GrahamS Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Interesting account of the development of Thor. Typical propaganda of the era but some nice Thunderbirds moments. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marty_hopkirk Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Nice find! As you say very jingoistic. Another one worth searching out is the Rank short 'Thunder in Waiting' which has some great 35mm colour footage of the RAFThor's. Although, it was very much a badging excercise as it was a US finger on the trigger. I would throughly recomend the books below, and they really demonstrate how the then US administration really manipulated the UK Government of the time. They clearly made no bones about selling the UK down the river if the need arose. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Project-Emily-Thor-IRBM-RAF/dp/0752446118/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398330043&sr=8-1&keywords=project+emily http://www.amazon.co.uk/Launch-Pad-UK-Britain-Missile/dp/1844157997/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398330139&sr=8-1&keywords=launch+pad+britain http://www.amazon.co.uk/Britain-Brink-Dangerous-Weekend-October/dp/1848848145/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=10MAMNRJSJC6HXCKHQT4 Marty... Edited April 24, 2014 by marty_hopkirk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Mc Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Verging on "politics" there I think the discussion can only be restricted to technical or modelling aspects of the programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasmahal Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Verging on "politics" there I think the discussion can only be restricted to technical or modelling aspects of the programme. Totally disagree.... The politics add to the history of the subject matter for many people. And to quote a famous quote: Aeronautical engineer Sir Sydney Camm said of the TSR-2: "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Mc Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Ask the mods and see what they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albeback52 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Verging on "politics" there I think the discussion can only be restricted to technical or modelling aspects of the programme. Respectfully, I disagree. The poster was not making a political statement. He was describing the content of the book.It was the author of the book that was possibly making a political statement Now, if someone was to (hypothetically) say in response to the books comment about the US administration " Well, nothing much has changed then has it" then that surely WOULD be a political statement ?. I'm all for keeping politics out of the discussion but, in this instance, I'm inclined to agree with Plasmahal. Let the moderators decide please. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marty_hopkirk Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) As the poster in question I wish to make it clear it was not a poltical statement and to be fair to the authors in question niether do they take a political stance - all three books, the authors have meticoulsy raked through the mainly declaissified archive and pieced a huge jigsaw puzzle together. It's all simply a matter of fact. Jim Wilson's book on the Cuban Missile Crisis is facinating, basically the British Government went into melt down and did not even follow it's own war book! As C-in-C of Bomber Command 'Bing' Cross commented afterwards "Everything from me down worked perfectly, everything upwards collapased". Had the worst happened it's highly likely a significant proportion of the V Force would have been caught on base because the politicains didn't follow due process and the RAF wouldn't have been able to pave the way in USAF. My father was a chiefy on a Vulcan squadron, he spoke very litlle a bout the period but did express his frustration at not being dispersed. There is also a growing consensus that the squadron ORB's from this period have been sanitised too. Marty... Edited April 26, 2014 by marty_hopkirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamS Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 ORB's ???? Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Operational Record Books. Or, if you prefer, the palantirs that they all were to use in the event of a breakdown in the mundane communications network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamS Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Operational Record Books. Or, if you prefer, the palantirs that they all were to use in the event of a breakdown in the mundane communications network. Thank you! Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Mc Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Respectfully, I disagree. The poster was not making a political statement. He was describing the content of the book.It was the author of the book that was possibly making a political statement Now, if someone was to (hypothetically) say in response to the books comment about the US administration " Well, nothing much has changed then has it" then that surely WOULD be a political statement ?. I'm all for keeping politics out of the discussion but, in this instance, I'm inclined to agree with Plasmahal. Let the moderators decide please. Allan It all gets a bit tricky. Perhaps the mods COULD clarify when a "political" comment is OK and when it is not. In the "other" thread that is more or less what I was trying to work out - as so much of these issues do contain a large political element (usually because these projects originate and fall on the whim of our political masters). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marty_hopkirk Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) Let's, get this back on track. I'm old enough to remember the Thor bases particulary the one at Coleby Grange and Bardney. Although, I was to young to realise out but now do with hindsight - they were far from hidden away and little if no attempt was made to camoflauge them. The Coleby Grange installtion was particulary visible Bardney less so. Therefore as targets they were extremely soft. An intresting article from the Mail about two of the extant bases. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218349/Two-UK-missile-sites-given-listed-status-50th-anniversary-Cuban-missile-crisis.html I find this a fascinating few years and I believe the only time that bona-fida fully operational land based 'rockets' have been on UK soil. Marty... Edited April 26, 2014 by marty_hopkirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Mc Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) Part of the deterrent effect was to make sure the enemy knew that the missiles were stationed in the UK - so camouflaging their location was probably not a high priority. The Thor was not really an effective ballistic missile - because of the type of propellants it used. Edited April 26, 2014 by Eric Mc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marty_hopkirk Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) Part of the deterrent effect was to make sure the enemy knew that the missiles were stationed in the UK - so camouflaging their location was probably not a high priority. The Thor was not really an effective ballistic missile - because of the type of propellants it used. According to the books that wasn't the reason - speed of installation and getting operational was the main driver as outlined in the video at the top of this thread. Thor was only ever meant as interim weapon and by the time it became serviceble the development of the first generation of ICBM were already at an advanced stage. One of the reasons it was withdrawn early was it was a soft target, with limited range circa 1500m if I recall correctly and as such it was not deemed a credible deterrant and probably never was and the books strongly hint at it being obsolete by the time it became serviceble. Your correct the fueling was a complicated affair, but it could be put on 15mins state of readiness. Whilst it's effectivness as an IRBM can be debated, it was an extremely succesful satelite launch system and that is what most of the so called 'RAF' Thors ended up doing and they were used well into the '70s. Marty... Edited April 26, 2014 by marty_hopkirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 with limited range circa 1500m I sincerely hope that's a typo! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Mc Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 One of the reasons why it took too long to get ready WAS due to the types of propellants and oxidisers they used- which were non-storable. It is the same reason why early ICBMs such as the Atlas or the Soviet R7 were not ideal as ICBMs. Rockets that need to be pumped full of liquid oxygen (the oxidiser) and alcohol or kerosene or liquid hydrogen or some other fuel cannot be fired at a a moment's notice. The cryogenic elements need to be stored separately and then pumped into the rocket as soon before launch as possible. This takes a number of hours at least. The Thor used liquid oxygen (as the oxidiser) and kerosene as the fuel. The solution, of course, was to either use liquid propellants which were storable (as in the Titan family) or use solid rocket propellant - as in the Minutemen and the various submarine based missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marty_hopkirk Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) One of the reasons why it took too long to get ready WAS due to the types of propellants and oxidisers they used- which were non-storable. It is the same reason why early ICBMs such as the Atlas or the Soviet R7 were not ideal as ICBMs. Rockets that need to be pumped full of liquid oxygen (the oxidiser) and alcohol or kerosene or liquid hydrogen or some other fuel cannot be fired at a a moment's notice. The cryogenic elements need to be stored separately and then pumped into the rocket as soon before launch as possible. This takes a number of hours at least. Correct, but they could bought to 15 mins readiness and held in that state for several hours, before they had to be stood down. They were brought to that state on Black Saturday during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It often thought the V Force could launch in minutes other than these machines on QRA, the V Force was held at 15 mins readiness too at times of tension too. However, during the Cuban Missile Crisis on the aforementioned Black Saturday crews were actually strapped in ready to go - getting five squadrons of Vulcans 'away' in double quick time at RAF Waddington would have been interesting, hence one of the reasons for dispersal, the other of course they would be harder to catch on the ground. Yep typo 1500nm. Marty... Edited April 26, 2014 by marty_hopkirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Mc Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Liquid fueled medium/long range rockets were perfected first - so they formed the first generation of IRBMs and ICBMs - but once the solid fueled rockets were ready, the liquid fueled ones were retired. Quite a few ended up being used as satellite launchers - for which they were far more suitable. The exception were the Titans, which used non-cryogenic liquids and could be stored fully fueled and ready for firing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albeback52 Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 It all gets a bit tricky. Perhaps the mods COULD clarify when a "political" comment is OK and when it is not. In the "other" thread that is more or less what I was trying to work out - as so much of these issues do contain a large political element (usually because these projects originate and fall on the whim of our political masters). Eric - I think you're absolutely right. It's well nigh impossible at times to decide what is or is not "political". What you or I might simply describe as an opinion might be described by someone else as political statement. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Mc Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 I am very careful now as I was more or less told to "like it or lump it" . The only problem was I wasn''t sure what "it" was. However, I don't particularly want to go back over the debate again. I'm limiting myself to technical and modelling comments now and will try to avoid any "political" statements - even if I'm not 100% sure what is meant by "political". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now