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