Professional Development Short Course On: Tactical Missile Design

Professional Development Short Course On:
Tactical Missile Design - Integration
Instructor:
Eugene L. Fleeman
ATI Course Schedule:
ATI's Tactical Missile Design:
http://www.ATIcourses.com/schedule.htm
http://www.aticourses.com/tactical_missile_design.htm
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: [email protected]
Tactical Missile Design
January 12-14, 2009
Laurel, Maryland
April 13-15, 2009
Beltsville, Maryland
Summary
This three-day short course covers the fundamentals
of tactical missile design. The course provides a
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 physicsbased, to provide insight into the
primary driving parameters.
Configuration sizing examples are
presented for rocket-powered,
ramjet-powered, and turbo-jet
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 and the current/projected state-of-the-art.
Videos illustrate missile development activities and
missile performance. Finally, each attendee will design,
build, and fly a small air powered rocket. Attendees will
vote on the relative emphasis of the material to be
presented. Attendees receive course notes as well as
the textbook, Tactical Missile Design, 2nd edition.
Instructor
Eugene L. Fleeman has more than 40 years of
government, industry, and academia
experience in missile system and
technology development. Formerly a
manager of missile programs at Georgia
Tech, Boeing, Rockwell International,
and Air Force Research Laboratory, he
is an internationally known lecturer on
missiles and the author of over seventy publications
including the AIAA textbook Tactical Missile Design.
What You Will Learn
• Key drivers in the missile design process.
• Critical tradeoffs, methods and technologies in
subsystems, aerodynamic, propulsion, and structure
sizing.
• Launch platform-missile integration.
• Robustness, lethality, accuracy, observables,
survivability, reliability, and cost considerations.
• Missile sizing examples.
• Missile development process.
Who Should Attend
The course is oriented toward the needs of missile
engineers, analysts, marketing personnel, program
managers, university professors, and others working in
the area of missile analysts, marketing personnel and
technology development. Attendees will gain an
understanding of missile design, missile technologies,
launch platform integration, missile system measures
of merit, and the missile system development process.
30 – Vol. 95
$1590
(8:30am - 4:00pm)
"Register 3 or More & Receive $10000 each
Off The Course Tuition."
Course Outline
1. Introduction/Key Drivers in the Design Process.
Overview of missile design process. Unique characteristics of
tactical missiles. Key aerodynamic configuration sizing
parameters. Missile conceptual design synthesis process.
Projected capability in C4ISR.
2. Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile
Design. Optimizing missile aerodynamics. Missile
configuration layout (body, wing, tail) options. Selecting flight
control alternatives. Wing and tail sizing. Predicting normal
force, drag, pitching moment, and hinge moment.
3. Propulsion Considerations. Turbojet, ramjet,
scramjet, ducted rocket, and rocket propulsion comparisons.
Turbojet engine design considerations. Selecting ramjet
engine, booster, and inlet alternatives. High density fuels.
Effective thrust magnitude control. Reducing propellant and
turbojet observables. Rocket motor prediction and sizing.
Ramjet engine prediction and sizing. Motor case and nozzle
materials.
4. Weight Considerations. Structural design criteria
factor of safety. Structure concepts and manufacturing
processes. Selecting airframe materials. Loads prediction.
Weight prediction. Motor case design. Aerodynamic heating
prediction and insulation trades. Dome material alternatives.
Power supply and actuator alternatives.
5. Flight Trajectory Considerations. Aerodynamic
sizing-equations of motion. Maximizing flight performance.
Benefits of flight trajectory shaping. Flight performance
prediction 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. Warhead
alternatives and lethality prediction. Alternative guidance laws.
Proportional guidance accuracy prediction. Time constant
contributors 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 launch
platform constraints. Storage, carriage, launch, and separation
environment. Internal vs. external carriage.
7. Sizing Examples and Sizing Tools. Trade-offs for
extended range rocket. Sizing for enhanced maneuverability.
Ramjet missile sizing for range robustness. Turbojet missile
sizing for maximum range. Computer aided sizing tools for
conceptual design. Soda straw rocket design, build, and fly.
House of quality process. Design of experiment process.
8. Development Process. Design validation/technology
development process. New missile follow-on projections.
Examples of development facilities. New technologies for
tactical missiles.
9. Summary and Lessons Learned.
Register online at www.ATIcourses.com or call ATI at 888.501.2100 or 410.956.8805
www.ATIcourses.com
Boost Your Skills
with On-Site Courses
Tailored to Your Needs
349 Berkshire Drive
Riva, Maryland 21140
Telephone 1-888-501-2100 / (410) 965-8805
Fax (410) 956-5785
Email: [email protected]
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











3/3/2009
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 )
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
Air-to-Surface:
Air-to-Air:
JASSM, SLAM, Harpoon, JSOW, JDAM, Maverick, HARM, GBU-10, GBU-5, Penguin, Hellfire
AMRAAM, Sparrow, Sidewinder
Surface-to-Air:
SM-3, SM-2, Sea Sparrow, RAM
Surface-to-Surface:
3/3/2009
Tomahawk, Harpoon
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
Weight
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Trajectory
Meet
Performance?
No
Yes
Measures of Merit and Constraints
No
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
3/3/2009
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
ELF
6
Subsonic Cruise Missiles Have
Relatively Large Wings
3/3/2009
JASSM
Apache
Taurus
CALCM
Naval Strike Missile
Harpoon
ANAM / Gabriel 5
ELF
Tomahawk
Permission of Missile Index. 7
Wing, Tail, and Canard Panel Geometry Trade-off
ctip
cMAC
yCP
croot
Parameter
Variation xAC
b/2
Triangle
Aft Swept LE
( Delta )
Trapezoid
Double
Bow Tie
Swept LE
Rectangle
–
yCP ( Bending / Friction )
–
–
Supersonic Drag
–
RCS
–
Span Constraint
–
Stability & Control
Aeroelastic Stab.
–
 = Taper ratio = ctip / croot
A = 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 +  +  ) / ( 1 +  )
2
3/3/2009
ELF
Note: Superior
Good
Average
Poor
–
Based on equal surface area and equal span.
Surface area often has more impact than geometry.
8
Examples of Inlets for
Current Supersonic Air-Breathing Missiles
United Kingdom
Sea Dart GWS-30
Meteor
ASMP
ANS
AS-17 / Kh-31
Kh-41
SS-N-22 / 3M80
SA-6
SS-N-19
SS-N-26
C-101
C-301
France
Russia
China
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
•Climb at 
constant
dynamic
pressure
•Fast launch –
 cruise
•Fast launch –
 cruise – high
speed terminal
Thrust ( lb ) Thrust ( lb )
•Dive at 
constant
dynamic
pressure
Thrust ( lb )
• Cruise
Thrust Profile
Thrust ( lb ) Thrust ( lb )
Example Mission
Example Web Cross Section Geometry / Volumetric Loading
Constant
Thrust
~ 82%
Burning Time ( s )
End Burner
~90%
Radial Slotted Tube
~ 79%
Regressive
Thrust
Burning Time ( s )
~ 87%
Progressive
Thrust
Burning Time ( s )
Extrusion Production of Star Web
~ 85% Propellant. Photo Courtesy of BAE.
Boost-Sustain
Burning Time ( s )
Boost-Sustain-Boost
~ 85%
Burning Time ( s )
Note: High thrust and chamber pressure require large surface burn area.
3/3/2009
~95%
ELF
Medium Burn Rate Propellant
High Burn Rate Propellant
10
Missile Weight Is Driven by Body Volume
( i.e., Diameter and Length )
WL = 0.04 l d2
WL, Missile Launch Weight, lb
10000
Units: WL( lb ), l ( in ), d ( in )
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
LOCAAS
Mica
Super 530F
Armat
MM40
3/3/2009
SA-14
AGM-114
AA-11
Super 530D
Sea Dart
AGM-142
Javelin
Roland
Python 3
AGM-65G
Sea Eagle
AGM-86C
RBS-70
RIM-116
AIM-120C
PAC-3
Kormoran II
SA-10
ELF
Starstreak
Crotale
AA-12
AS-12
AS34
BGM-109C
Mistral
AIM-132
Skyflash
AGM-88
AGM-84H
MGM-140
HOT
AIM-9M
Aspide
Penguin III
MIM-23F
SSN-22
Trigat LR
Magic 2
AIM-9P
AIM-54C
ANS
Kh-41
11
Strength – Elasticity of
Airframe Material Alternatives
t = P / A = E 
Kevlar Fiber
w / o Matrix
Carbon Fiber
w / o Matrix
( 400 – 800 Kpsi )
400
S-Glass Fiber
w / o Matrix
300
Very High Strength Stainless Steel
( PH 15-7 Mo, CH 900 )
High Strength Stainless Steel
( PH 15-7 Mo, TH 1050 )
t, Tensile Stress,
103 psi
200
Titanium Alloy ( Ti-6Al-4V )
100
Aluminum Alloy ( 2219-T81 )
0
0
1
2
3
4
, Strain, 10-2 in / in
3/3/2009
ELF
5
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
E, Young’s modulus of elasticity, psi
P, Load, lb
, Strain, in / in
A, Area, in2
Room temperature
12
Composites Are Good Insulators for High
Temperature Structure and Propulsion ( cont )
Graphites
• Burn
•  ~ 0.08 lbm / in3
• Carbon / Carbon
6,000
Medium Density Phenolic
Composites
• Char
•  ~ 0.06 lbm / in3
Bulk Ceramics
• Nylon Phenolic, Silica
• Melt
3
Phenolic, Glass
•  ~ 0.20 lbm / in
• Zirconium Ceramic,
Phenolic, Carbon
Hafnium Ceramic
Phenolic, Graphite
Phenolic
Porous Ceramics
Low Density
• Melt
Composites
• Resin Impregnated
3
•  ~ 0.12 lbm / in
• Char
• Carbon-Silicon
•  ~ 0.03 lbm / in3
Carbide
• Micro-Quartz
Paint, GlassCork-Epoxy,
Plastics
Carbon • Sublime
Silicone Rubber,
• Depolymerizing
Kevlar-EDPM
•  ~ 0.06 lbm / in3
• Teflon
5,000
4,000
Tmax, Max
Temperature
Capability,
R
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0
1
2
3
4
Insulation Efficiency, Minutes To Reach 300 °F at Back Wall
3/3/2009
Note:
Assumed Weight Per Unit Area of Insulator / Ablator = 1 lb / ft2
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
+ Moment
+ Thrust

 << 1 rad
V

W

+ Axial Force
..
Configuration Sizing Implication
..
High Control Effectiveness  Cm > Cm, Iy small
( W small ), q large
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 
.
Large / Fast Heading Change  CN large, W
small,  large ( low alt ), V large, T / V large
High Speed / Long Range  Total Impulse large,
CA small, q small
( W / gc ) V  T - CA SRef q - CN 2 SRef q - W sin 
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
L A
VT
Note:
Constant Bearing
VM = Missile Velocity
VT = Target Velocity
A = Target Aspect
L = Missile Lead Angle
Seeker Gimbal
3
VM / VT
2
A = 90°
Example:
1
0
3/3/2009
A = 45°
L = 30 deg
A = 45 deg
VM / VT = sin ( 45 ) / sin ( 30 ) =
1.42
0
10
20
30
L, Lead Angle, Deg
ELF
40
50
16
A Radar Seeker / Sensor Is More Robust in
Adverse Weather
O2, H2O
1000
ATTENUATION (dB / km)
100
Note:
H2O H2O
O2
EO attenuation through
cloud @ 0.1 g / m3 and 100
m visibility
EO attenuation through
rain @ 4 mm / h
Humidity @ 7.5 g / m3
Millimeter wave and
microwave attenuation
through cloud @ 0.1
gm / m3 or rain @ 4 mm / h
CO2
10
O3
O2
H2O
H2O, CO2
CO2
1
H2O
20° C
1 ATM
H2O
 Attenuation by absorption,
scattering, and reflection
 EO sensors are ineffective
0.1
through cloud cover
X Ku K Ka Q V W
MILLIMETER
RADAR
0.01
10 GHz
3 cm
100
3 mm
Very Long Long Mid Short
1 THz
0.3 mm
10
30 µm
 Clouds have greater effect
VISIBLE
INFRARED
SUBMILLIMETER
100
3.0 µm
1000
0.3 µm
on attenuation than
“greenhouse gases”, such
as H2O and CO2
 Radar sensors have good to
Increasing Frequency
Increasing Wavelength
superior performance
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
Passive Imaging mmW
3/3/2009
Imaging Infrared
Video of Imaging Infrared
ELF
SAR
Video of SAR Physics
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
req
3 m GPS / INS error  nM
= 0.15 g,  < 0.1 m
req
88 m
44 m
Seeker Lock-on @ 250 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.14 m )
3 m GPS / INS error  nM
req
3/3/2009
= 0.44 g,  < 0.1 m
Seeker Lock-on @ 125 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.07 m )
= 1.76 g,  < 0.1 m
3 m GPS / INS error  nM
req
= 7.04 g,  = 0.2 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.
ELF
19
A Target Set Varies in Size and Hardness
Lethality
Example of Precision Strike Target Set
Air Defense ( SAMs,
AAA )
Launch Platform
Integration /
Firepower
Robustness
Cost
Lethality
Reliability
Miss Distance
Other
Survivability
Considerations
Carriage and
Launch
Observables
Armor
TBM / TELs
Artillery
Naval
C3II
Counter Air
Aircraft
Transportation Choke
Points ( Bridges,
Railroad Yards, Truck
Parks )
Oil
Refineries
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
3/3/2009
ELF
Video Examples of Precision Strike
Targets / Missiles
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 ftlb / ft2 )
Rocket Baseline Warhead ( 77.7 lb, C / M = 1 ),
Spherical Blast / Fragment Pattern, h = 20k ft,
Typical Aircraft Target
PK > 0.1 if  < 25 ft ( p > 24 psi,
fragments impact energy > 5k ft-lb
/ ft2 )
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
witness
plate
Hellfire 24 lb shaped charge
warhead …………………………..
Guided MLRS 180 lb blast
fragmentation warhead
3/3/2009
ELF
Video: BILL, Roland, Hellfire, and Guided
MLRS warheads
22
Examples of Terminal Guidance Laws
Active Seeker Transmitted Energy
1. Homing Active /
Passive Seeker
Guidance
Miss Distance
Launch Platform
Integration / Robustness
Firepower
Seeker
Cost
Lethality
Reliability
Miss Distance
Survivability
Observables
Target Reflected / Emitted Energy
Launch / Midcourse Guidance
2. Homing SemiActive Seeker
Guidance
Semi-Active Seeker
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
( Line-of-Sight Angle Constant )
.
( Line-of-Sight Angle Rate L = 0 )
Example of Miss
( Line-of-Sight Angle Diverging )
.
( Line-of-Sight Angle Rate L  0 )
Overshoot Miss
t2
( LOS
L
)1 > (
LO S
t1
)0
Seeker Line-of-Sight
Missile
t1
A
Target
t0
Missile
( LOS )1 = ( LOS )0
L
Seeker Line-of-Sight
A
t0
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
Video
F-22 Carriage ( AMRAAM / JDAM / AIM-9 )
3/3/2009
F-117 Bay Load-out: 1 GBU-27, 1 GBU-10
B-1 Single Bay Load-out: 8 GBU-31
Side Weapon Bay Best for Rail Launchers
F-22 Side Bay: 1 AIM-9 in Each Side Bay RAH-66 Side Bay: 1 AGM-114, 2 FIMELF
92, 4 Hydra 70 in Each Side Bay 25
Minimum Smoke Propellant Has
Low Launch Plume Observables
High Smoke Example: AIM-7
Reduced Smoke Example: AIM-120
Minimum Smoke Example: Javelin
Particles ( e.g., metal fuel oxide )
at all atmosphere temperature.
Contrail ( HCl from AP oxidizer ) at T <
-10° F atmospheric temperature.
Contrail ( H2O ) at T < -35º F
atmospheric 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
Integration /
Firepower
1. Low
Observables,
High Altitude
Cruise, High
Speed
Other Survivability
Considerations
2. Mission Planning /
Threat Avoidance /
Lateral Offset Flight
Robustness
Cost
Lethality
Reliability
Miss Distance
Survivability
Observables
4. High g Terminal
Maneuvering
3. Low Altitude Terrain Masking / Clutter
3/3/2009
Video of Tomahawk Using Terrain Following
ELF
27
Examples of Survivability Configured Missiles
High Speed
SS-N-22 Sunburn ( Ramjet Propulsion )
Low RCS
NSM ( Faceted Dome, Roll Dome with Inlet Top or Bottom,
Swept Surfaces, Body Chines, Composite Structure )
3/3/2009
ELF
SS-N-27 Sizzler ( Supersonic Rocket
Penetrator after Subsonic Turbojet Flyout )
JASSM ( Flush Inlet, Window Dome, Swept
Surfaces, Trapezoidal Body, Composite Structure
28
)
High System Reliability Provided by Few Events,
High Subsystem Reliability and Low Parts Count
Launch Platform
Integration /
Firepower
Robustness
Cost
Lethality
Reliability
Miss Distance
Survivability
Observables
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:
3/3/2009
Typical max reliability
Typical min reliability
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
Low
Moderate
High
Risk
Risk
Risk
EMD
EMD
EMD
D
CEMD = $20,000,000 tEMD1.90
= ( 20,000,000 ) ( 5 )1.90
= $426,000,000
Note: EMD required schedule duration depends upon risk. Should not ignore risk in shorter schedule.
-- Source of data: Nicholas, T. and Rossi, R., “U.S. Missile Data Book, 1999,” Data Search Associates, 1999
– EMD cost based on 1999 US$
3/3/2009
ELF
30
Learning Curve and Large Production Reduce
Unit Production Cost
Cx / C1st, Cost of Unit x / Cost of First Unit
Cx = C1st Llog2x, C2x = L Cx , where C in U.S. 99$
1
L = 1.0
L = 0.9
0.1
Example:
For a learning
curve coefficient
of L = 80%, cost of
unit #1000 is 11%
the cost of the first
unit
0.01
1
10
100
L = 0.8
L = 0.7
1000
10000 100000 1E+06
x, Number of Units Produced
Source of data: Nicholas, T. and Rossi, R., “U.S. Missile Data Book,
1999,” Data Search Associates, 1999
3/3/2009
ELF
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 )
Labor intensive learning curve: L < 0.8
Machine intensive learning curve: L > 0.8 )
Contributors to the learning curve include:
• More efficient labor
• Reduced scrap
• Improved processes
• New missile components fraction
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
Integration /
Firepower
VLS
Survivability
Observables
~168”
~500 lb to
3000 lb
158”
3700 lb
Helo Rail,
UCAV Rail / 13” x 13”
Ejection
 70”
 120 lb
Gun Barrel
 40”
 60 lb
22 “
Rail /
Ejection
Launch
Pods
~24” x 24”
”
28
Tanks
3400 lb
~
Helos / Small UCAVs
263”
CLS
28
”
Ground Vehicles
3400 lb
Miss Distance
~
Fighters /
Bombers /
Large UCAVs
263”
Lethality
Reliability
~
”
22
Submarines
22
”
~
Surface Ships
Robustness
Cost
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 SemiBay
Compressed Carriage
AMRAAM: Load-out of 3
AIM-120C per F-22 Semi-Bay
17.5 in
17.5 in
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
Surface Temperature
-60° F* to 160° F
Surface Humidity
5% to 100%
Rain Rate
120 mm / h**
Surface Wind
100 km / h steady***
Video: Ground / Sea Environment
150 km / h gusts****
Salt fog
3 g / mm2 deposited per year
Vibration
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, 1670A
Acoustic
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.
3/3/2009
ELF
Typical external air carriage maximum hours less for aircraft (  100 h ) than for helicopter (  1000 h ).
35
House of Quality Translates Customer
Requirements into Engineering Emphasis
0
-
-
Body ( Material,
Chamber Length )
Tail ( Material, Number,
Area, Geometry )
Nose Plug ( Material,
Length )
Flight Range
5
7
2
1
Weight
2
4
1
5
Cost
3
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: Based on House of Quality, inside chamber length most important design parameter.
Note on Design Characteristics Sensitivity
Matrix: ( Room 5 ):
++ Strong Synergy
+ Synergy
0 Near Neutral Synergy
- Anti-Synergy
3/3/2009
- - Strong Anti-Synergy
ELF
1 - Customer Requirements
2 – Customer Importance Rating ( Total = 10 )
3 – Design Characteristics
4 – Design Characteristics Importance Rating ( Total = 10 )
5 – Design Characteristics Sensitivity Matrix
6 – Design Characteristics Weighted Importance
7 – Design Characteristics Relative Importance
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
Basic
Research
Exploratory
Development
Advanced
Development
Demonstration
& Validation
Engineering
and
Manufacturing
Development
Production
System
Upgrades
~ $0.1B
~ $0.3B
~ $0.9B
~ $0.5B
~ $1.0B
~ $6.1B
~ $1.2B
Maturity Level
Conceptual Design
Drawings ( type ) < 10 ( subsystems )
Technology
Development
~ 10 Years
3/3/2009
Preliminary Design
Detail Design
Production Design
< 100 ( components )
> 100 ( parts )
> 1000 ( parts )
Technology
Demonstration
~ 8 Years
Prototype
Demonstration
~ 4 Years
Full Scale
Development
~ 5 Years
First
Limited Block
~ 2 Years ~ 5
Years
1-3 Block
Upgrades
~ 5-15 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
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
Medium Range ATA, AIM-7,1951 - Raytheon
AIM-120 ( autonomous, speed,
range, weight ), 1981 - Hughes
Anti-radar ATS, AGM-45, 1961 - TI
Hypersonic Missile, > 2009
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
Long Range ATS, AGM-86, 1973 - Boeing
AGM-129 ( RCS ), 1983 - General Dynamics
Medium Range ATS, AGM-130, 1983 - Rockwell
1950
3/3/2009
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
Year Entering EMD
ELF
Hypersonic Missile > 2009
1990
JASSM ( cost, range,
observables ), 1999 - LM
1995
> 2000
38
Missile Design Validation / Technology
Development Is an Integrated Process
Propulsion
Propulsion Model
•Rocket Static
•Turbojet Static
•Ramjet Tests
–Direct Connect
–Freejet
Airframe
Aero Model
Guidance
and Control
Wind Tunnel
Tests
Model Digital Simulation
Seeker
Lab Tests
IM Tests
Structure Tests
•Static
•Vibration
Hardware
In-Loop
Simulation
Tower
Tests
Flight Test Progression
( Captive Carry, Jettison,
Separation, Guided
Unpowered Flights, Guided
Powered Flights, Guided
Live Warhead Flights )
Actuators / Initiators
Sensors
Lab Tests
Autopilot / Electronics
Power
Supply
Warhead
3/3/2009
Ballistic Tests
Environment
Tests
•Vibration
•Temperature
Witness / Arena Tests
ELF
IM Tests
Sled Tests
39
Conduct Balanced, Unbiased Trade-offs
Propulsion
Aerodynamics
Production
Structures
Seeker
Guidance and
Control
Warhead – Fuze
3/3/2009
ELF
40