If the Ukrainians can mass assemble V-1's with current tech for nav/ target acquisition, how would that do against Russian targets. I understand they would still hear it coming but at low lovel, would that make it a nogo weapon? Pat

On 12/9/22 15:47, patrick wrote:
> If the Ukrainians can mass assemble V-1's with current tech for nav/ target acquisition, how would that do against Russian targets. I understand they would still hear it coming but at low lovel, would that make it a nogo weapon? Pat

Interesting.

from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb

"Unit cost 5,090 RM[1]"
"Warhead weight 850 kg (1,870 lb)"

"The RLM at first planned to use a radio control system
with the V-1 for precision attacks, but the government
decided instead to use the missile against London."

So, in their rage, they just chose to use it as
an area weapon.

Sue, it was cheap,,, modernize the guidance,
perhaps modernize the rest, and target navy
ships docked at Stevasopol.

See how good Russian Air Defense is ?

On 12/10/22 11:48, a425couple wrote:
> On 12/9/22 15:47, patrick wrote:
>> If the Ukrainians can mass assemble  V-1's with current tech for nav/
>> target acquisition, how would that do against Russian targets. I
>> understand they would still hear it coming but  at low lovel, would
>> that make it a nogo weapon? Pat
>
> Interesting.
>
> from
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
>
> "Unit cost    5,090 RM[1]"
> "Warhead weight    850 kg (1,870 lb)"
>
> "The RLM at first planned to use a radio control system
> with the V-1 for precision attacks, but the government
> decided instead to use the missile against London."
>
> So, in their rage, they just chose to use it as
> an area weapon.
>
> Sue, it was cheap,,, modernize the guidance,
> perhaps modernize the rest, and target navy
> ships docked at Stevasopol.
>
> See how good Russian Air Defense is ?
>

Distance from Odessa to Sevastopol is 303 kilometers.
This air travel distance is equal to 188 miles.
The air travel (bird fly) shortest distance between
Odessa and Sevastopol is 303 km= 188 miles.

The V-1 "Operational range 250 km (160 mi)"

On 09/12/2022 23:47, patrick wrote:
> If the Ukrainians can mass assemble V-1's with current tech for nav/ target acquisition, how would that do against Russian targets. I understand they would still hear it coming but at low lovel, would that make it a nogo weapon? Pat

Badly, most V2's could not get closer to a few miles from their targets.
They aleady have far better missiles such as ATACMS not to mention the
drones they used to attack Russian air bases recently.

Worse the V2 used liquid fuels and were very vulnerable, going back to a
70 year old weapons system would be a very bad idea.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:tn2u7j$1nqd9$1@dont-email.me...

On 09/12/2022 23:47, patrick wrote:
> If the Ukrainians can mass assemble V-1's with current tech for nav/
> target acquisition, how would that do against Russian targets. I
> understand they would still hear it coming but at low lovel, would that
> make it a nogo weapon? Pat

Badly, most V2's could not get closer to a few miles from their targets.
They aleady have far better missiles such as ATACMS not to mention the
drones they used to attack Russian air bases recently.

Worse the V2 used liquid fuels and were very vulnerable, going back to a
70 year old weapons system would be a very bad idea.

-----------------------

The Scud is an updated V2. Maybe Russia will have to fall back on them.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-world-still-fears-the-scud-missile-21094

As for the V1, if they modify them for the long range attack the West won't
provide, does Russia have enough WW2 warbirds left to hunt them down?

Ukraine can manufacture modern missiles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune

On 12/10/2022 12:04 PM, a425couple wrote:
> On 12/10/22 11:48, a425couple wrote:
>> On 12/9/22 15:47, patrick wrote:
>>> If the Ukrainians can mass assemble  V-1's with current tech for nav/
>>> target acquisition, how would that do against Russian targets. I
>>> understand they would still hear it coming but  at low lovel, would
>>> that make it a nogo weapon? Pat
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> from
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
>>
>> "Unit cost    5,090 RM[1]"
>> "Warhead weight    850 kg (1,870 lb)"
>>
>> "The RLM at first planned to use a radio control system
>> with the V-1 for precision attacks, but the government
>> decided instead to use the missile against London."
>>
>> So, in their rage, they just chose to use it as
>> an area weapon.
>>
>> Sue, it was cheap,,, modernize the guidance,
>> perhaps modernize the rest, and target navy
>> ships docked at Stevasopol.
>>
>> See how good Russian Air Defense is ?
>>
>
> Distance from Odessa to Sevastopol is 303 kilometers.
> This air travel distance is equal to 188 miles.
> The air travel (bird fly) shortest distance between
> Odessa and Sevastopol is 303 km= 188 miles.
>
> The V-1 "Operational range 250 km (160 mi)"
>

As Wernher Von Braun said in his autobiography:

"I aimed at the stars, but hit London."

On 10/12/2022 21:37, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> On 09/12/2022 23:47, patrick wrote:
>> If the Ukrainians can mass assemble  V-1's with current tech for nav/
>> target acquisition, how would that do against Russian targets. I
>> understand they would still hear it coming but  at low lovel, would
>> that make it a nogo weapon? Pat
>
>
> Badly, most V2's could not get closer to a few miles from their targets.
> They aleady have far better missiles such as ATACMS not to mention the
> drones they used to attack Russian air bases recently.
>
> Worse the V2 used liquid fuels and were very vulnerable, going back to a
> 70 year old weapons system would be a very bad idea.

Sorry I misread the original post. The V-1 would be even worse than the
V-2 albeit cheaper. In WW2 the RAF and Antiaircraft guns were able to
shoot down most of the V-1's aimed at London, it would be MUCH easier
today with modern radars and weapons. Given that there are better
weapons available off the shelp such as the Brimstone 2 missile which
reportedly has been sent to Ukraine by the British why would they bother ?

https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/brimstone/

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:tn74ea$27dqs$1@dont-email.me...

On 10/12/2022 21:37, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> On 09/12/2022 23:47, patrick wrote:
>> If the Ukrainians can mass assemble V-1's with current tech for nav/
>> target acquisition, how would that do against Russian targets. I
>> understand they would still hear it coming but at low lovel, would that
>> make it a nogo weapon? Pat
>
>
> Badly, most V2's could not get closer to a few miles from their targets.
> They aleady have far better missiles such as ATACMS not to mention the
> drones they used to attack Russian air bases recently.
>
> Worse the V2 used liquid fuels and were very vulnerable, going back to a
> 70 year old weapons system would be a very bad idea.

Sorry I misread the original post. The V-1 would be even worse than the
V-2 albeit cheaper. In WW2 the RAF and Antiaircraft guns were able to
shoot down most of the V-1's aimed at London, it would be MUCH easier
today with modern radars and weapons. Given that there are better
weapons available off the shelp such as the Brimstone 2 missile which
reportedly has been sent to Ukraine by the British why would they bother ?

https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/brimstone/

-------

A V1 is bent up from sheet steel and the only moving part in the engine is
the simple shutters, so perhaps if Ukraine became that desperate it could be
mass produced by HVAC shops in overwhelming volume to saturate the defenses,
the way GRADs play decoy for HIMARS, plus the air-breathing engine could
enable much greater range than a rocket, permitting attacks deep inside
Russia without involving NATO. Cheaper decoys with no warhead or precision
guidance, only a larger fuel tank, could distract the defenses and cause
fires where they crash. As with Nazi Germany it's a terror / vengeance
weapon for when there's nothing better left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsejet
There is another design that uses self-pressurized propane fuel expanding
through a multi stage venturi to pull in air, and has no moving parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2

On 12/12/2022 14:00, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw"  wrote in message news:tn74ea$27dqs$1@dont-email.me...
>
> On 10/12/2022 21:37, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> On 09/12/2022 23:47, patrick wrote:
>>> If the Ukrainians can mass assemble  V-1's with current tech for nav/
>>> target acquisition, how would that do against Russian targets. I
>>> understand they would still hear it coming but  at low lovel, would
>>> that make it a nogo weapon? Pat
>>
>>
>> Badly, most V2's could not get closer to a few miles from their
>> targets. They aleady have far better missiles such as ATACMS not to
>> mention the drones they used to attack Russian air bases recently.
>>
>> Worse the V2 used liquid fuels and were very vulnerable, going back to
>> a 70 year old weapons system would be a very bad idea.
>
>
> Sorry I misread the original post. The V-1 would be even worse than the
> V-2 albeit cheaper. In WW2 the RAF and Antiaircraft guns were able to
> shoot down most of the V-1's aimed at London, it would be MUCH easier
> today with modern radars and weapons. Given that there are better
> weapons available off the shelp such as the Brimstone 2 missile which
> reportedly has been sent to Ukraine by the British why would they bother ?
>
> https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/brimstone/
>
> -------
>
> A V1 is bent up from sheet steel and the only moving part in the engine
> is the simple shutters, so perhaps if Ukraine became that desperate it
> could be mass produced by HVAC shops in overwhelming volume to saturate
> the defenses, the way GRADs play decoy for HIMARS, plus the
> air-breathing engine could enable much greater range than a rocket,
> permitting attacks deep inside Russia without involving NATO. Cheaper
> decoys with no warhead or precision guidance, only a larger fuel tank,
> could distract the defenses and cause fires where they crash. As with
> Nazi Germany it's a terror / vengeance weapon for when there's nothing
> better left.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsejet
> There is another design that uses self-pressurized propane fuel
> expanding through a multi stage venturi to pull in air, and has no
> moving parts.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2
>

The State of the Art has moved on somewhat since 1950

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:tn8hj8$2b2m4$1@dont-email.me...

The State of the Art has moved on somewhat since 1950

------------------------

The Germany lost access to the State of the Art as war destroyed their
industry and denied them materials. Ukraine still has access to the West,
but not for long range cruise missiles to strike within Russia.

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/
"The final drive (gear teeth and bearing) was the weakest part of the
Panther. It was a risky proposition to use a spur gear system for
transferring the drive power – especially considering that the available
steel during the war did not have a particularly high stress tolerance. A
better solution would have been to use an epicyclic gear system; a prototype
final reduction drive using planetary gear reduction had already been tested
and had performed flawlessly. However, as mentioned previously, a shortage
of gear cutting machinery for the hollow gearing prevented this type of
final drive from being mass produced."

"All attempts to improve the final drive met with failure, despite the
offers of a special bonus as an incentive."

The only advantage of straight cut spur gears is that they can be made with
hand-sharpened cutters on the most basic general purpose machine tools, the
tech of the 1840's. I made a steering sector gear to repair an old tractor.
Stronger gear designs require complex specialized machinery to accurately
generate the correct involute tooth geometry.

Similarly the pulse jet doesn't require a difficult to make turbine.
These are 1940s-style jet engines:
https://www.minijetengine.com/
Inconel is about half nickel which was very scarce in wartime Germany.
jsw