Hitler's Stealth Fighter 582
DesScorp writes "Aviation Week reports on a television special from the National Geographic Channel on what may have been the world's first true stealth fighter, the Horten Ho 229, a wooden design that was to include a layer of carbon material sandwiched in the leading edge to defeat radar. Northrop Grumman, experts at stealth technology from their Tacit Blue and B-2 programs, have built a full-size replica of the airframe and tested it at their desert facilities where they determined that the design was indeed stealthy, and would have been practically invisible to Britain's Chain Home radar system of WWII."
Best Photos (Score:5, Informative)
The most interesting photos:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942_Hitlers_Stealth_Fighter-09_10240768.jpg [nationalgeographic.com]
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942_Hitlers_Stealth_Fighter-08_10240768.jpg [nationalgeographic.com]
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942_Hitlers_Stealth_Fighter-04_10240768.jpg [nationalgeographic.com]
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942_Hitlers_Stealth_Fighter-11_10240768.jpg [nationalgeographic.com]
Re:The German's are doing it. (Score:1, Informative)
Two major differences between this prototype plane and the P-51 (even the P-51D successor with the Rolls-Royce engine).
First and foremost, this German plane looks to be using jet propulsion. The P-51(D) used propeller. Second, the P-51 had a machine gun, making it a fighter plane. This German plane looks like it has no machine gun and would likely be used for espionage or bombing raids.
Re:Control surfaces? (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly. It is possible to build a flying wing type aircraft that is stable. They're generally not as easy to fly as more traditional designs, but it's possible. Also keep in mind that aircraft of that era flew much slower. Part of the difficulty with modern designs is with the insane speeds they can reach. The aerodynamics of very fast (ie. supersonic) craft are much different from slower craft.
Minor mistake in the heading (Score:3, Informative)
The Horton was a bomber, not a fighter. It was part of Hitlers 1000,1000,1000 goal. 1000kg of bombs 1000km at 1000km/hr.
Re:Another Example of German Technical Achievement (Score:5, Informative)
Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, it's the best explanation I read so far.
Re:The German's are doing it. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
It just took quite a few years for us to make a plane that looked like a Horton. :) Actually, there were quite a few developed and some manufactured [wikipedia.org]. They simply weren't as popular as "conventional" aircraft. I would suspect part would be due to the difference in manufacturing cost, and some to do with customer faith. "I know an airplane with wings and a tail can fly. Why should I believe something like that can?". Maybe the long gap in development of flying wing aircraft wasn't. It was just classified. What do you think they do at Area 51 (among other secret facilities), store alien bodies and reverse engineer wormhole technology? :)
I love aviation, and have been amazed with Horton's aircraft. There were several similar aircraft. I saw one in person at the Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles. There's a Horton Ho IIIf on display (hanging from the roof), part of a Horton Ho IIIh, and I found reference to a Horton Ho 229 being restored for display there. If I remember correctly, you'd go straight in the front door, and to the left behind the SR-71, but before the room with the Space Shuttle Enterprise. They have some beautiful aircraft there. It's worth the visit if you like aviation.
Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG (Score:5, Informative)
You are going on about the shape, which wasn't even claimed to be for stealthiness. The claimed stealth feature was the layer of carbon material sandwiched into the leading edge of the plane to reduce its radar signature. Thus, it was the first plane to incorporate design features specifically for stealth. Nothing you said even addresses that. Whether stealth was considered of secondary importance, or whether all the components were designed for stealth, is irrelevant.
Re:Shame we didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam (Score:4, Informative)
To be fair, the utterly stupid and ridiculous rules of engagement forced on US forces by the civilian leadership for most of the war prevented them from doing anything against those air defense sites except in reaction to being fired upon. It's kinda like fighting while handcuffed.
Also, the German technology was mostly serindipitous. Radar cross-section is much more a function of airframe shaping than materials; it just happened that flying wings tended to be better-shaped than traditional aircraft. But all of this was a trial-and-error process. We learned some from this, and incorporated those lessons into the B-70 proposal and the SR-71. However, it wasn't until the F-117 program (and its contemporaries) came along that we had
A. The theoretical base on which to reliably compute radar reflections (ironically enough, most of that was developed by the Soviets and seemed to be largely ignored by them for a while).
B. The computational power to work out reflections over even a simple faceted shape.
C. The control technology to make such shapes flyable.
And even then, the result was a flat-faceted, ungainly monstrosity. It took a little longer before we could compute reflections of curved surfaces, and develop something like the B-2.
"Superiority" required reading at West Point! (Score:5, Informative)
There was a short story written by Arthur C. Clarke titled "Superiority" that discussed this. Of course, it being science fiction, the weapons were very interesting (matter annihilators, space distortion systems). Also, since it was written (in the 50s?) some of the vocabulary is quaint (I think the term "torpedoes" refer to what we would call missiles).
Still I didn't know (according to Wikipedia) that it was (once?) required reading at West Point! (For those not from the U.S., that is one of the premiere military academies).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story) [wikipedia.org]
Re:If it were only in the leading edge (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, ICBMs are pretty predictable, but, as the grandparent points out, intercepting something coming in at near-orbital velocity is hard even when you know where its going to be. And, of course, this is ignoring MIRVs, decoys, etc.
Re:Best Photos (Score:5, Informative)
Mostly because you've bought into the hype surrounding WWII German VunderVeapons. In reality, Germany never had an atom bomb (they weren't even close), let alone a plane capable of delivering it over strategic distances (they weren't even close), let alone a plan to use these non existent bombs and aircraft to attack New York. Sure, they had enough bits and pieces that with enough hype and lack of journalistic integrity one could create the illusion of such things for entertainment value... But such entertainment should not be confused with a documentary.
Re:You know what the fellow said - (Score:2, Informative)
i am sorry what? 500 years?
until the end of the 15th century the eidgenossenschaft was fighting the habsburg, throughout the 16th and 17th century there was religous civil war all over switzerland. at the end of the 17th century france essentially conquered switzerland and started the helvetic republic. the last fights on swiss territory were in 1847 and there is only democracy since the 19th century.
Re:If it were only in the leading edge (Score:1, Informative)
I believe the B-70 bomber worked on that principle. Designed in the late 1950's to fly Mach 3 at 75,000 feet, it would have been tough even for modern SAMs to engage -- no matter how far out they could see it on radar. Nobody knows for sure if it would have worked in battle.
The problem was that the Soviet SAMs would outnumber the B-70 by a wide margin. A 10% kill ratio for each SAM would be almost certainly fatal to the B-70 when 15 were launched.
The SR-71 was somewhat stealthy, but mostly just fast (even faster/higher than the B-70). Although some were lost in accidents, there were many flights over enemy territory and no claims of any aircraft shot down. To this day, there are rumors of a super-secret replacement. After all, the Air Force was not likely to simply retire the plane and abandon that kind of speed/altitude capability. For all we know, the fast/high strategy remains in effect to this day.
Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd (Score:3, Informative)
And Stalin was possibly doing the same. I've heard the hypothesis that Germanys initial success during the invasion was partly due to catching the Soviet Union while they were preparing for attacking instead of maintaining a defensive position.
Re:The Germans build nice stuff... (Score:3, Informative)
Speer was of course a liar about many things.
Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd (Score:5, Informative)
No, he lost because he over extended himself into Russia.
No weapon at the time wold have stopped the russians once the begain moving toward Germany.
How is this News? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone familiar with WWII and aviation history knows about this. The U.S. also had a stealth flying wing bomber. The idea was patented in 1910, and by early 30's was being kicked around for stealth usage. Basically stealth aircraft designs where around before radar, or at least developed alongside radar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing [wikipedia.org]
Re:Best Photos (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, no. The Blitzkrieg was dead by 1943. Alas, it couldn't function well without air superiority. Which the Germans didn't have anywhere after 1942.
Guderian wrote a book on Panzer warfare in the early 30's. It included a really insightful table listing engine production by the major powers, which Guderian considered to be the most obvious metric by which one could assess a nation's ability to fight effectively using AFVs properly.
He made the point that, at that time, Germany was comparable to its hypothetical enemies (UK, France, USSR, Germany, all had about 5% of the world's engine production at that time). But he also pointed out that the USA made 75% of the engines in the world....
Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd (Score:3, Informative)
Had Germany won the Battle of Britain that year and not invaded the USSR, then in all probability Europe would still be in the hands of the Third Reich.
Germany never had much chance of invading Britain. Even if Germany had continued bombing British airfields, the British airforce was pretty evenly matched against the Luftwaffe, and had all the homefield advantages in terms of fuel and being able to parachute out onto friendly soil. The main problem the British had was not loss of equipment, but loss of skilled pilots; however, this was also a problem for the Luftwaffe.
If the Luftwaffe had somehow succeeded, the Germans still needed to get a large number of men across a heavily mined and defended channel, and they didn't have the equipment to do that. D-Day was tricky enough for the Allies to pull off, and they had a much better navy and more coastline to land on. For Operation Sealion to be a success, Germany would have to pull off a much more ambitious feat against Britain.
And how would he have won the BoB? (Score:1, Informative)
Germany could not win the battle of britain. German fighter aircraft had to little action time over britian and then only over the coast. 15 minutes over london is NOT a long time, when on all sides you are being attacked by british fighters who can land anywhere, bailout anywhere and be back in the air in hours.
Even if germany had air dominication over the chanel, that would hardly have helped with the HUGE british navy, which outgunned the german navy many times. Worse, britain could keep its warships out of air range until the crossing would attempted by which time the invasion would be attacked by everything the brits could throw at it.
People underestimate how many resources it took for the allied landings and those landings were only possible because the fast majority of axis forces were occupied in the east. Britain, or rather the british empire could spend all, would have had no choice to, its resources on defending itself. Every fighter that came of the production line went straight up. Every anti-aircraft gun, ever round of amunition had just one destination. The defence of britain.
No, the battle of britain was only really about morale and about how damaged britain would become. Its occupation was never a risk. Operation Sea Lion would have been sunk in the channel even with total air domination.
What really happened (Score:3, Informative)
The flying wing was a hugely unstable design [wikipedia.org]. The sole Ho IX V2 crashed on 18 February 1945, after only two hours of flight time. On 5 June 1948, Northrop's YB-49 (their second attempt to build a flying wing after the B-35 was cancelled due to insurmountable technical issues) crashed, killing its pilot and co-pilot Daniel Forbes and Glen Edwards, for whom Forbes and Edwards airforce bases are named.
There were indeed technical issues with Northrop's flying wing designs, but they were in no way considered insurmountable. Northrop's wings were killed by the USAF not on technical merits, but from political scheming. The Air Force wanted Northrop to merge with Convair, and Jack Northrop refused. As punishment, his wing designs were canceled and the prototypes ordered destroyed, and in a particularly petty and sadistic twist, Northrop employees were made to watch as USAF officials literally took buzzsaws to the YB-49 prototypes. The intent was to send a message to Jack Northrop... go along to get along, or else.
Young Air Force officers that were involved were ashamed of the whole affair, and as they became older (and reached General Officer ranks) became advocates of Northrop's old flying wing designs. Its been reported that when some of these now-older officers showed Jack Northrop a model of the then-secret B-2 flying wing design in 1979, Northrop wept. It took 30 years, but he'd finally been vindicated.
Here's a copy of a Los Angeles Times interview with Northrop in 1980 [nurflugel.com], where he revealed what really happened. Aviation Journalists like Bill Sweetman (as well as many NASA engineers and Wright-Pat and Edwards test people) had heard rumors of what really happened to the YB-49 back in the 70's.
Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd (Score:3, Informative)
The Germans had their own scientists (including the brilliant Werner Heisenberg [wikipedia.org]) working on an atomic-energy project. They never developed an actual bomb, though historians are split as to whether that was because of lack of resources, mismanagement/wasting time and effort on research dead-ends, or active sabotage by the German scientists involved.
Thomas Powers' book Heisenberg's War [amazon.com] is a fascinating history of the German atomic project.
Re:Best Photos (Score:3, Informative)
Don't see the Russians short. Their tanks may not have been as technically advanced as the Germans' were, but they were designed for the terrain where the battles were taking place (snow, cold, mud pits) and they were easier to repair and manufacture. I think that if we looked at what happened in these battles, you wouldn't see the lopsided a result you're claiming.
Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd (Score:3, Informative)
In his book The Origins of the Second World War [amazon.com] historian A.J.P. Taylor argued that the British didn't particularly want to fight for Poland; or, at least, their leaders didn't. But they were painted into a corner by decisions they'd made in response to earlier crises.
British Prime Minister Chamberlain believed that he had "appeased [wikipedia.org]" Hitler at the Munich Conference [wikipedia.org] by giving him part of Czechoslovakia, but Hitler went on to then conquer the rest of that country anyway. This left Chamberlain convinced that appeasement had been a failure and a hard line was needed against Germany to prevent further aggression.
As part of that new hard line, the British issued a guarantee of Poland's independence [wikipedia.org]. This treaty set forth that any aggressive act against Poland by any power would trigger a declaration of war on that power by Great Britain.
The British thought this would deter Hitler from moving on Poland, but it didn't; and the British were then confronted with the fact that if they ignored or disavowed the guarantee, the reliability of all their other treaty obligations would be called into question. So the British ended up in a war they didn't want on behalf of a country they could do nothing to protect.
Re:Best Photos (Score:3, Informative)
Stalingrad happened in the winter of 1942-43. USA was in the war by then.
In addition, Roosevelt had bent our neutrality laws out of shape before the USA entered the war, to the point that we were supplying both the UK and USSR with material long before we started shooting.
And note that Hitler had no real hope of invading England successfully. Examine the force required to invade France sometime. It's fairly safe to assume that the Germans would have required at least that much force to invade the UK (at least, since the Luftwaffe was not designed to provide the level of aerial support that we used, nor was the Kriegsmarine capable of providing the firesupport we provided with our Navy (much less what the Royal Navy brought to the Table for D-Day)), and there is no way in hell they could have built the ships required, much less the rest of it, unless they'd started in the early 30's.
Finally, it must be noted that lack of "guts" isn't why we didn't enter the war earlier. Lack if interest in what was, essentially, yet another European war was the issue. The assumption that the USA should have cared about border re-alignments in Europe for their own sake is just silly....
Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd (Score:3, Informative)
Erm. The Germans did come up with planes like the Fw-190, the Ta-152 and even the Me-262 (although that one was too late to make a difference). Also, the Bf-109K is a rather different plane than the Bf-109E used in the Battle of Britain.
In terms of performance, the comparatively fewer German types could hold their own against the Allies until early 1944. After that, the sheer numerical advantage of the Allies began to tell, and after losing much of their basing capacity, the Germans were basically forced to revert to just-in-time interceptions from bases in Germany. Which, aside from the numerical inferiority, also left them at a distinct tactical disadvantage, as they had to climb up to the fight. The few times they did manage to get a Geschwader up before the Allies arrived, they still managed to hit the Allied bomber streams hard.
Mart
Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd (Score:3, Informative)
In one on one combat against the Tigers they were almost useless - until the Tiger broke down or got stuck somewhere.
Shermans got the nickname "the Ronson Lighter" because they would light up at the first strike. There were tales of Shermans firing at a Tiger at short range only to see the shell bounce off.
Sheer weight of numbers did win in the end though - and the fact they could be field repaired.