Post on 15-Mar-2018
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the Publisher and / or Author.
30 – Vol. 95 Register online at www.ATIcourses.com or call ATI at 888.501.2100 or 410.956.8805
What You Will Learn• Key drivers in the missile design process.• Critical tradeoffs, methods and technologies in
subsystems, aerodynamic, propulsion, and structuresizing.
• Launch platform-missile integration.• Robustness, lethality, accuracy, observables,
survivability, reliability, and cost considerations.• Missile sizing examples.• Missile development process.
Who Should AttendThe course is oriented toward the needs of missile
engineers, analysts, marketing personnel, programmanagers, university professors, and others working inthe area of missile analysts, marketing personnel andtechnology development. Attendees will gain anunderstanding of missile design, missile technologies,launch platform integration, missile system measuresof merit, and the missile system development process.
January 12-14, 2009Laurel, Maryland
April 13-15, 2009Beltsville, Maryland
$1590 (8:30am - 4:00pm)
"Register 3 or More & Receive $10000 eachOff The Course Tuition."
Course Outline1. Introduction/Key Drivers in the Design Process.
Overview of missile design process. Unique characteristics oftactical missiles. Key aerodynamic configuration sizingparameters. Missile conceptual design synthesis process.Projected capability in C4ISR.
2. Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical MissileDesign. Optimizing missile aerodynamics. Missileconfiguration layout (body, wing, tail) options. Selecting flightcontrol alternatives. Wing and tail sizing. Predicting normalforce, drag, pitching moment, and hinge moment.
3. Propulsion Considerations. Turbojet, ramjet,scramjet, ducted rocket, and rocket propulsion comparisons.Turbojet engine design considerations. Selecting ramjetengine, booster, and inlet alternatives. High density fuels.Effective thrust magnitude control. Reducing propellant andturbojet observables. Rocket motor prediction and sizing.Ramjet engine prediction and sizing. Motor case and nozzlematerials.
4. Weight Considerations. Structural design criteriafactor of safety. Structure concepts and manufacturingprocesses. Selecting airframe materials. Loads prediction.Weight prediction. Motor case design. Aerodynamic heatingprediction and insulation trades. Dome material alternatives.Power supply and actuator alternatives.
5. Flight Trajectory Considerations. Aerodynamicsizing-equations of motion. Maximizing flight performance.Benefits of flight trajectory shaping. Flight performanceprediction of boost, climb, cruise, coast, ballistic, maneuvering,and homing flight.
6. Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration.Achieving robustness in adverse weather. Seeker, data link,and sensor alternatives. Counter-countermeasures. Warheadalternatives and lethality prediction. Alternative guidance laws.Proportional guidance accuracy prediction. Time constantcontributors and prediction. Maneuverability design criteria.Radar cross section and infrared signature prediction.Survivability considerations. Cost drivers of schedule, weight,learning curve, and parts count. Designing within launchplatform constraints. Storage, carriage, launch, and separationenvironment. Internal vs. external carriage.
7. Sizing Examples and Sizing Tools. Trade-offs forextended range rocket. Sizing for enhanced maneuverability.Ramjet missile sizing for range robustness. Turbojet missilesizing for maximum range. Computer aided sizing tools forconceptual design. Soda straw rocket design, build, and fly.House of quality process. Design of experiment process.
8. Development Process. Design validation/technologydevelopment process. New missile follow-on projections.Examples of development facilities. New technologies fortactical missiles.
9. Summary and Lessons Learned.
Tactical Missile Design
SummaryThis three-day short course covers the fundamentals
of tactical missile design. The course provides asystem-level, integrated method for missileaerodynamic configuration/propulsion design andanalysis. It addresses the broadrange of alternatives in meetingcost and performancerequirements. The methodspresented are generally simpleclosed-form analyticalexpressions that are physics-based, to provide insight into theprimary driving parameters.Configuration sizing examples arepresented for rocket-powered,ramjet-powered, and turbo-jetpowered baseline missiles.Typical values of missileparameters and the characteristics of currentoperational missiles are discussed as well as theenabling subsystems and technologies for tacticalmissiles and the current/projected state-of-the-art.Videos illustrate missile development activities andmissile performance. Finally, each attendee will design,build, and fly a small air powered rocket. Attendees willvote on the relative emphasis of the material to bepresented. Attendees receive course notes as well asthe textbook, Tactical Missile Design, 2nd edition.
InstructorEugene L. Fleeman has more than 40 years of
government, industry, and academiaexperience in missile system andtechnology development. Formerly amanager of missile programs at GeorgiaTech, Boeing, Rockwell International,and Air Force Research Laboratory, heis an internationally known lecturer on
missiles and the author of over seventy publicationsincluding the AIAA textbook Tactical Missile Design.
www.ATIcourses.com
Boost Your Skills with On-Site Courses Tailored to Your Needs The Applied Technology Institute specializes in training programs for technical professionals. Our courses keep you current in the state-of-the-art technology that is essential to keep your company on the cutting edge in today’s highly competitive marketplace. Since 1984, ATI has earned the trust of training departments nationwide, and has presented on-site training at the major Navy, Air Force and NASA centers, and for a large number of contractors. Our training increases effectiveness and productivity. Learn from the proven best. For a Free On-Site Quote Visit Us At: http://www.ATIcourses.com/free_onsite_quote.asp For Our Current Public Course Schedule Go To: http://www.ATIcourses.com/schedule.htm
3/3/2009 ELF 2
OutlineOutline
Introduction / Key Drivers in the Missile Design - Integration Process Aerodynamic Considerations in Missile Design - Integration Propulsion Considerations in Missile Design - Integration Weight Considerations in Missile Design - Integration Flight Performance Considerations in Missile Design - Integration Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration Sizing Examples Missile Development Process Summary and Lessons Learned References and Communication Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises, Example of
Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms, Conversion Factors, Syllabus )
Missile Design Should Be Conducted in a System-of-Systems Context
Missile Design Should Be Conducted in a System-of-Systems Context
3/3/2009 ELF 3
Example: Typical US Carrier Strike Group Complementary Missile Launch Platforms / Load-out
Air-to-Surface: JASSM, SLAM, Harpoon, JSOW, JDAM, Maverick, HARM, GBU-10, GBU-5, Penguin, Hellfire
Air-to-Air: AMRAAM, Sparrow, Sidewinder
Surface-to-Air: SM-3, SM-2, Sea Sparrow, RAM
Surface-to-Surface: Tomahawk, Harpoon
Pareto Effect: Only a Few ParametersDrive the Design
Pareto Effect: Only a Few ParametersDrive the Design
3/3/2009 ELF 4
Example: •Rocket Baseline: Launch @ Altitude = 20k ft, Mach Number = 0.7; Terminate @ Flight Range = 9.5 nm ( Mach Number = 1.5 )•Top Four Parameters Drive 85% of Maximum Flight Range Sensitivity
Example: Rocket Baseline Missile ( Sparrow ) Maximum Flight Range
3/3/2009 ELF 5
Missile Synthesis Is a Creative Process That Requires Evaluation of Alternatives and Iteration
Missile Synthesis Is a Creative Process That Requires Evaluation of Alternatives and Iteration
Yes
Define Mission Requirements
Establish Baseline
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Weight
Trajectory
MeetPerformance?
Measures of Merit and ConstraintsNo
No
Yes
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Alt Mission
Alt Baseline
Canard Control Tail Control / TVC
3/3/2009 ELF 6
Stinger FIM-92 Grouse SA-18 Grison SA-19 ( two stage ) Gopher SA-13
Starburst Mistral Kegler AS-12 Archer AA-11
Gauntlet SA-15 Magic R550 Python 4 U-Darter
Python 5 Derby / R-Darter Gimlet SA-16 Sidewinder AIM-9X
ASRAAM AIM-132 Grumble SA-10 / N-6 Patriot MIM-104 Starstreak
Gladiator SA-12 PAC-3 Roland ( two stage ) Crotale
Hellfire AGM-114 ATACM MGM-140 Standard Missile 3 ( three stage ) THAAD
Most Supersonic Missiles Are WinglessMost Supersonic Missiles Are Wingless
Permission of Missile Index. Copyright 1997©Missile.Index All Rights Reserved
JASSM Apache Taurus
CALCM Naval Strike Missile Tomahawk
Harpoon ANAM / Gabriel 5
Subsonic Cruise Missiles HaveRelatively Large Wings
Subsonic Cruise Missiles HaveRelatively Large Wings
3/3/2009 ELF 7Permission of Missile Index.
3/3/2009 ELF 8
Wing, Tail, and Canard Panel Geometry Trade-offWing, Tail, and Canard Panel Geometry Trade-off
ParameterVariation xAC
yCP ( Bending / Friction )Supersonic DragRCSSpan ConstraintStability & ControlAeroelastic Stab. = Taper ratio = ctip / crootA = Aspect ratio = b2 / S = 2 b / [( 1 + ) croot ]yCP = Outboard center-of-pressure = ( b / 6 ) ( 1 + 2 ) / ( 1 + )cMAC = Mean aerodynamic chord = ( 2 / 3 ) croot ( 1 + + 2 ) / ( 1 + )
Note: Superior Good Average Poor
Based on equal surface area and equal span. Surface area often has more impact than geometry.
–
–
–
–
–
–
Triangle
( Delta )Aft Swept LE
Trapezoid
Double
Swept LEBow Tie Rectangle–
–
ctip
croot
cMACyCP
b / 2
3/3/2009 ELF 9
United KingdomSea Dart GWS-30 Meteor
FranceASMP ANS
RussiaAS-17 / Kh-31 Kh-41 SS-N-22 / 3M80
SA-6 SS-N-19 SS-N-26China
C-101 C-301Taiwan
Hsiung Feng IIIIndia
BrahMos
Examples of Inlets for Current Supersonic Air-Breathing Missiles
Examples of Inlets for Current Supersonic Air-Breathing Missiles
• Aft inlets have lower inlet volume and do not degrade lethality of forward located warhead.• Nose Inlet may have higher flow capture, pressure recovery, smaller carriage envelope, and lower drag.
3/3/2009 ELF 10
Example Web Cross Section Geometry / Volumetric Loading
~ 82% ~95% ~90%
End Burner Radial Slotted Tube~ 79%
~ 87%
~ 85%
~ 85%
Conventional Solid Rocket Thrust-Time Design Alternatives - Propellant Cross Section GeometryConventional Solid Rocket Thrust-Time Design
Alternatives - Propellant Cross Section Geometry
Thru
st ( lb
)Burning Time ( s )
ConstantThrust
RegressiveThrust
ProgressiveThrust
Boost-Sustain
Boost-Sustain-Boost
Burning Time ( s )
Burning Time ( s )
Burning Time ( s )
Burning Time ( s )
Thru
st ( lb
)Th
rust
( lb )
Thru
st ( lb
)Th
rust
( lb )
Medium Burn Rate Propellant
High Burn Rate PropellantNote: High thrust and chamber pressure require large surface burn area.
Example Mission• Cruise
•Dive at constant dynamic pressure
•Climb at constant dynamic pressure
•Fast launch – cruise
•Fast launch – cruise – high speed terminal
Thrust Profile
Extrusion Production of Star Web Propellant. Photo Courtesy of BAE.
3/3/2009 ELF 11
Missile Weight Is Driven by Body Volume ( i.e., Diameter and Length )
Missile Weight Is Driven by Body Volume ( i.e., Diameter and Length )
10
100
1000
10000
100 1000 10000 100000 1000000ld2, Missile Length x Diameter2, in3
WL,
Mis
sile
Lau
nch
Wei
ght,
lb
FIM-92 SA-14 Javelin RBS-70 Starstreak Mistral HOT Trigat LRLOCAAS AGM-114 Roland RIM-116 Crotale AIM-132 AIM-9M Magic 2Mica AA-11 Python 3 AIM-120C AA-12 Skyflash Aspide AIM-9PSuper 530F Super 530D AGM-65G PAC-3 AS-12 AGM-88 Penguin III AIM-54CArmat Sea Dart Sea Eagle Kormoran II AS34 AGM-84H MIM-23F ANSMM40 AGM-142 AGM-86C SA-10 BGM-109C MGM-140 SSN-22 Kh-41
WL = 0.04 l d2
Units: WL( lb ), l ( in ), d ( in )
Example for Rocket Baseline:l = 144 ind = 8 inWL = 0.04 ( 144 ) ( 8 )2 = 0.04 ( 9216 ) = 369 lb
3/3/2009 ELF 12
Strength – Elasticity ofAirframe Material Alternatives
Strength – Elasticity ofAirframe Material Alternatives
Aluminum Alloy ( 2219-T81 )
400
300
200
100
0
t, Tensile Stress,103 psi
0 1 2 3 4 5, Strain, 10-2 in / in
Titanium Alloy ( Ti-6Al-4V )
Very High Strength Stainless Steel( PH 15-7 Mo, CH 900 )
S-Glass Fiberw / o Matrix
Kevlar Fiberw / o Matrix
Carbon Fiberw / o Matrix( 400 – 800 Kpsi )
E, Young’s modulus of elasticity, psiP, Load, lb, Strain, in / inA, Area, in2
Room temperature
Note:• High strength fibers are:
– Very small diameter– Unidirectional– High modulus of
elasticity– Very elastic– No yield before failure– Non forgiving failure
• Metals:– More ductile, yield s
before failure– Allow adjacent structure
to absorb load– Resist crack formation– Resist impact loads– More forgiving failure
t = P / A = E
High Strength Stainless Steel( PH 15-7 Mo, TH 1050 )
3/3/2009 ELF 13
Bulk Ceramics• Melt• ~ 0.20 lbm / in3
• Zirconium Ceramic, Hafnium Ceramic
Graphites• Burn• ~ 0.08 lbm / in3
• Carbon / Carbon
Tmax, MaxTemperatureCapability,
R
4,000
3,000
2,000
00 1 2 3 4
Insulation Efficiency, Minutes To Reach 300 °F at Back Wall
1,000
6,000
5,000
Note: Assumed Weight Per Unit Area of Insulator / Ablator = 1 lb / ft2
Porous Ceramics• Melt• Resin Impregnated• ~ 0.12 lbm / in3
• Carbon-Silicon Carbide
Medium Density Phenolic Composites
• Char• ~ 0.06 lbm / in3
• Nylon Phenolic, Silica Phenolic, Glass Phenolic, Carbon Phenolic, Graphite Phenolic
Low DensityComposites• Char• ~ 0.03 lbm / in3
• Micro-Quartz Paint, Glass-Cork-Epoxy, Carbon -Silicone Rubber, Kevlar-EDPM
Plastics• Sublime• Depolymerizing• ~ 0.06 lbm / in3
• Teflon
Composites Are Good Insulators for High Temperature Structure and Propulsion ( cont )
Composites Are Good Insulators for High Temperature Structure and Propulsion ( cont )
3/3/2009 ELF 14
Examples of Aerodynamic Hot SpotsExamples of Aerodynamic Hot SpotsNose Tip
Leading Edge
Flare
Video of Radiometric Imagery – SM-3 FlightNotional Missile Aero Heating
3/3/2009 ELF 15
3-DOF Simplified Equations of Motion Show Drivers for Configuration Sizing
3-DOF Simplified Equations of Motion Show Drivers for Configuration Sizing
y .. y α
.. q SRef d Cm + q SRef d Cm
( W / gc ) . SRef V CN / 2 + SRef V CN
/ 2 + ( T sin ) / V – ( W / V ) cos
( W / gc ) V. T - CA SRef q - CN
2 SRef q - W sin
+ Normal Force
<< 1 rad
W
+ Moment V
+ Thrust
+ Axial Force
Note: Based on aerodynamic control
Configuration Sizing ImplicationHigh Control Effectiveness Cm
> Cm, Iy small
( W small ), q large
Large / Fast Heading Change CN large, Wsmall, large ( low alt ), V large, T / V large
High Speed / Long Range Total Impulse large, CA small, q small
3/3/2009 ELF 16
High Missile Velocity and Target Lead Required to Intercept High Speed Crossing Target
High Missile Velocity and Target Lead Required to Intercept High Speed Crossing Target
VM / VT
4
3
2
00 10 20 30 40 50
L, Lead Angle, Deg
1
A = 90°
A = 45°
Note:Constant BearingVM = Missile VelocityVT = Target VelocityA = Target AspectL = Missile Lead Angle Seeker Gimbal
VM sin L = VT sin A, Constant Bearing ( L = const ) Trajectory
Example:L = 30 degA = 45 degVM / VT = sin ( 45 ) / sin ( 30 ) = 1.42
VM VTL A
3/3/2009 ELF 17
A Radar Seeker / Sensor Is More Robust in Adverse Weather
A Radar Seeker / Sensor Is More Robust in Adverse Weather
3 cm 3 mm 0.3 mm 30 µm 3.0 µm
Increasing WavelengthIncreasing Frequency
Source: Klein, L.A., Millimeter-Wave and Infrared Multisensor Design and Signal Processing, Artech House, Boston, 1997
0.3 µm
Note:EO attenuation through cloud @ 0.1 g / m3 and 100 m visibilityEO attenuation through rain @ 4 mm / hHumidity @ 7.5 g / m3
Millimeter wave and microwave attenuation through cloud @ 0.1 gm / m3 or rain @ 4 mm / h
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
ATTE
NU
ATIO
N (d
B / k
m)
100 1 THz 10 100 1000INFRAREDSUBMILLIMETER
10 GHz MILLIMETER VISIBLE
H2O
O2, H2O
H2O
H2O
O2
O2
CO2
CO2
H2O
H2O, CO2
20° C1 ATM
Attenuation by absorption, scattering, and reflection
EO sensors are ineffective through cloud cover
Clouds have greater effect on attenuation than “greenhouse gases”, such as H2O and CO2
Radar sensors have good to superior performance through cloud cover and rain
RADARX Ku K Ka Q V W Very Long Long Mid Short
H2O
O3
3/3/2009 ELF 18
An Imaging Sensor Enhances Target Acquisition / Discrimination
An Imaging Sensor Enhances Target Acquisition / Discrimination
Imaging LADAR Imaging Infrared SAR
Passive Imaging mmW Video of Imaging Infrared Video of SAR Physics
3/3/2009 ELF 19
GPS / INS Allows Robust Seeker Lock-on in Adverse Weather and Clutter
GPS / INS Allows Robust Seeker Lock-on in Adverse Weather and Clutter
480 P
ixels
640 Pixels ( 300 m )
Target Image
175 m
44 m88 m
Note: = Target Aim Point and Seeker Tracking Gate, GPS / INS Accuracy = 3 m, Seeker 640 x 480 Image, Seeker FOV = 20 deg, Proportional Guidance Navigation Ratio = 4, Velocity = 300 m / s, G&C Time Constant = 0.2 s.
Seeker Lock-on @ 250 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.14 m )3 m GPS / INS error nMreq
= 1.76 g, < 0.1 m
Seeker Lock-on @ 850 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.47 m )3 m GPS / INS error nMreq
= 0.15 g, < 0.1 mSeeker Lock-on @ 500 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.27 m )3 m GPS / INS error nMreq
= 0.44 g, < 0.1 m
Seeker Lock-on @ 125 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.07 m ) 3 m GPS / INS error nMreq
= 7.04 g, = 0.2 m
3/3/2009 ELF 20
TBM / TELs
OilRefineries
Naval
Armor
Transportation ChokePoints ( Bridges,Railroad Yards, TruckParks )
Counter AirAircraft
C3II
Artillery
Air Defense ( SAMs,AAA )
Examples of Targets where Size and Hardness Drive Warhead Design / Technology
•Small Size, Hard Target: Tank Small Shaped Charge, EFP, or KE Warhead
•Deeply Buried Hard Target: Bunker Long KE / Blast Frag Warhead
•Large Size Target: Building Large Blast Frag Warhead
LethalityRobustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
Carriage and Launch
Observables
Other Survivability
Considerations
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform Integration / Firepower
Video Examples of Precision Strike Targets / Missiles
Example of Precision Strike Target Set
A Target Set Varies in Size and HardnessA Target Set Varies in Size and Hardness
3/3/2009 ELF 21
Accurate Guidance Enhances LethalityAccurate Guidance Enhances Lethality
Video of AIM-7 Sparrow Warhead ( Aircraft Targets )
Rocket Baseline Warhead ( 77.7 lb, C / M = 1 ), Spherical Blast / Fragment Pattern, h = 20k ft, Typical Aircraft Target
AIM-7 Sparrow 77.7 lb blast / frag warheadTypical Aircraft Target VulnerabilityPK > 0.5 if < 5 ft ( p > 330 psi, fragments impact energy > 130k ft-lb / ft2 )PK > 0.1 if < 25 ft ( p > 24 psi, fragments impact energy > 5k ft-lb / ft2 )
3/3/2009 ELF 22
Accurate Guidance Enhances Lethality ( cont )Accurate Guidance Enhances Lethality ( cont )
Hellfire 24 lb shaped charge warhead …………………………..
2.4 m witness
plate
Roland 9 kg warhead: multi-projectiles from preformed case………………
Guided MLRS 180 lb blast fragmentation warhead Video: BILL, Roland, Hellfire, and Guided
MLRS warheads
BILL- Two 1.5 kg EFP warheads ….
3/3/2009 ELF 23
1. Homing Active / Passive Seeker Guidance
2. Homing Semi-Active Seeker Guidance
3. Command Guidance
Active Seeker Transmitted Energy
Target Reflected / Emitted Energy
Target Reflected Energy
Rear-looking Sensor Detects Fire Control System Energy
Examples of Terminal Guidance LawsExamples of Terminal Guidance Laws
Seeker
Semi-Active Seeker
Fire Control System Tracks Target
Fire Control System Tracks Target, Tracks Missile, and Command Guides Missile
Launch / Midcourse Guidance
Miss DistanceRobustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
ObservablesSurvivability
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform Integration / Firepower
3/3/2009 ELF 24
A Collision Intercept Has Constant Bearing for a Constant Velocity, Non-maneuvering Target
A Collision Intercept Has Constant Bearing for a Constant Velocity, Non-maneuvering Target
Example of Miss( Line-of-Sight Angle Diverging )
( Line-of-Sight Angle Rate L. 0 )
Example of Collision Intercept( Line-of-Sight Angle Constant )
( Line-of-Sight Angle Rate L. = 0 )
Overshoot Miss
Missile Target
Seeker Line-of-Sight
( LOS )1 > ( LOS )0 ( LOS )1 = ( LOS )0
Missile Target
t0
t1
t2
t0
t1
Seeker Line-of-Sight
Note: L = Missile LeadA = Target Aspect
AL L A
3/3/2009 ELF 25
Center Weapon Bay Best for Ejection Launchers
F-22 Semi-Bay Load-out: 2 SDB, 1 AIM-120C F-117 Bay Load-out: 1 GBU-27, 1 GBU-10 B-1 Single Bay Load-out: 8 GBU-31
Video Side Weapon Bay Best for Rail Launchers
F-22 Carriage ( AMRAAM / JDAM / AIM-9 ) F-22 Side Bay: 1 AIM-9 in Each Side Bay RAH-66 Side Bay: 1 AGM-114, 2 FIM-92, 4 Hydra 70 in Each Side Bay
Examples of Weapon Bay Internal Carriage and Load-out
Examples of Weapon Bay Internal Carriage and Load-out
3/3/2009 ELF 26
Minimum Smoke Propellant HasLow Launch Plume ObservablesMinimum Smoke Propellant HasLow Launch Plume Observables
High Smoke Example: AIM-7Particles ( e.g., metal fuel oxide ) at all atmosphere temperature.
Reduced Smoke Example: AIM-120Contrail ( HCl from AP oxidizer ) at T < -10° F atmospheric temperature.
Minimum Smoke Example: JavelinContrail ( H2O ) at T < -35º F atmospheric temperature.
High Smoke Motor
Reduced Smoke Motor
Minimum Smoke Motor
3/3/2009 ELF 27
Examples of Alternative Approaches for Precision Strike Missile Survivability
Examples of Alternative Approaches for Precision Strike Missile Survivability
1. Low Observables, High Altitude Cruise, High Speed
3. Low Altitude Terrain Masking / Clutter
4. High g Terminal Maneuvering
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
ObservablesSurvivability
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform Integration / Firepower
Other Survivability Considerations
2. Mission Planning / Threat Avoidance / Lateral Offset Flight
Video of Tomahawk Using Terrain Following
Examples of Survivability Configured MissilesExamples of Survivability Configured Missiles
3/3/2009 ELF 28
SS-N-22 Sunburn ( Ramjet Propulsion )
NSM ( Faceted Dome, Roll Dome with Inlet Top or Bottom, Swept Surfaces, Body Chines, Composite Structure )
High Speed
Low RCS
SS-N-27 Sizzler ( Supersonic Rocket Penetrator after Subsonic Turbojet Flyout )
JASSM ( Flush Inlet, Window Dome, Swept Surfaces, Trapezoidal Body, Composite Structure )
3/3/2009 ELF 29
High System Reliability Provided by Few Events, High Subsystem Reliability and Low Parts CountHigh System Reliability Provided by Few Events, High Subsystem Reliability and Low Parts Count
Example Video of Weapon System with Many Events: Sensor Fuzed Weapon ( SFW )
Rsystem .RSubsystem1 X RSubsystem2 X …Example: Rsystem RArm X RLaunch X RStruct X RAuto X RAct X RSeeker X RIn Guid X RPS X RProp X RFuze X RW/H 0.94
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
ObservablesSurvivability
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform Integration / Firepower
Reliability
Note: Typical max reliabilityTypical min reliability
3/3/2009 ELF 30
EMD Cost Is Driven by Schedule Duration and Risk
EMD Cost Is Driven by Schedule Duration and Risk
Note: EMD required schedule duration depends upon risk. Should not ignore risk in shorter schedule.-- Source of data: Nicholas, T. and Rossi, R., “U.S. Missile Data Book, 1999,” Data Search Associates, 1999– EMD cost based on 1999 US$
CEMD = $20,000,000 tEMD1.90, ( tEMD in years )
Example:5 year ( medium risk ) EMD programCEMD = $20,000,000 tEMD1.90
= ( 20,000,000 ) ( 5 )1.90
= $426,000,000
LowRiskEMD
D
HighRiskEMD
ModerateRiskEMD
3/3/2009 ELF 31
Learning Curve and Large Production Reduce Unit Production Cost
Learning Curve and Large Production Reduce Unit Production Cost
0.01
0.1
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1E+06x, Number of Units Produced
Cx /
C1st
, Cos
t of U
nit x
/ Co
st o
f Firs
t Uni
t
Javelin ( L = 0.764, C1st = $3.15M,Y1 = 1994 )Longbow HF ( L = 0.761, C1st =$4.31M, Y1 = 1996 )AMRAAM ( L = 0.738, C1st =$30.5M, Y1 = 1987 )MLRS ( L = 0.811, C1st = $0.139M,Y1 = 1980 )HARM ( L = 0.786, C1st = $9.73M,Y1 = 1981 )JSOW ( L = 0.812, C1st = $2.98M,Y1 = 1997 )Tomahawk ( L = 0.817, C1st =$13.0M, Y1 = 1980 )
Cx = C1st Llog2x, C2x = L Cx , where C in U.S. 99$
Source of data: Nicholas, T. and Rossi, R., “U.S. Missile Data Book, 1999,” Data Search Associates, 1999
Labor intensive learning curve: L < 0.8Machine intensive learning curve: L > 0.8 )Contributors to the learning curve include:
• More efficient labor• Reduced scrap• Improved processes• New missile components fraction
Example:For a learning curve coefficient of L = 80%, cost of unit #1000 is 11% the cost of the first unit
L = 1.0
L = 0.9
L = 0.8
L = 0.7
3/3/2009 ELF 32
Missile Carriage Size, Shape, and Weight Limits May Be Driven by Launch Platform CompatibilityMissile Carriage Size, Shape, and Weight Limits May Be Driven by Launch Platform Compatibility
Surface Ships
CLS
~24” x 24”
263” 3400 lb
263” 3400 lb
~168”~500 lb to 3000 lb
~ 22” ~ 22”
Fighters /Bombers / Large UCAVs
Rail /Ejection
VLS
Submarines
Launch Platform Integration / Firepower
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
ObservablesSurvivability
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform Integration / Firepower
22 “
Ground Vehicles 158” 3700 lb
Helos / Small UCAVs
Launch Pods
Helo Rail,UCAV Rail / Ejection
US Launch Platform Launcher Carriage Span / Shape Length Weight
13” x 13” 70” 120 lb
~ 28” ~ 28”
Tanks Gun Barrel120 mm
40” 60 lb
3/3/2009 ELF 33
Store Compatibility Wind Tunnel Tests Are Required for Aircraft Launch Platforms
Store Compatibility Wind Tunnel Tests Are Required for Aircraft Launch Platforms
F-18 Store Compatibility Test in AEDC 16T AV-8 Store Compatibility Test in AEDC 4T
Types of Wind Tunnel Testing for Store Compatibility- Flow field mapping with probe- Flow field mapping with store- Captive trajectory simulation- Drop testing
- Carriage LoadsExample Stores with Flow Field Interaction: Kh-41 + AA-10
3/3/2009 ELF 34
Baseline AIM-120B AMRAAM
Compressed Carriage AIM-120C AMRAAM ( Reduced Span Wing / Tail )
Compressed Carriage Missiles Provide Higher Firepower
Compressed Carriage Missiles Provide Higher Firepower
17.5 in 17.5 in
12.5 in 12.5 in 12.5 in
Baseline AMRAAM: Load-out of 2 AIM-120B per F-22 Semi-Bay
Compressed Carriage AMRAAM: Load-out of 3 AIM-120C per F-22 Semi-Bay
Note: Alternative approaches to compressed carriage include surfaces with small span, folded surfaces, wrap around surfaces, and planar surfaces that extend ( e.g., switch blade, Diamond Back, Longshot ).
Video of Longshot Kit on CBU-87 / CEB
3/3/2009 ELF 35
Robustness Is Required for Storage, Shipping, and Launch Platform Carriage Environment
Robustness Is Required for Storage, Shipping, and Launch Platform Carriage Environment
Environmental Parameter Typical Requirement Video: Ground / Sea EnvironmentSurface Temperature -60° F* to 160° FSurface Humidity 5% to 100%Rain Rate 120 mm / h**Surface Wind 100 km / h steady***
150 km / h gusts****Salt fog 3 g / mm2 deposited per yearVibration 10 g rms at 1,000 Hz: MIL STD 810, 648, 1670A Shock Drop height 0.5 m, half sine wave 100 g / 10 ms: MIL STD 810, 1670AAcoustic 160 dB
Note: MIL-HDBK-310 and earlier MIL-STD-210B suggest 1% world-wide climatic extreme typical requirement.
* Lowest recorded temperature = -90° F. 20% probability temperature lower than -60° F during worst month / location.
** Highest recorded rain rate = 436 mm / h. 0.5% probability greater than 120 mm / h during worst month / location.
*** Highest recorded steady wind = 342 km / h. 1% probability greater than 100 km / h during worst month / location.
**** Highest recorded gust = 378 km / h. 1% probability greater than 150 km / h during worst month of worst location.
Typical external air carriage maximum hours less for aircraft ( 100 h ) than for helicopter ( 1000 h ).
3/3/2009 ELF 36
1 - Customer Requirements2 – Customer Importance Rating ( Total = 10 )3 – Design Characteristics4 – Design Characteristics Importance Rating ( Total = 10 )5 – Design Characteristics Sensitivity Matrix 6 – Design Characteristics Weighted Importance7 – Design Characteristics Relative Importance
House of Quality Translates Customer Requirements into Engineering Emphasis
House of Quality Translates Customer Requirements into Engineering Emphasis
Flight RangeWeightCost
523
7 2 14 1 5
1 2 7
46 = 5 x 7 + 2 x 4 + 3 x 1 18 = 5 x 2 + 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 36 = 5 x 1 + 2 x 5 + 3 x 7
1 3 2
-
Note on Design Characteristics Sensitivity Matrix: ( Room 5 ):++ Strong Synergy+ Synergy0 Near Neutral Synergy- Anti-Synergy- - Strong Anti-Synergy
Note: Based on House of Quality, inside chamber length most important design parameter.
0
-
Body ( Material, Chamber Length )
Tail ( Material, Number, Area, Geometry )
Nose Plug ( Material, Length )
3/3/2009 ELF 37
Research Technology Acquisition
Relationship of Design Maturity to the US Research, Technology, and Acquisition Process
Relationship of Design Maturity to the US Research, Technology, and Acquisition Process
BasicResearch
ExploratoryDevelopment
AdvancedDevelopment
Demonstration & Validation
Engineering and
Manufacturing Development
Production
~ $0.1B ~ $0.9B~ $0.3B ~ $0.5B ~ $1.0B ~ $6.1B ~ $1.2B
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5
SystemUpgrades
TechnologyDevelopment
~ 10 Years
TechnologyDemonstration
~ 8 Years
PrototypeDemonstration
~ 4 Years
Full ScaleDevelopment
~ 5 Years
Limited~ 2 Years
1-3 BlockUpgrades
~ 5-15 Years
First Block
~ 5 Years
ProductionNote:Total US DoD Research and Technology for Tactical Missiles $1.8 Billion per yearTotal US DoD Acquisition ( EMD + Production + Upgrades ) for Tactical Missiles $8.3 Billion per yearTactical Missiles 11% of U.S. DoD RT&A budgetUS Industry IR&D typically similar to US DoD 6.2 and 6.3A
Maturity Level Conceptual Design Preliminary Design Detail Design Production DesignDrawings ( type ) < 10 ( subsystems ) < 100 ( components ) > 100 ( parts ) > 1000 ( parts )
3/3/2009 ELF 38
US Tactical Missile Follow-On Programs Occur about Every 24 Years
US Tactical Missile Follow-On Programs Occur about Every 24 Years
Year Entering EMD
AIM-9X ( maneuverability ), 1996 - Hughes
AIM-120 ( autonomous, speed, range, weight ), 1981 - Hughes
Long Range ATS, AGM-86, 1973 - Boeing AGM-129 ( RCS ), 1983 - General Dynamics
PAC-3 (accuracy), 1992 - Lockheed MartinLong Range STA, MIM-104, 1966 - Raytheon
1950 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 > 2000
AGM-88 ( speed, range ), 1983 - TI
Man-portable STS, M-47, 1970 - McDonnell Douglas
Anti-radar ATS, AGM-45, 1961 - TI
Short Range ATA, AIM-9, 1949 - Raytheon
Javelin ( gunner survivability, lethality, weight ), 1989 - TI
Medium Range ATA, AIM-7,1951 - Raytheon
Medium Range ATS, AGM-130, 1983 - Rockwell JASSM ( cost, range, observables ), 1999 - LM
Hypersonic Missile, > 2009
Hypersonic Missile > 2009
Long Range STS, BGM-109, 1972 - General Dynamics Hypersonic Missile > 2009
3/3/2009 ELF 39
Missile Design Validation / Technology Development Is an Integrated ProcessMissile Design Validation / Technology Development Is an Integrated Process
•Rocket Static•Turbojet Static•Ramjet Tests–Direct Connect–Freejet Structure Tests
•Static•Vibration
HardwareIn-Loop
Simulation
Ballistic Tests
Lab Tests
Seeker
Actuators / Initiators
Sensors
Propulsion Model
Aero Model
Model Digital Simulation
Wind TunnelTests
Propulsion
Airframe
Guidanceand Control
Power Supply
Warhead
EnvironmentTests•Vibration•Temperature
Sled Tests
IM Tests
IM Tests
Flight Test Progression ( Captive Carry, Jettison, Separation, Guided Unpowered Flights, Guided Powered Flights, Guided Live Warhead Flights )Lab Tests
TowerTests
Autopilot / Electronics
Witness / Arena Tests
3/3/2009 ELF 40
Conduct Balanced, Unbiased Trade-offsConduct Balanced, Unbiased Trade-offs
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Structures
Seeker
Guidance andControl
Warhead – Fuze
Production