Originally Posted by
Sepp
What interests me more is whether it is likely that the CAGE code - which indicates that the manufacturer was Lufthansa - is sensible, or a random choice made by someone who was trying to make it look different to the example found earlier without understanding the system in use? (The earlier example points to Raytheon, which is eminently sensible.)
A "missile" is a complex assembly; guidance is produced by a guidance sub-contractor, motor by a rocket specialist, and so on. Not unreasonable to think that the aerodynamic surfaces are sourced from an aero-structure specialist; foreign or domestic. The CAGE Code relates to a Lufthansa Technical facility specialising in composite repair of aerospace components. In my view not unreasonable that they might be a repairer or even sub-sub-contractor in the manufacture of missile parts, or that they would not necessarily wish to publicise such a relationship.
Going back a year or two, but as a technician on the mighty Toom, I was surprised to learn that the some of the ordnance carriage and release equipment was manufactured by Cessna.