s(most versions), KC -135s, F-117s, B1s, B2s, C5As, 767 AWACs and more. Besides, it doesn't work that way, the USAF doesn't have a "chief supplier" contract with any one manufacturer. All manufacturers are invited to bid on most contracts.
    As long as they can meet the specs and the budgeted price they can compete for the contract.

    Unless one can point to facts we are left with speculation alone. If they are caught they go to jail (hopefully)


    Or the Soviet system where decisions where mandated from on high with no competition between designers/manufacturers.
     
  8. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, those that had GE kept GE. New planes did not. As far as I know (which is often a surprisingly short way... :oops: ). Maybe P&W were far & away better all of a sudden, I don't know. It does seem a little unlikely.

    Ok, badly phrased. I know that that is not the system. What I was trying to point out was that suddenly GE never won a contract, whereas before the 'incident' they hardly seemed to lose them...

    Again, I am very open to facts that prove the theory incorrect.

    And yes, I am thankful that we (us 'western' nations) do tend to have a system where at least some competition is allowed, and often the best product is bought because of it (although inevitably sometimes the cheapest product is bought... :grin: )
     
  9. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky wrote:

    I updated my list of planes using GE engines. Many postdate the B-70 incident by quite a while. B1, B2, F-117 and so on.


    See previous comment. Lots of GE engines used after that date.
    Not sure where you are getting your info?

    Provided they meet all the specified requirements the least expensive is the most desirable. Why would anyone think oterwise?
     
  10. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Then I am talking rubbish! :grin:

    The key is "Provided they met all the specified requirements".
    They don't always.

    A good example is the anti-flash suits issued to the RN in the early 1980s. The MoD bought ones made of synthetic fibre, as it was cheaper. Unfortunately, they tended to melt when exposed to heat, which is unfortunate for an anti-flash suit... :roll:
     
  11. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky wrote:

    Of course that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the process but instead with it's execution. If they don't measure up to the specs then they should be rejected.

    I hate to make it look like I'm being overly argumentative but I must point something out. The Nomex flight suit that I wore was the best available at the time (might still be) and it also melted if the temperature was high enough yet was considered excellent protection against flash fires. What you want is a material that will not begin to burn in a flash fire.
    No practical flight suit material will protect you from prolonged high temperatures.
     
  12. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, they melted in flash-hest situations, such as a missile strike.
    For an anti-flash suit, cotton is far better than most cheap synthetics.

    Have a read of the 'Falklands War' topic for more detail.
     
  13. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky wrote:

    Hmm I reread it and could only find one reference i.e melted coveralls on sailors.
    Dupont, the US military and many firefighting and industrial safety organizations still consider Nomex to be the best flame retardent material for the uses that it is intended for.

    I used the term melted in my earlier post however I was in error. I recall now that we were told that Nomex flightsuits would char if the temperature were high enough but not burn.

    Available literature states that Nomex will "not melt or drip" and the char temperature is 700-800 degrees.

    one link where it is mentioned:

    http://www.usarmyaviation.com/pubs/Aeromed/ape/Ape_HO.html

    ps I'm not sure which synthetic the British military was using..may not have been Nomex.
     
  14. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I doubt it...


    The point is that in theory equipment selection via competition is the best method.
    However, in practice it does not always work that way. Armies often get the equipment that generals/politicians want them to have, rather than what they need/want.

    In much the same way that most things are good in theory but not always so in practice. :wink:
     

Share This Page