Tactical Missile Design
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Tactical Missile Design

on

  • 11,391 views

This is a self-contained three-day short course on the fundamentals of tactical missile design. It provides a system-level, integrated method for missile aerodynamic configuration/propulsion design ...

This is a self-contained three-day short course on the fundamentals of tactical missile design. It provides a system-level, integrated method for missile aerodynamic configuration/propulsion design and analysis and addresses the broad range of alternatives in meeting cost and performance requirements. The methods presented are generally simple closed-form analytical expressions that are physics-based, to provide insight into the primary driving parameters. Configuration sizing examples are presented for rocket-powered, ramjet-powered, and turbojet-powered baseline missiles. Typical values of missile parameters and the characteristics of current operational missiles are discussed, as well as the enabling subsystems and technologies for tactical missiles, the development process, and the current/projected state-of-the-art. The attendees will vote on the relative emphasis of the topics. Over thirty videos illustrate missile development activities and missile performance. Finally, each attendee may design, build, and fly an air-powered rocket that illustrates some of the course design methods.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
11,391
Views on SlideShare
11,354
Embed Views
37

Actions

Likes
4
Downloads
651
Comments
1

2 Embeds 37

http://www.slideshare.net 36
https://twitter.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • perfect one
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Tactical Missile Design Tactical Missile Design Presentation Transcript

  • Professional Development Short Course On: Tactical Missile Design - Integration Instructor: Eugene L. Fleeman http://www.ATIcourses.com/schedule.htm ATI Course Schedule: http://www.aticourses.com/tactical_missile_design.htm ATI's Tactical Missile Design: 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. 349 Berkshire Drive • Riva, Maryland 21140 888-501-2100 • 410-956-8805 Website: www.ATIcourses.com • Email: ATI@ATIcourses.com
  • Tactical Missile Design January 12-14, 2009 Laurel, Maryland April 13-15, 2009 Beltsville, Maryland $1590 Summary (8:30am - 4:00pm) This three-day short course covers the fundamentals quot;Register 3 or More & Receive $10000 each of tactical missile design. The course provides a Off The Course Tuition.quot; system-level, integrated method for missile aerodynamic configuration/propulsion design and analysis. It addresses the broad range of alternatives in meeting cost and performance requirements. The methods presented are generally simple closed-form analytical expressions that are physics- based, to provide insight into the primary driving parameters. Configuration sizing examples are Course Outline presented for rocket-powered, ramjet-powered, and turbo-jet 1. Introduction/Key Drivers in the Design Process. powered baseline missiles. Overview of missile design process. Unique characteristics of Typical values of missile tactical missiles. Key aerodynamic configuration sizing parameters and the characteristics of current parameters. Missile conceptual design synthesis process. operational missiles are discussed as well as the Projected capability in C4ISR. enabling subsystems and technologies for tactical 2. Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile missiles and the current/projected state-of-the-art. Design. Optimizing missile aerodynamics. Missile Videos illustrate missile development activities and configuration layout (body, wing, tail) options. Selecting flight missile performance. Finally, each attendee will design, control alternatives. Wing and tail sizing. Predicting normal build, and fly a small air powered rocket. Attendees will force, drag, pitching moment, and hinge moment. vote on the relative emphasis of the material to be 3. Propulsion Considerations. Turbojet, ramjet, presented. Attendees receive course notes as well as scramjet, ducted rocket, and rocket propulsion comparisons. the textbook, Tactical Missile Design, 2nd edition. Turbojet engine design considerations. Selecting ramjet engine, booster, and inlet alternatives. High density fuels. Effective thrust magnitude control. Reducing propellant and Instructor turbojet observables. Rocket motor prediction and sizing. Ramjet engine prediction and sizing. Motor case and nozzle Eugene L. Fleeman has more than 40 years of materials. government, industry, and academia experience in missile system and 4. Weight Considerations. Structural design criteria factor of safety. Structure concepts and manufacturing technology development. Formerly a processes. Selecting airframe materials. Loads prediction. manager of missile programs at Georgia Weight prediction. Motor case design. Aerodynamic heating Tech, Boeing, Rockwell International, prediction and insulation trades. Dome material alternatives. and Air Force Research Laboratory, he Power supply and actuator alternatives. is an internationally known lecturer on 5. Flight Trajectory Considerations. Aerodynamic missiles and the author of over seventy publications sizing-equations of motion. Maximizing flight performance. including the AIAA textbook Tactical Missile Design. Benefits of flight trajectory shaping. Flight performance prediction of boost, climb, cruise, coast, ballistic, maneuvering, and homing flight. What You Will Learn 6. Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration. • Key drivers in the missile design process. Achieving robustness in adverse weather. Seeker, data link, • Critical tradeoffs, methods and technologies in and sensor alternatives. Counter-countermeasures. Warhead subsystems, aerodynamic, propulsion, and structure alternatives and lethality prediction. Alternative guidance laws. sizing. Proportional guidance accuracy prediction. Time constant contributors and prediction. Maneuverability design criteria. • Launch platform-missile integration. Radar cross section and infrared signature prediction. • Robustness, lethality, accuracy, observables, Survivability considerations. Cost drivers of schedule, weight, survivability, reliability, and cost considerations. learning curve, and parts count. Designing within launch • Missile sizing examples. platform constraints. Storage, carriage, launch, and separation • Missile development process. environment. Internal vs. external carriage. 7. Sizing Examples and Sizing Tools. Trade-offs for extended range rocket. Sizing for enhanced maneuverability. Who Should Attend Ramjet missile sizing for range robustness. Turbojet missile The course is oriented toward the needs of missile sizing for maximum range. Computer aided sizing tools for engineers, analysts, marketing personnel, program conceptual design. Soda straw rocket design, build, and fly. managers, university professors, and others working in House of quality process. Design of experiment process. the area of missile analysts, marketing personnel and 8. Development Process. Design validation/technology technology development. Attendees will gain an development process. New missile follow-on projections. understanding of missile design, missile technologies, Examples of development facilities. New technologies for launch platform integration, missile system measures tactical missiles. of merit, and the missile system development process. 9. Summary and Lessons Learned. Register online at www.ATIcourses.com or call ATI at 888.501.2100 or 410.956.8805 30 – Vol. 95
  • www.ATIcourses.com Boost Your Skills 349 Berkshire Drive Riva, Maryland 21140 with On-Site Courses Telephone 1-888-501-2100 / (410) 965-8805 Tailored to Your Needs Fax (410) 956-5785 Email: ATI@ATIcourses.com 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
  • Outline 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 ) 3/3/2009 ELF 2
  • Missile Design Should Be Conducted in a System-of-Systems Context Example: Typical US Carrier Strike Group Complementary Missile Launch Platforms / Load-out JASSM, SLAM, Harpoon, JSOW, JDAM, Maverick, HARM, GBU-10, GBU-5, Penguin, Hellfire Air-to-Surface: AMRAAM, Sparrow, Sidewinder Air-to-Air: SM-3, SM-2, Sea Sparrow, RAM Surface-to-Air: Tomahawk, Harpoon Surface-to-Surface: 3/3/2009 ELF 3
  • Pareto Effect: Only a Few Parameters Drive the Design Example: Rocket Baseline Missile ( Sparrow ) Maximum Flight Range 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 3/3/2009 ELF 4
  • Missile Synthesis Is a Creative Process That Requires Evaluation of Alternatives and Iteration Define Mission Requirements Alt Mission Establish Baseline Alt Baseline Aerodynamics Propulsion Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech Weight Trajectory Meet No Performance? Yes No Measures of Merit and Constraints Yes 3/3/2009 ELF 5
  • Most Supersonic Missiles Are Wingless 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 Canard Control Tail Control / TVC 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 Permission of Missile Index. Copyright 1997©Missile.Index All Rights Reserved 3/3/2009 ELF 6
  • Subsonic Cruise Missiles Have Relatively Large Wings JASSM Apache Taurus CALCM Naval Strike Missile Tomahawk Harpoon ANAM / Gabriel 5 Permission of Missile Index. 7 3/3/2009 ELF
  • Wing, Tail, and Canard Panel Geometry Trade-off ctip cMAC b/2 yCP croot Double Triangle Aft Swept LE Rectangle Swept LE ( Delta ) Bow Tie Parameter Trapezoid Variation xAC – yCP ( Bending / Friction ) – – Supersonic Drag – RCS – Span Constraint – Stability & Control Aeroelastic Stab. – Note: Superior Good Average Poor  = Taper ratio = ctip / croot A = Aspect ratio = b2 / S = 2 b / [( 1 +  ) croot ] – yCP = Outboard center-of-pressure = ( b / 6 ) ( 1 + 2  ) / ( 1 +  ) Based on equal surface area and equal span. cMAC = Mean aerodynamic chord = ( 2 / 3 ) croot ( 1 +  +  ) / ( 1 +  ) 2 Surface area often has more impact than geometry. 3/3/2009 ELF 8
  • Examples of Inlets for Current Supersonic Air-Breathing Missiles United Kingdom Sea Dart GWS-30 Meteor France ASMP ANS Russia AS-17 / Kh-31 Kh-41 SS-N-22 / 3M80 SA-6 SS-N-19 SS-N-26 China C-101 C-301 Taiwan Hsiung Feng III India BrahMos • 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 9
  • Conventional Solid Rocket Thrust-Time Design Alternatives - Propellant Cross Section Geometry Example Mission Thrust Profile Example Web Cross Section Geometry / Volumetric Loading • Cruise Thrust ( lb ) Thrust ( lb ) Constant ~ 82% ~95% ~90% Thrust Burning Time ( s ) End Burner Radial Slotted Tube •Dive at  ~ 79% constant Regressive dynamic Thrust pressure Burning Time ( s ) •Climb at  Thrust ( lb ) Thrust ( lb ) ~ 87% constant Progressive dynamic Thrust pressure Burning Time ( s ) •Fast launch – Extrusion Production of Star Web  cruise ~ 85% Propellant. Photo Courtesy of BAE. Boost-Sustain Burning Time ( s ) •Fast launch – Thrust ( lb ) Boost-Sustain-Boost  cruise – high ~ 85% speed terminal Medium Burn Rate Propellant Burning Time ( s ) Note: High thrust and chamber pressure require large surface burn area. High Burn Rate Propellant 3/3/2009 ELF 10
  • Missile Weight Is Driven by Body Volume ( i.e., Diameter and Length ) WL = 0.04 l d2 10000 Units: WL( lb ), l ( in ), d ( in ) WL, Missile Launch Weight, lb 1000 Example for Rocket Baseline: 100 l = 144 in d = 8 in WL = 0.04 ( 144 ) ( 8 )2 = 0.04 ( 9216 ) = 369 lb 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 ld2, Missile Length x Diameter2, in3 FIM-92 SA-14 Javelin RBS-70 Starstreak Mistral HOT Trigat LR LOCAAS AGM-114 Roland RIM-116 Crotale AIM-132 AIM-9M Magic 2 Mica AA-11 Python 3 AIM-120C AA-12 Skyflash Aspide AIM-9P Super 530F Super 530D AGM-65G PAC-3 AS-12 AGM-88 Penguin III AIM-54C Armat Sea Dart Sea Eagle Kormoran II AS34 AGM-84H MIM-23F ANS MM40 AGM-142 AGM-86C SA-10 BGM-109C MGM-140 SSN-22 Kh-41 3/3/2009 ELF 11
  • Strength – Elasticity of Airframe Material Alternatives t = P / A = E  Kevlar Fiber S-Glass Fiber Note: w / o Matrix w / o Matrix • High strength fibers are: 400 – Very small diameter Carbon Fiber – Unidirectional w / o Matrix – High modulus of ( 400 – 800 Kpsi ) elasticity 300 – Very elastic – No yield before failure Very High Strength Stainless Steel t, Tensile Stress, – Non forgiving failure ( PH 15-7 Mo, CH 900 ) 103 psi • Metals: High Strength Stainless Steel 200 – More ductile, yield s ( PH 15-7 Mo, TH 1050 ) before failure – Allow adjacent structure Titanium Alloy ( Ti-6Al-4V ) to absorb load – Resist crack formation 100 – Resist impact loads Aluminum Alloy ( 2219-T81 ) – More forgiving failure E, Young’s modulus of elasticity, psi 0 P, Load, lb 0 1 2 3 4 5 , Strain, in / in A, Area, in2 , Strain, 10-2 in / in Room temperature 3/3/2009 ELF 12
  • Composites Are Good Insulators for High Temperature Structure and Propulsion ( cont ) Graphites 6,000 • Burn Medium Density Phenolic •  ~ 0.08 lbm / in3 Composites • Carbon / Carbon • Char 5,000 •  ~ 0.06 lbm / in3 Bulk Ceramics • Nylon Phenolic, Silica • Melt •  ~ 0.20 lbm / in Phenolic, Glass 3 4,000 • Zirconium Ceramic, Phenolic, Carbon Hafnium Ceramic Phenolic, Graphite Tmax, Max Phenolic Porous Ceramics Low Density • Melt Temperature 3,000 Composites • Resin Impregnated Capability, •  ~ 0.12 lbm / in3 • Char •  ~ 0.03 lbm / in3 • Carbon-Silicon R Carbide • Micro-Quartz 2,000 Paint, Glass- Cork-Epoxy, Plastics Carbon - • Sublime Silicone Rubber, • Depolymerizing 1,000 Kevlar-EDPM •  ~ 0.06 lbm / in3 • Teflon 0 0 1 2 3 4 Insulation Efficiency, Minutes To Reach 300 °F at Back Wall Assumed Weight Per Unit Area of Insulator / Ablator = 1 lb / ft2 Note: 3/3/2009 ELF 13
  • Examples of Aerodynamic Hot Spots Nose Tip Leading Edge Flare Notional Missile Aero Heating Video of Radiometric Imagery – SM-3 Flight 3/3/2009 ELF 14
  • 3-DOF Simplified Equations of Motion Show Drivers for Configuration Sizing + Normal Force + Thrust  << 1 rad V + Moment   W  + Axial Force Configuration Sizing Implication .. .. High Control Effectiveness  Cm > Cm, Iy small y   y α  q SRef d Cm  + q SRef d Cm  ( W small ), q large . Large / Fast Heading Change  CN large, W ( W / gc )   SRef  V CN  / 2 + SRef  V CN  / 2 + small,  large ( low alt ), V large, T / V large ( T sin  ) / V – ( W / V ) cos  . High Speed / Long Range  Total Impulse large, ( W / gc ) V  T - CA SRef q - CN 2 SRef q - W sin  CA small, q small Note: Based on aerodynamic control 3/3/2009 ELF 15
  • High Missile Velocity and Target Lead Required to Intercept High Speed Crossing Target VM sin L = VT sin A, Constant Bearing ( L = const ) Trajectory 4 VM VT LA Note: 3 Constant Bearing VM = Missile Velocity VM / VT VT = Target Velocity A = Target Aspect L = Missile Lead Angle 2 Seeker Gimbal A = 90° Example: A = 45° 1 L = 30 deg A = 45 deg VM / VT = sin ( 45 ) / sin ( 30 ) = 1.42 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 L, Lead Angle, Deg 3/3/2009 ELF 16
  • A Radar Seeker / Sensor Is More Robust in Adverse Weather O2, H2O 1000 Note: EO attenuation through cloud @ 0.1 g / m3 and 100 m visibility 100 H2O H2O EO attenuation through ATTENUATION (dB / km) CO2 O2 rain @ 4 mm / h Humidity @ 7.5 g / m3 10 Millimeter wave and H2O O3 microwave attenuation H2O, CO2 O2 through cloud @ 0.1 CO2 gm / m3 or rain @ 4 mm / h 1 H2O 20° C  Attenuation by absorption, H2O 1 ATM scattering, and reflection  EO sensors are ineffective 0.1 through cloud cover X Ku K Ka Q V W Very Long Long Mid Short  Clouds have greater effect RADAR on attenuation than VISIBLE INFRARED SUBMILLIMETER MILLIMETER 0.01 “greenhouse gases”, such 10 GHz 100 1 THz 10 100 1000 3 cm 3 mm 0.3 mm 30 µm 3.0 µm 0.3 µm as H2O and CO2  Radar sensors have good to Increasing Frequency superior performance Increasing Wavelength through cloud cover and rain Source: Klein, L.A., Millimeter-Wave and Infrared Multisensor Design and Signal Processing, Artech House, Boston, 1997 3/3/2009 ELF 17
  • 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 18
  • GPS / INS Allows Robust Seeker Lock-on in Adverse Weather and Clutter  Target Image 480 Pixels 640 Pixels ( 300 m ) 175 m Seeker Lock-on @ 500 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.27 m ) Seeker Lock-on @ 850 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.47 m ) 3 m GPS / INS error  nM = 0.44 g,  < 0.1 m 3 m GPS / INS error  nM = 0.15 g,  < 0.1 m req req 88 m 44 m Seeker Lock-on @ 250 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.14 m ) Seeker Lock-on @ 125 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.07 m ) 3 m GPS / INS error  nM = 1.76 g,  < 0.1 m 3 m GPS / INS error  nM = 7.04 g,  = 0.2 m req req 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. 3/3/2009 ELF 19
  • A Target Set Varies in Size and Hardness Lethality Example of Precision Strike Target Set Air Defense ( SAMs, Launch Platform Robustness Integration / Firepower Lethality Cost AAA ) Miss Distance Reliability Carriage and Other Launch Survivability Observables Considerations Armor TBM / TELs Artillery C3II Naval Counter Air Oil Transportation Choke Aircraft Refineries Points ( Bridges, Railroad Yards, Truck Parks ) 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 Video Examples of Precision Strike Targets / Missiles 3/3/2009 ELF 20
  • Accurate Guidance Enhances Lethality AIM-7 Sparrow 77.7 lb blast / frag warhead Typical Aircraft Target Vulnerability PK > 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 ) Rocket Baseline Warhead ( 77.7 lb, C / M = 1 ), Spherical Blast / Fragment Pattern, h = 20k ft, Typical Aircraft Target Video of AIM-7 Sparrow Warhead ( Aircraft Targets ) 3/3/2009 ELF 21
  • Accurate Guidance Enhances Lethality ( cont ) BILL- Two 1.5 kg EFP warheads …. Roland 9 kg warhead: multi-projectiles from preformed case……………… 2.4 m Hellfire 24 lb shaped charge witness warhead ………………………….. plate Guided MLRS 180 lb blast fragmentation warhead Video: BILL, Roland, Hellfire, and Guided MLRS warheads 3/3/2009 ELF 22
  • Examples of Terminal Guidance Laws Active Seeker Transmitted Energy Miss Distance 1. Homing Active / Launch Platform Integration / Robustness Firepower Lethality Cost Seeker Passive Seeker Miss Distance Reliability Observables Survivability Target Reflected / Emitted Energy Guidance Launch / Midcourse Guidance Semi-Active Seeker 2. Homing Semi- Active Seeker Guidance Target Reflected Energy Fire Control System Tracks Target 3. Command Guidance Rear-looking Sensor Detects Fire Control System Energy Fire Control System Tracks Target, Tracks Missile, and Command Guides Missile 3/3/2009 ELF 23
  • A Collision Intercept Has Constant Bearing for a Constant Velocity, Non-maneuvering Target Example of Collision Intercept Example of Miss ( Line-of-Sight Angle Constant ) ( Line-of-Sight Angle Diverging ) . . ( Line-of-Sight Angle Rate L  0 ) ( Line-of-Sight Angle Rate L = 0 ) Overshoot Miss t2 t1 ( LOS t1 )1 > ( LO S )0 ( LOS )1 = ( LOS )0 t0 t0 L L Seeker Line-of-Sight Seeker Line-of-Sight A A Missile Target Missile Target Note: L = Missile Lead A = Target Aspect 3/3/2009 ELF 24
  • Examples of Weapon Bay Internal Carriage and Load-out 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 25 3/3/2009 ELF
  • Minimum Smoke Propellant Has Low Launch Plume Observables Reduced Smoke Example: AIM-120 Minimum Smoke Example: Javelin High Smoke Example: AIM-7 Contrail ( HCl from AP oxidizer ) at T < Contrail ( H2O ) at T < -35º F Particles ( e.g., metal fuel oxide ) -10° F atmospheric temperature. atmospheric temperature. at all atmosphere temperature. High Smoke Motor Reduced Smoke Motor Minimum Smoke Motor 3/3/2009 ELF 26
  • Examples of Alternative Approaches for Precision Strike Missile Survivability Launch Platform Robustness Integration / Firepower Lethality Cost 1. Low Other Survivability Miss Distance Reliability Observables Survivability Observables, Considerations High Altitude 2. Mission Planning / Cruise, High Threat Avoidance / Speed 4. High g Terminal Lateral Offset Flight Maneuvering 3. Low Altitude Terrain Masking / Clutter Video of Tomahawk Using Terrain Following 3/3/2009 ELF 27
  • Examples of Survivability Configured Missiles High Speed SS-N-27 Sizzler ( Supersonic Rocket SS-N-22 Sunburn ( Ramjet Propulsion ) Penetrator after Subsonic Turbojet Flyout ) Low RCS NSM ( Faceted Dome, Roll Dome with Inlet Top or Bottom, JASSM ( Flush Inlet, Window Dome, Swept Swept Surfaces, Body Chines, Composite Structure ) Surfaces, Trapezoidal Body, Composite Structure ) 3/3/2009 ELF 28
  • High System Reliability Provided by Few Events, High Subsystem Reliability and Low Parts Count Launch Platform Robustness Integration / Firepower Lethality Cost Miss Distance Reliability Observables Survivability Reliability 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 Example Video of Weapon System with Many Events: Sensor Fuzed Weapon ( SFW ) Note: Typical max reliability Typical min reliability 3/3/2009 ELF 29
  • EMD Cost Is Driven by Schedule Duration and Risk CEMD = $20,000,000 tEMD1.90, ( tEMD in years ) Example: 5 year ( medium risk ) EMD program CEMD = $20,000,000 tEMD1.90 High Low Moderate = ( 20,000,000 ) ( 5 )1.90 Risk Risk Risk = $426,000,000 EMD EMD EMD D Note: EMD required schedule duration depends upon risk. Should not ignore risk in shorter schedule. -- Source of data: Nicholas, T. and Rossi, R., “U.S. Missile Data Book, 1999,” Data Search Associates, 1999 – EMD cost based on 1999 US$ 3/3/2009 ELF 30
  • Learning Curve and Large Production Reduce Unit Production Cost Cx = C1st Llog2x, C2x = L Cx , where C in U.S. 99$ 1 L = 1.0 Cx / C1st, Cost of Unit x / Cost of First Unit Javelin ( L = 0.764, C1st = $3.15M, Y1 = 1994 ) Longbow HF ( L = 0.761, C1st = L = 0.9 $4.31M, Y1 = 1996 ) AMRAAM ( L = 0.738, C1st = $30.5M, Y1 = 1987 ) 0.1 Example: MLRS ( L = 0.811, C1st = $0.139M, Y1 = 1980 ) For a learning curve coefficient HARM ( L = 0.786, C1st = $9.73M, L = 0.8 of L = 80%, cost of Y1 = 1981 ) unit #1000 is 11% JSOW ( L = 0.812, C1st = $2.98M, the cost of the first Y1 = 1997 ) L = 0.7 unit Tomahawk ( L = 0.817, C1st = 0.01 $13.0M, Y1 = 1980 ) 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1E+06 Labor intensive learning curve: L < 0.8 Machine intensive learning curve: L > 0.8 ) x, Number of Units Produced Contributors to the learning curve include: • More efficient labor • Reduced scrap Source of data: Nicholas, T. and Rossi, R., “U.S. Missile Data Book, • Improved processes 1999,” Data Search Associates, 1999 • New missile components fraction 3/3/2009 ELF 31
  • Missile Carriage Size, Shape, and Weight Limits May Be Driven by Launch Platform Compatibility Launch Platform Integration / Firepower US Launch Platform Launcher Carriage Span / Shape Length Weight Launch Platform Robustness Integration / Firepower Lethality Cost Surface Ships VLS 263” 3400 lb Miss Distance Reliability ~ Observables Survivability ” 22 22 ” ~ 263” 3400 lb Submarines CLS 22 “ Fighters / ~500 lb to Rail / Bombers / ~24” x 24” 3000 lb ~168” Ejection Large UCAVs Launch Ground Vehicles 158” 3700 lb Pods ~ ” 28 28 ~ ” Helo Rail, Helos / Small UCAVs UCAV Rail / 13” x 13”  70”  120 lb Ejection Tanks  40”  60 lb Gun Barrel 120 mm 3/3/2009 ELF 32
  • 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 Loads Example Stores with Flow Field Interaction: Kh-41 + AA-10 3/3/2009 ELF 33
  • Compressed Carriage Missiles Provide Higher Firepower Baseline AIM-120B AMRAAM Compressed Carriage AIM-120C AMRAAM ( Reduced Span Wing / Tail ) Baseline AMRAAM: Load-out of 2 AIM-120B per F-22 Semi- Bay 17.5 in 17.5 in Compressed Carriage AMRAAM: Load-out of 3 AIM-120C per F-22 Semi-Bay 12.5 in 12.5 in 12.5 in Video of Longshot Kit on CBU-87 / CEB 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 ). 3/3/2009 ELF 34
  • Robustness Is Required for Storage, Shipping, and Launch Platform Carriage Environment Environmental Parameter Typical Requirement Video: Ground / Sea Environment Surface Temperature -60° F* to 160° F Surface 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 year 10 g rms at 1,000 Hz: MIL STD 810, 648, 1670A Vibration Drop height 0.5 m, half sine wave 100 g / 10 ms: MIL STD 810, 1670A Shock 160 dB Acoustic 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. 3/3/2009 ELF 35 Typical external air carriage maximum hours less for aircraft (  100 h ) than for helicopter (  1000 h ).
  • House of Quality Translates Customer Requirements into Engineering Emphasis 0 - - Body ( Material, Tail ( Material, Number, Nose Plug ( Material, Chamber Length ) Area, Geometry ) Length ) 7 2 1 5 Flight Range 4 1 5 2 Weight 1 2 7 3 Cost 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: Based on House of Quality, inside chamber length most important design parameter. Note on Design Characteristics Sensitivity 1 - Customer Requirements Matrix: ( Room 5 ): 2 – Customer Importance Rating ( Total = 10 ) ++ Strong Synergy 3 – Design Characteristics + Synergy 4 – Design Characteristics Importance Rating ( Total = 10 ) 0 Near Neutral Synergy 5 – Design Characteristics Sensitivity Matrix 6 – Design Characteristics Weighted Importance - Anti-Synergy 7 – Design Characteristics Relative Importance - - Strong Anti-Synergy 3/3/2009 ELF 36
  • Relationship of Design Maturity to the US Research, Technology, and Acquisition Process Research Technology Acquisition 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Engineering Basic Exploratory Advanced Demonstration System and Production Research Development Development & Validation Upgrades Manufacturing Development ~ $0.1B ~ $0.3B ~ $0.9B ~ $0.5B ~ $1.0B ~ $6.1B ~ $1.2B Maturity Level Conceptual Design Preliminary Design Detail Design Production Design Drawings ( type ) < 10 ( subsystems ) < 100 ( components ) > 100 ( parts ) > 1000 ( parts ) First Technology Prototype Full Scale 1-3 Block Technology Limited Block Development Demonstration Development Upgrades Demonstration ~ 2 Years ~ 5 ~ 10 Years ~ 4 Years ~ 5 Years ~ 5-15 Years ~ 8 Years Years Production Note: Total US DoD Research and Technology for Tactical Missiles  $1.8 Billion per year Total US DoD Acquisition ( EMD + Production + Upgrades ) for Tactical Missiles  $8.3 Billion per year Tactical Missiles  11% of U.S. DoD RT&A budget US Industry IR&D typically similar to US DoD 6.2 and 6.3A 3/3/2009 ELF 37
  • US Tactical Missile Follow-On Programs Occur about Every 24 Years Short Range ATA, AIM-9, 1949 - Raytheon AIM-9X ( maneuverability ), 1996 - Hughes AIM-120 ( autonomous, speed, Medium Range ATA, AIM-7,1951 - Raytheon Hypersonic Missile, > 2009 range, weight ), 1981 - Hughes Anti-radar ATS, AGM-45, 1961 - TI AGM-88 ( speed, range ), 1983 - TI Hypersonic Missile > 2009 PAC-3 (accuracy), 1992 - Lockheed Martin Long Range STA, MIM-104, 1966 - Raytheon Man-portable STS, M-47, 1970 - McDonnell Douglas Javelin ( gunner survivability, lethality, weight ), 1989 - TI Long Range STS, BGM-109, 1972 - General Dynamics Hypersonic Missile > 2009 Long Range ATS, AGM-86, 1973 - Boeing AGM-129 ( RCS ), 1983 - General Dynamics Medium Range ATS, AGM-130, 1983 - Rockwell JASSM ( cost, range, observables ), 1999 - LM 1950 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 > 2000 Year Entering EMD 3/3/2009 ELF 38
  • Missile Design Validation / Technology Development Is an Integrated Process •Rocket Static •Turbojet Static IM Tests Propulsion •Ramjet Tests –Direct Connect Propulsion Model Structure Tests –Freejet •Static Airframe •Vibration Wind Tunnel Aero Model Tests Hardware Flight Test Progression In-Loop Guidance ( Captive Carry, Jettison, Simulation Separation, Guided and Control Model Digital Simulation Unpowered Flights, Guided Powered Flights, Guided Tower Seeker Live Warhead Flights ) Lab Tests Tests Actuators / Initiators Sensors Lab Tests Environment Autopilot / Electronics Tests •Vibration Power •Temperature Supply Sled Tests Ballistic Tests Warhead Witness / Arena Tests IM Tests 3/3/2009 ELF 39
  • Conduct Balanced, Unbiased Trade-offs Propulsion Aerodynamics Production Structures Seeker Guidance and Control Warhead – Fuze 3/3/2009 ELF 40