This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1
A BALLISTIC MISSILE PRIMER
Steve Fetter
The Rocket Equation
Consider a singlestage rocket with a liftoff mass M
lo
and a burnout mass M
bo
.
In the absence of gravity and air resistance, the change in the rocket's velocity from
liftoff to burnout (the "deltav") is given by
∆v v
M
M
e e
lo
bo
·

.
`
,
log (1)
where v
e
is the exhaust velocity of the propellant. If the rocket has n stages, the total
deltav of the rocket is given by
∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ v v v v v
M
M
t n e e
lo
bo
i i
n
i
· + + + ·

.
`
,
·
∑ 1 2
1
L log (2)
where v
ei
is the exhaust velocity of the ith stage and (M
lo
/M
bo
)
i
is the ratio of the
rocket mass when the ith stage ignites to its mass when the stage burns out. The
mass ratio of the ith stage is given by
M
M
M M M m M s
M M M m
M s
M m
bo
lo
i
t t t p p i
t t t p
p i
t
j
i
p
i i
i
i
j

.
`
,
·
+ + + + − −
+ + + +
· −
−
+
·
∑
1 2
1 2
1
1
1
1
L
L
( ) ( )
(3)
where M
p
i
is the propellant mass in the ith stage, s
i
is the fraction of propellant in the
ith stage that remains unburned, M
ti
is the total mass of the jth stage before it is
ignited, and m
p
is the mass of the rocket payload. The unburned fraction is very low
in modern boosters (e.g., s = 0.0012 in the MinutemanII first stage) and can
therefore usually be ignored. Thus, if we know the total mass, the propellant mass,
and the exhaust velocity of each stage, we can estimate the total deltav (and
therefore the range) of the rocket for a given payload mass m
p
.
Substituting equation 3 into equation 2, we find that the ratio of the payload mass
to the total mass of the rocket at liftoff is given by
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
2
m
M m
M
M
v
v
p
t
i
n
p
t
p
i
e i
n
i
i
i i
·
·
∑
∏
+
· − − −

.
`
,
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
1
1
1 1 exp
∆
(4)
Unfortunately, this equation cannot be solved for m
p
as a function of ∆v
t
, because
the ∆v
i
are functions of m
p
. An approximation to equation 4 can be useful, however,
for a quick estimate of the maximum payload capability of a missile. If we assume
that the ratio of the initial stage mass to the mass of propellant burned is a constant f
for all n stages [(M
t
/M
p
)
i
= f], that the exhaust velocity of all stages is equal ( v
ei
=
v
e
), and that the total deltav is equally divided among the stages, (∆v
i
≈ ∆v
t
/n), then
m
M m
f
v
nv
p
T p
t
e
n
'
exp
+
· − − −

.
`
,
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
1 1
∆
(5)
where M
T’
is the total mass of the rocket (without the payload).
The exhaust velocity is usually stated in terms of the specific impulse, or the
impulse (force x time) produced per unit weight of propellant consumed. The
specific impulse is related to the exhaust velocity by the equation
v
e
= g I
sp
(6)
where g is the acceleration due to gravity at sea level (9.81 m/s
2
). Note that the units
of I
sp
are seconds. The thrust is the exhaust velocity multiplied by the rate at which
propellant is consumed:
T v
dM
dt
g I
dM
dt
e
p
sp
p
· · (7)
If we assume that all the propellant is consumed during the burn time of the missile,
t
bo
, then the average thrust is given by
$ $
T g I
M
t
sp
p
bo
· (8)
The specific impulse is a characteristic property of the propellant system,
although its exact value varies to some extent with the operating conditions and
design of the rocket engine (e.g., the combustion chamber pressure). The theoretical
specific impulse for a variety of propellants is given in table 1. The specific impulse
at higher altitudes is somewhat greater (due to the lower atmospheric pressure), so
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
3
the average I
sp
of a welldesigned booster often exceeds the theoretical I
sp
at sea
level (especially for upper stages). Values of M
t
, M
p
, f (M
t
/M
p
),
$
I
sp
, and
$
T for
several U.S., Russian, and Chinese ballistic missiles are given in table 2.
Table 1. The theoretical specific impulse at sea level for a variety of
rocket propellants.
a
Propellant
b
Examples I
sp
(s)
Liquid
H
2
+ O
2
Space Shuttle, Saturn 390
RP1 + O
2
Thor, Atlas 300
NTO + N
2
H
4
/UDMH TitanII 288
NTO + UDMH SS17, SS18, SS19 285
IRFNA + UDMH DF3, ScudB, Lance, Agena 275
EtOH + O
2
V2 279
Solid
AP/Al composite Minuteman, MX, Trident 265
Source: George P. Sutton, Rocket Propulsion Elements (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986).
a
Assuming a combustion chamber pressure of 1000 psi, a nozzle exit pressure of 14.7 psi, and an
optimum nozzle expansion ratio.
b
H
2
is liquid hydrogen, O
2
is liquid oxygen, RP1 is kerosene, NTO (nitrogen tetroxide) is N
2
O
4
,
N
2
H
4
is hydrazine, and UDMH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) is (CH
3
)
2
NNH2. IRFNA
(inhibited red fuming nitric acid) is about 85% nitric acid (HNO
3
), 1315% NO
2
, and 0.5% HF.
EtOH (ethyl alcohol) is C
2
H
5
OH. AP (ammonium perchlorate) is NH
4
ClO
4
; a polymer binder
holds this together with aluminum (Al).
Note that the actual burnout velocity of the rocket will be less than ∆v
t
if forces
other than thrust, such as gravity and air resistance, act on the rocket during its burn.
The actual burnout velocity can be calculated if the characteristics of the rocket are
known in considerable detail. For most purposes, however, it is convenient to
assume that the burnout velocity is simply the total deltav minus a correction for
air and gravity that is relatively insensitive to changes in payload:
v
bo
= ∆v
t
– ∆v
ag
(9)
In general, slowerburning rockets have larger values of ∆v
ag
, and first stages have a
higher ∆v
ag
than later stages. Table 3 gives approximate values of ∆v
ag
for several
types of missiles.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
4
Table 2. Total booster mass M
t
, propellant mass M
p
, average specific impulse I
sp
,
average thrust T, burn time t
bo
, and burnout altitude h
bo
for several ballistic missiles.
Missile Stage
M
t
(kg)
M
p
(kg)
M
t
M
p
I
sp
(s)
T
(kN)
t
bo
(s)
h
bo
(km)
Minuteman II
a
1 23,230 20,780 1.12 267 899 61 34
2 7,270 6,230 1.17 284 266 65 96
3 2,010 1,660 1.21 275 76 59
Minuteman III 3 3,710 3,306 1.12 285 152 61 190
MX
b
1 48,700 44,300 1.10 284 2315 53 22
2 27,800 24,900 1.12 304 1365 54 82
3 8,200 6,790 1.21 306 329 62 196
Pershing II
b
1 4,110 3,580 1.15 276 172 58 18
2 2,600 2,250 1.16 279 134 46
Titan II
c
1 116,850 112,720 1.04 288 2170 147
2 26,810 24,150 1.11 313 407 182 315
SS18
d
1 171,000 154,900 1.10 317 5670 85
2 38,500 36,000 1.07 337 992 120
DF3
e
1 65,500 61,400 1.07 241 1020 140 100
V2
f
1 11,800 8,800 1.34 198 252 68 28
ScudB
g
1 4,900 3,700 1.32 240 120 70 30
a
John Simpson, Aerojet General, Sacramento, CA, and Larry Hales, Thiokol Chemical Corporation, Brigham City,
UT, personal communication, 15 July 1991. Stages 1 and 2 of Minuteman III are identical to those of Minuteman II.
b
"Short burn time ICBM characteristics and considerations," (Denver, CO: Martin Marietta, 20 July 1983).
c
"Titan II Space Launch Vehicle: Payload Users Guide," (Denver, CO: Martin Marietta Corporation, August 1986).
d
Rolf Engel, "The SS18 Weapon System," Military Technology, Vol. 13, No. 3 (March 1989), pp. 112121.
e
Zuwei Huang and Xinmin Ren, "Long March Launch Vehicle Family—Current Status and Future Development,"
Space Technology, vol. 8, no. 4 (1988), pp. 371375.
f
Gregory P. Kennedy, Vengeance Weapon 2: The V2 Guided Missile (Washington: Smithsonian Press, 1983).
g
Steven Zaloga, "Ballistic Missiles in the Third World: SCUD and Beyond," International Defense Review, Vol.
21 (November 1988), pp. 14231427.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
5
Table 3. Approximate values of ∆v
ag
for solid
and liquid stages of longrange missiles.
∆v
ag
(km/s)
Stage Solidfuel Liquidfuel
1 0.6 1.1
2 0.15 0.6
3 0.15 
Source: E.H. Sharkey, "The Rocket Performance Computer,"
RM23003RC (Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation, 1959).
A more precise method of calculating the burnout velocity is to solve
numerically the equations of motion of the missile. If the missile's thrust vector is
aligned with its velocity vector (i.e., gravity is used to turn the missile), the
equations of motion are:
( )
dv
dt
T AC v
M
v
v
GM x
x y
x d x e
·
−
]
]
]
−
+
1
2
2
2 2
3 2
ρ
/
(10a)
( )
dv
dt
T AC v
M
v
v
GM y
x y
y d y e
·
−
]
]
]
−
+
1
2
2
2 2
3 2
ρ
/
(10b)
where v
x
and v
y
are the components of the velocity vector v in the x and y directions,
T is the thrust, ρ is the atmospheric density (a function of altitude), A is the cross
sectional area of the missile, C
d
is the drag coefficient (a function of v), M is the
missile mass (a function of time, as propellant is consumed and empty stages are
jettisoned), G is the gravitational constant (6.67×10
–20
km
3
s
2
kg
1
), M
e
is the mass of
the Earth (5.97×10
24
kg), and x and y are measured from the center of the Earth. The
atmospheric density as a function of altitude is given in table 4; table 5 gives the
drag coefficient of the V2 missile as a function of velocity.
If the rate of propellant use is constant, all of the propellant is consumed during
the burn, and the empty rocket body is jettisoned after burnout, the mass is equal to
M(t) = M
t
– M
p
(t/t
bo
) + m
p
[t ≤ t
bo
] (11)
M(t) = m
p
[t > t
bo
]
where the t
bo
= g M
p
$
/
$
. I T
sp
This equation is easily generalized to n stages.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
6
Table 4. Atmospheric density ρ and scale height H as a function of altitude.
a
Altitude Density Scale Height Altitude Density Scale Height
(km) (kg/m
3
) (km) (km) (kg/m
3
) (km)
0 1.225 10.42 20 0.0889 7.62
1 1.112 10.30 30 0.0184 7.15
2 1.007 10.19 40 0.00400 6.99
3 0.909 10.06 50 0.00103 7.06
4 0.819 9.95 60 3.10×10
4
7.24
5 0.736 9.82 80 1.85×10
5
7.20
6 0.660 9.70 100 5.60×10
7
6.85
8 0.526 9.46 150 2.08×10
9
7.43
10 0.414 9.21 200 2.54×10
10
8.97
15 0.195 8.16 300 1.92×10
11
12.06
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976” (Washington,
DC: NOAA, 1976).
a
This table should be interpolated using the function ρ(z) = ρ(0)exp(–h/H), where H is the scale height
(interpolated using the values given in the table).
Table 5. The drag coefficient C
d
of the V2 missile
as a function of its velocity v.
Velocity
(Mach) C
d
Velocity
(Mach) C
d
0.0 0.25 2.5 0.15
0.5 0.18 3.0 0.14
1.0 0.28 3.5 0.12
1.2 0.36 4.0 0.11
1.5 0.26 5.0 0.10
2.0 0.17
Source: Hermann H. Kurzweg, “The Aerodynamic Development of the
V2,” in T.H. Benecke and A.W. Quick, eds., History of German
Guided Missile Development (Brunswick, Germany: Verlag E. Appel
ans, 1957), p. 59, 63. Assumes zero angle of attack; includes jet effects.
Finally, the altitude of the missile is given by
h x y R
e
· + −
2 2
(12)
where R
e
is the radius of the Earth (about 6370 km).
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
7
Equation 10 is solved by integrating numerically from x = 0 and y = R
e
until z =
R
e
, adjusting the initial velocity vector so as to achieve the desired (or maximum)
range for a given payload mass.
The Range Equation
The range of a missile depends on its velocity, altitude, and angle at burnout.
The burnout velocity v
bo
required for a given range, altitude, and angle is given by
1
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
v
G M R
R h R R h
bo
e e
e bo e e bo
·
−
+ − + −
1
2
2
cos
sin sin sin
φ
θ θ φ θ
(13)
where h
bo
is the burnout altitude, φ is equal to r
b
/R
e
, where r
b
is the ballistic range
of the missile, and θ is the angle of the missile at burnout with respect to the
vertical. The maximum range is attained when θ = (φ + π)/4; this is also known as a
“minimumenergy” trajectory. The burnout altitude varies from 30 km for short
range missiles to 200 km to 400 km for ICBMs (see table 2). Table 6 gives v
bo
for
several values of r
b
and h
bo
.
Table 6. The burnout velocity v
bo
(km/s) as a function of the maximum ballistic
range r
b
(km) and burnout altitude h
bo
(km).
r
b
Burnout altitude, h
bo
(km)
(km) 0 30 100 200 300 400
500 2.17 2.11 1.97   
1,000 3.02 2.97 2.85   
2,000 4.11 4.07 3.98 3.86  
3,000 4.87 4.83 4.75 4.64 4.53 4.43
4,000 5.43 5.40 5.32 5.22 5.12 5.02
6,000 6.25 6.22 6.15 6.05 5.96 5.86
8,000 6.81 6.78 6.71 6.61 6.52 6.43
10,000 7.20 7.17 7.10 7.01 6.92 6.83
12,000 7.48 7.45 7.39 7.30 7.21 7.12
14,000 7.68 7.65 7.59 7.50 7.41 7.32
1
Paul Zarchan, Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance (Washington, DC: American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 1990), p. 232.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
8
Note that r
b
includes only the ballistic portion of the trajectory. To estimate the
total range r, one must add the downrange distance traveled during the rocket burn:
r = r
b
+ r
bo
. As a rough estimate, r
bo
≈ h
bo
tanθ.
For ranges less than 500 km, the curvature of the Earth can be neglected and
equation 13 can be approximated by
r
v
g
gh
v
b
bo bo
bo
· + +
]
]
]
2
2 2
1 1
2 sin cos
cos
θ θ
θ
(14)
The maximum range, r
max
, occurs when θ = π/4 (45 degrees), in which case
( ) v g r h
bo bo
≈ −
max
2 (15)
where r
max
includes the distance traveled during boost. The maximum height above
the Earth, or apogee, is given by h
max
≈ (r
max
/4).
With this background, we can now explore specific missile designs.
China’s DF3 Missile
The Chinese DF3 missile is a singlestage liquidfuel intermediaterange ballistic
missile (IRBM). The DF3 booster is also the first stage of the DF4 ballistic missile
and the CZ1 space launch vehicle (SLV). Because China is marketing spacelaunch
services, it has made information about their SLVs, including the CZ1, available to
the public.
As noted in table 2, the liftoff thrust of the CZ1 (and therefore of the DF3) is
104 tonnes (te). The average specific impulse of the engine is 241 seconds—
significantly less than the theoretical maximum of 275 s for nitric acid and UDMH
(see table 1). The mass of the first stage is 65.5 te, of which 61.4 te is propellant.
With this information we can estimate the payload mass or throwweight of the
missile as a function of its range. We do this under two assumptions: first, that the
propellant mass is a constant 61.4 te; and second, that the propellant mass is
increased or decreased to compensate for changes in the payload mass, so that the
total mass of the missile remains constant (in this case, 67.5 te).
Constant Propellant Mass. If the propellant mass is held constant at 61.4 te, then
the rocket equation gives
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
9
M M m
M m
v v
v
t p p
t p
bo ag
e
− +
+
· −
+

.
`
,
exp
∆
(16)
where M
t
, M
p
, and m
p
are the booster, propellant, and payload masses; v
e
, the
exhaust velocity of the booster, is equal to gI
sp
= 2.36 km/s. Solving for m
p
, we have
m
M
v v
v
M M
v v
v
p
t
bo ag
e
t p
bo ag
e
·
−
+

.
`
,
− +
− −
+

.
`
,
exp
exp
∆
∆
1
(17)
Table 7 gives the throwweight as a function of the maximum range for h
bo
= 100
km, r
bo
= 125 km, and ∆v
ag
= 1.1 km/s. Equation 17 predicts a throwweight of about
2 te at a range of 2800 km, which is in excellent agreement with estimates appearing
in the unclassified literature.
2
(Equation 14 gives a burnout velocity of 4.61 km/s
for a maximum range of 2800 km and a burnout altitude of 100 km.
Constant Total Mass. As an alternative, assume that the total mass of the missile is
held constant at a value M
T
; in this case the rocket equation gives
M M m
M
v v
v
t p p
T
bo ag
e
− +
· −
+

.
`
,
exp
∆
(18)
which can be solved to give
( ) m M
v v
v
M M
p T
bo ag
e
t p
· −
+

.
`
,
− + exp
∆
(19)
The results are shown in table 7, assuming M
T
= 67.5 te (i.e., a design throwweight
of 2.0 te) and (M
t
– M
p
) = 4.1 te.
3
2
Mark Wade, "The Chinese Ballistic Missile Program," International Defense Review, August 1990, p. 1191,
gives a throwweight of 2 te at a range of 2800 km; the International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military
Balance: 19881989 (London: IISS, 1988), p. 219, gives a throwweight of 2 te at a range of 2700 km. John Lewis
and Xue Litai, China Builds the Bomb (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), p. 213, gives a range of 2800
km but no throwweight.
3
Changes in h
bo
have little effect on m
p
. For example, increasing or decreasing h
bo
by 20 km increases or decreases
m
p
by 2.2 percent for constant M
p
or 1.9 percent for constant M
T
. In the more accurate calculations presented
below, calculated burnout altitudes for optimum trajectories range from 76 to 112 km for constant M
p
, and from
92 to 113 km for constant M
T
.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
10
Table 7. The throwweight of the DF3 missile as
a function of the maximum range, for a constant
propellant mass M
p
= 61.4 te; and for a constant
total missile mass M
T
= 67.5 te.
Range Throwweight m
p
(tonnes)
(km) Constant M
p
Constant M
T
1000 11.3 9.6
1500 7.0 6.2
2000 4.4 4.1
2500 2.9 2.8
3000 1.8 1.8
3500 1.0 1.0
4000 0.4 0.5
4500  0.02
It should be emphasized that it is not a simple matter to change the throwweight
significantly, since this will change the center of mass and therefore the
aerodynamic stability of the missile. Deceases in throwweight (and corresponding
increases in range) will also lead to higher accelerations and aerodynamic loads
during boost, and to higher velocities and increased aerodynamic heating during
reentry.
Note that the above analysis, while analytically simple, does not explicitly
include the effects of gravity and air resistance on the booster during launch. These
effects were included implicitly through ∆v
ag
and h
bo
. It is instructive to check the
accuracy of these calculations by solving numerically the equations of motion, since
dependable design information is available for the DF3. The results, which are
given in table 8, are in excellent agreement with those obtained with equations 17
and 19.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
11
Table 8. The maximum range of the DF3, for a
constant propellant mass M
p
= 61.4 te; and for a
constant total missile mass M
T
= 67.5 te.
Throwweight Maximum Range r (km)
(te) Constant M
p
Constant M
T
0.0 4400 4500
0.5 3800 3900
1.0 3400 3400
2.0 2800 2800
5.0 1800 1700
10.0 1000 900
Israel’s JerichoII/Shavit Missile
Very little is known publicly about the Israeli Jericho II missile. The Shavit
space launch vehicle (SLV), which has been used to orbit two Israeli satellites, is
widely believed to be based on the Jericho II. From the orbital characteristics and
estimated masses of these satellites one can obtain a fairly good idea of the
throwweight/range capabilities of the Shavit, and therefore of the Jericho II.
The first satellite, which was launched on 19 September 1988, was placed in an
elliptical orbit with a perigee of 250 km, an apogee of 1150 km, and an inclination
of 148 degrees; the perigee and apogee of the second satellite were 200 km and
1450 km. (These orbital parameters have been independently verified.) The latitude
of the launch site was 32 degrees, and the satellites were launched due west over the
Mediterranean Sea (to avoid overflying Arab territory).
4
The velocity needed to put a satellite into orbit is given by
5
v G M
R a
c e
e
· −
]
]
]
2 1
(20)
where a, the semimajor axis of the orbit, was 7070 km for the first satellite and
7200 km for the second satellite, which gives v
c
= 8.29 km/s and 8.35 km/s,
respectively.
4
Jackson Diehl, "Israel Launches Satellite Into Surveillance Orbit, Washington Post, 4 April 1990, p. A35; Steven
E. Gray, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, personal communication.
5
Samual Glasstone, Sourcebook on the Space Sciences (Princeton: van Nostrand, 1959).
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
12
To get the burnout velocity of the missile, we must add to v
c
the component of
the earth's rotational velocity in the direction of the launch (∆v
r
), as well an amount
to compensate for the effects of air resistance and gravity during the rocket burn
(∆v
ag
); ∆v
r
is given by
∆ Φ Ω v
R
r
e
·
2
86164
π
cos cos (21)
where Φ is the latitude (32 degrees), Ω is the orbital inclination, and 86164 is the
number of seconds per sidereal day. Using the orbital inclination for the first
satellite (148 degrees), we have ∆v
r
= 0.33 km/s.
The Shavit probably has three stages; videotapes of the launches reveal that at
least the first stage is solidfueled. A rough estimate of the Shavit's capbilities can be
obtained by assuming that each stage provides the same increase in missile velocity;
under these conditions, the mass of the satellite payload would be given by solving
equation 5 for the payload mass:
m M f
v v v
v
s T
c r ag
e
≅ − − −
+ +

.
`
,

.
`
,
]
]
]
−
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
−
−
1 1
3
1
3
1
exp
∆ ∆
(22)
where M
T
is the mass of the missile (excluding the mass of the payload), f is the
ratio of the total mass of each stage to the propellant mass, v
e
is the exhaust velocity
of each stage.
If the same rocket were used as a ballistic missile, the payload mass for a given
burnout velocity v
bo
would be given by
m M f
v v
v
p T
bo ag
e
≅ − − −
+

.
`
,

.
`
,
]
]
]
−
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
¹
¹
−
−
1 1
3
1
3
1
exp
∆
(23)
The ratio of the ballisticmissile payload mass to the satellite payload mass is
therefore given by
m
m
f
v v v
v
f
v v
v
p
S
c r ag
e
bo ag
e
≅
− − −
+ + 
.
`
,

.
`
,
]
]
]
−
− − −
+

.
`
,

.
`
,
]
]
]
−
−
−
1 1
3
1
1 1
3
1
3
3
exp
exp
∆ ∆
∆
(24)
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
13
All that remains is to substitute values for f, v
e
, and ∆v
ag
into equation 24, along with
the estimates of v
c
and ∆v
r
derived above. For a large, solidfuel rocket, typical
values are f = 1.15, v
e
= 2.6 km/s, and ∆v
ag
= 1.0 km/s.
6
The satellite mass given by Israeli was 156 kg for the first satellite and 170 kg
for the second satellite; including a guidance and control package would bring the
total satellite payload mass to at least 200 kg. Assuming that m
s
= 200 kg, the
throwweight predicted by equation 24 is given in table 9 as a function of the
maximum range of the missile, assuming a burnout altitude and range of 200 and
450 km, respectively. Some analysts have speculated that the Jericho II is simply is
the first two stages of the Shavit SLV; table 9 also gives the throwweight of the first
two stages of a threestage Shavit.
Table 9. The throwweight of the Shavit SLVas a
function of the maximum range, and the
throwweight of the first two stages.
Range Throwweight m
p
(tonnes)
(km) First 2 stages All 3 stages
1000 8.3 11.7
1500 5.2 6.9
2000 3.7 4.8
3000 2.2 2.7
4000 1.4 2.0
5000 1.0 1.5
6000 0.8 1.2
8000 0.5 0.8
10000 0.3 0.6
Another—and better—way to estimate the capability of the Israeli missile is to
compare it to a missile of similar size whose details are well known, scaling the
mass up or down to achieve the orbital capability demonstrated by the Shavit. The
total missile mass given by equation 22 is 33 te, which is about the same as the U.S.
MinutemanII missile (32.5 te). Both missiles use solid propellants, and it is
6
See table 2. Also see Glasstone, Sourcebook on the Space Sciences, and Sharkey, "The Rocket Performance
Computer."
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
14
reasonable to assume that Israel could achieve the same level of performance as that
of the 1960svintage Minuteman II.
Using equations 2 and 3 and the missile parameters given in table 2, one finds
that the Minuteman II could deliver a 700kg payload to a range of 10,000 km,
which is in good agreement with the 800kg throwweight declared by the United
States under the START Treaty.
7
Using the same assumptions, the MinutemanII
missile would be capable of launching a 160kg satellite into the same orbit as the
first Israeli satellite. Thus, the Shavit and the Minuteman II are missiles of similar
capability. (The Minuteman III, with its more advanced third stage, is capable of
launching 300kg satellite into the same orbit.)
Table 10 gives the throwweight of the Minuteman II as a function of the
maximum range, assuming constant propellant mass. The throwweight of the Shavit,
if used as a ballistic missile, should be similar. Table 10 also gives the throwweight
of the first two stages of the Minuteman II; if the Jericho II is indeed the first two
stages of the Shavit, then the throwweight of the first two Minuteman stages should
be comparable to that of the Jericho II. Despite the simplicity of the earlier estimates
based on equation 24, the correspondence between tables 9 and 10 is remarkably
good.
It is interesting to compare the throwweight of the first two stages of the
Minuteman II with that of the DF3. At a range of 1700 km both missiles have
roughly equal throwweights (about 5 te). At longer ranges, however, the twostage
missile has the advantage: although the DF3 is limited to ranges of less than 4000
km, the first two stages of the Minuteman could deliver a 200kg payload at
intercontinental ranges. This clearly demonstrates the importance of multistage
rocket technology for longrange delivery.
7
“Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of the Data Base Relating to the Treaty Between the
United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic
Offensive Arms,” dated 1 September 1990, gives a throwweight of 800 kg for the Minuteman II. According to the
Treaty, this may be the greatest throwweight demonstrated in flight tests (excluding the first seven tests, unless the
throwweight in one of the these tests exceeds by more than 20 percent the throwweight in subsequent tests), or the
throwweight at 11,000 km, whichever is greater. Using the equations presented here, Minuteman II would have a
throwweight of 800 kg at a range of 9,000 km.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
15
Table 10. The throwweight of the Minuteman II
missile as a function of the maximum range, and
the throwweight of the first two stages.
Range Throwweight m
p
(tonnes)
(km) First 2 stages All 3 stages
1000 8.4 12.9
1500 5.5 7.6
2000 3.9 5.3
3000 2.4 3.2
4000 1.6 2.2
5000 1.1 1.7
6000 0.8 1.3
8000 0.4 0.9
10000 0.2 0.7
The Soviet ScudB Missile
The ScudB is a singlestage, liquidfuel, shortrange ballistic missile based on
German V2 rocket technology. Like the Chinese DF3 (which itself is based on
early Soviet technology), the propellants are UDMH and IRFNA, so we may
assume about the same exhaust velocity (2.4 km/s) as the DF3. The missile is
widely attributed with a throwweight of 1 te at a maximum range of 300 km.
8
Zaloga gives a total missile mass of 5.9 te and a propellant mass of 3.7 te;
9
assuming a 1.0te payload, the ratio of total booster mass to propellant mass f would
be 1.32. Although this ratio is large by modern standards, the V2 missile had about
the same ratio.
10
We can also assume that the Scud has about the same burnout
altitude as the V2 (28 km) and the same ∆v
ag
(about 0.7 km/s).
With these booster characteristics we can use equations 17 and 19 to estimate
the Scud’s throwweight at a given range. Very similar results are obtained if we
assume that the Scud has the same initial thrusttoweight ratio as the V2 (i.e., a
8
Steven Zaloga, "Ballistic Missiles in the Third World: SCUD and Beyond," International Defense Review,
November 1988, pp. 14231427; Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, Robert S. Norris, and Jeffrey I. Sands,
Nuclear Weapons Databook, Vol. IV: Soviet Nuclear Weapons (New York: Ballinger, 1989), p. 220222.
9
Zaloga, "Ballistic Missiles," p. 1427.
10
Gregory P. Kennedy, Vengeance Weapon 2: The V2 Guided Missile (Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press, 1983), p. 84.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
16
thrust of 12 te) and use equation 10 to estimate the maximum range for a given
payload; these results appear in table 11. The assumptions about the missile’s
characteristics appear to be accurate, inasmuch as the throwweight is predicted to
be 1.0 te at 300 km.
Iraq claimed that by reducing the throwweight they were able to extend the
Scud’s range to 650 km; table 11 shows that the throwweight at this range would be
only oneeighth of its throwweight at 300 km if the propellant mass remained
constant. If, on the other hand, propellant is added to compensate for the reduced
payload mass (i.e., a constant total missile mass of 5.9 te), then the throwweight
would be about 300 kg at a range of 650 km. Since Iran claimed that the modified
Scud (dubbed the “al Hussein” by Iraq) carried a warhead weighing 160 to 180 kg,
constant propellant mass is the best assumption.
11
Iraq fired nearly 200 al Husseins
against Iranian cities; many were launched at Teheran, which was over 500 km from
the nearest Iraqi launch sites. A throwweight of 200 kg is consistent with available
estimates of the damage caused by these attacks.
12
It was widely reported that Iraq had further extended the range of the ScudB by
lengthening the missile to carry additional propellant; apparently two al Abbas
missiles were made from three cannibalized Scuds. This can result in a increase in
throwweight much greater than 50 percent, since the mass of the engines and tail
section stay the same—only the mass of the fuel tanks must increase. In the V2, for
example, the fuel tanks account for only onequarter of the mass of the empty
booster. If we assume the same fraction for the ScudB, and further assume that the
al Abbas modification results in a 50% increase in the fueltank and propellant mass
only, then f = 1.25 for the modified missile. The throwweight as a function of range
under these assumptions is given in table 11. Note that the al Abbas could deliver a
1te payload to a range of 440 km, and that its throwweight at 900 km would equal
that of the ScudB at only 650 km (assuming a constant propellant mass). These
estimates are consistent with reports that the al Abbas had a range of up to 900 km,
and that it could deliver the normal 1.0te Scud warhead to ranges significantly
greater than the al Hussein missile could.
13
11
W. Seth Carus and Joseph S. Bermudez, Jr, "Iraq's AlHusayn Missile Programme," Jane's Soviet Intelligence
Review, May 1990, pp. 205, states that Iran claims that the al Hussein missile had a payload containing 190 kg of
explosives and a maximum range of 600 km. They also state that the fuel tanks were lengthened and 1040 kg of
additional propellant added to the missile, but this clearly would not be necessary to achieve such a small
throwweight at this range.
12
See appendix B [NEED NEW FOOTNOTE HERE].
13
See Aaron Karp, "Ballistic Missile Proliferation," p. 386; Zagola, "Ballistic Missiles," p. 1425.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
17
Table 11. The range of the ScudB and al Abbas missiles as a function of
throwweight, for constant propellant mass (3.7 te for Scud, 5.55 te for al
Abbas); and constant missile mass (5.9 te for Scud, 7.9 te for al Abbas).
Maximum Range r (km)
Throwweight ScudB / al Hussein al Abbas
(tonnes) Constant M
p
Constant M
T
Constant M
p
Constant M
T
0.0 730 980 1000 1150
0.125 640 840 890 1010
0.25 560 720 800 890
0.5 450 530 640 700
1.0 300 300 440 440
Missile Ranges in Perspective
To put these and other ranges given in this appendix in perspective, table 12
gives the minimum range between several countries that possess ballistic missiles
and major cities in the Middle East region. Note that every city listed (and many
major cities not listed) is within IRBM range of every emerging missilecapable
country. For example, every city is within the range of the DF3 missile (2,800 km)
from Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and every city but Tripoli is within DF3 range of Iran.
The Middle East is a small neighborhood; even missiles with ranges of 1,000 km or
less can strike many potential adversaries.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
18
Table 12. Minimum range (km) from several countries with ballistic missile
programs to major cities in the region.
Missile Launched From
Target City Egypt India Iran Iraq Israel
Saudi
Arabia
Cairo, Egypt —— 3600 1400 800 300 400
Delhi, India 4100 —— 1400 2800 4000 2300
Teheran, Iran 1600 1900 —— 400 1400 800
Baghdad, Iraq 1000 2400 120 —— 800 300
Tel Aviv, Israel 100 3300 1000 400 —— 250
Tripoli, Libya 1200 5400 3100 2500 2100 2200
Karachi, Pakistan 3100 170 600 1900 3100 1200
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1100 2200 400 500 1300 ——
Damascus, Syria 300 3100 800 230 60 240
Ankara, Turkey 900 3500 900 800 800 1000
Baku, Azerb. 1600 2200 170 600 1400 1200
Sanaa, Yemem 800 2700 1000 1000 1300 200
Costeffectiveness of Missiles vs. Aircraft
Why use missiles instead of aircraft? After all, aircraft are reusable, they are
capable of much better accuracy than firstgeneration missiles, and it is much
simpler to deliver many payloads (e.g. chemical agents) with aircraft than missiles.
The usual answer is that the higher velocity of missiles gives them a much better
chance of penetrating to their targets. Moreover, missiles do not require highly
skilled pilots and better control can be maintained over missiles than aircraft
(missiles cannot defect). A detailed answer must take into account the relative costs
of missiles and aircraft for a given payload and range, as well as the relative
probability that they will penetrate to their targets.
Table 13 gives the mass and unit flyaway cost of several U.S. solidfuel ballistic
missiles in 1986 dollars. Note that the price per kilogram varies by only a factor of
four, even though the missile mass varies by a factor 70. The average cost is about
$200/kg, plus or minus a factor of two. If we apply this cost per unit mass to the
liquidfuel Scud and DF3 (admittedly a questionable procedure), we find that they
cost roughly $1 million and $10 million each, respectively.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
19
Table 13. The mass (in tonnes) and unit flyaway cost (in million FY 1986 dollars)
of several U.S. ballistic missiles.
Missile
Mass
(te)
Unit Flyaway Cost
(million FY 1986$)
Cost/Mass
($/kg)
Minuteman III 35 7.8 220
MX/Peacekeeper 88 22 250
Poseidon C3 29 5.0 170
Trident C4 30 8.1 270
Trident D5 57 28 490
Lance 1.3 0.16 120
Pershing II 7.4 2.5 340
Source: Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, and Milton M. Hoenig, Nuclear Weapons Databook, Vol. I: U.S.
Nuclear Forces and Capabilities (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1984).
For comparison, table 14 gives the mass, payload, combat radius, and unit
flyaway cost of several U.S. aircraft. Once again, the flyaway cost per unit takeoff
mass varies by only a factor of four from the least expensive aircraft (A7) to the
most expensive (B2). The average cost for fighter and attack aircraft is roughly
$700 per kilogram of takeoff mass.
Referring to table 14, the U.S. A7 aircraft has a maximum payload of 5.9 te, a
combat radius of 880 km, and a unit flyaway cost of $8.5 million dollars. To deliver
an equal payload at a range of only 300 km would require at six ScudB missiles at
a cost of roughly $6 million dollars. Given the unreliability and inaccuracy of
ballistic missiles, an A7 would only have to complete an average of one mission (an
attrition rate of 50%) to be cost effective compared the Scud, other considerations
aside.
As another example, consider the comparison between the U.S. A6 and the
Chinese DF3 missile. Both delivery systems have (or could have) roughly equal
payload/range capabilities; the A6 costs about $19 million, while the DF3 costs
about $10 million. Once again, attrition rates must be very high to make the DF3 a
costeffective alternative. Since most air defenses cannot impose such high attrition
rates, the popularity of ballistic missiles must be explained by other factors, such as
speed, political control, prestige, or psychological impact.
DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY
20
Table 14. The maximum takeoff weight, payload, combat radius, and unit flyaway
cost in 1986 dollars of several U.S. aircraft.
Aircraft
Takeoff Mass
(te)
Payload
(te)
Combat Radius
(km)
Flyaway Cost
(million 1986$)
Cost/Mass
($/kg)
A4 11.6 4.5 1250 7.7 660
A6 27.4 8.2 1250 19 690
A7 19 5.9 880 8.5 450
F15 31 7.3 1350 22 710
F16 15 5.4 930 13 870
F18 20 7.7 850 24 1200
B1 217 29 4600 228 1000
B2 168 23 5000 274 1600
Source: Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, and Milton M. Hoenig, Nuclear Weapons Databook, Vol. I: U.S.
Nuclear Forces and Capabilities (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1984), and International Institute for Strategic
Studies, The Military Balance 19881989 (London: IISS, 1988).
DRAFT: 10/31/98
∆v i M ti = ∏ 1 − 1 − exp − n M pi v ei i =1 ∑ M ti + m p mp
n i =1
DO NOT CITE OR COPY (4)
Unfortunately, this equation cannot be solved for mp as a function of ∆vt, because the ∆vi are functions of mp. An approximation to equation 4 can be useful, however, for a quick estimate of the maximum payload capability of a missile. If we assume that the ratio of the initial stage mass to the mass of propellant burned is a constant f for all n stages [(Mt/Mp)i = f], that the exhaust velocity of all stages is equal ( v e = ve), and that the total deltav is equally divided among the stages, (∆vi ≈ ∆vt/n), then
i
∆v mp = 1 − f 1 − exp − t MT' + mp n ve
n
(5)
where MT’ is the total mass of the rocket (without the payload). The exhaust velocity is usually stated in terms of the specific impulse, or the impulse (force x time) produced per unit weight of propellant consumed. The specific impulse is related to the exhaust velocity by the equation ve = g Isp (6)
where g is the acceleration due to gravity at sea level (9.81 m/s2). Note that the units of Isp are seconds. The thrust is the exhaust velocity multiplied by the rate at which propellant is consumed:
T = ve dM p dM p = g I sp dt dt
(7)
If we assume that all the propellant is consumed during the burn time of the missile, tbo, then the average thrust is given by
Mp $ T = g I$sp t bo
(8)
The specific impulse is a characteristic property of the propellant system, although its exact value varies to some extent with the operating conditions and design of the rocket engine (e.g., the combustion chamber pressure). The theoretical specific impulse for a variety of propellants is given in table 1. The specific impulse at higher altitudes is somewhat greater (due to the lower atmospheric pressure), so 2
Table 1. Agena 275 EtOH + O2 V2 279 Solid AP/Al composite Minuteman.a Propellantb Examples Isp (s) Liquid H2 + O2 Space Shuttle. SS19 285 IRFNA + UDMH DF3. 1986). O2 is liquid oxygen. Sutton. The theoretical specific impulse at sea level for a variety of rocket propellants. Trident 265 Source: George P. and UDMH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) is (CH3)2NNH2. The actual burnout velocity can be calculated if the characteristics of the rocket are known in considerable detail. a nozzle exit pressure of 14. MX. Mp..7 psi. however. EtOH (ethyl alcohol) is C2H5OH. and 0. a polymer binder holds this together with aluminum (Al). a Assuming a combustion chamber pressure of 1000 psi. I$sp . and Chinese ballistic missiles are given in table 2. Atlas 300 NTO + N2H4/UDMH TitanII 288 NTO + UDMH SS17. Note that the actual burnout velocity of the rocket will be less than ∆vt if forces other than thrust. ScudB. and an optimum nozzle expansion ratio. f (Mt/Mp). and T for several U. RP1 is kerosene. it is convenient to assume that the burnout velocity is simply the total deltav minus a correction for air and gravity that is relatively insensitive to changes in payload: vbo = ∆vt – ∆vag (9) In general. such as gravity and air resistance. Values of Mt. Russian. b H2 is liquid hydrogen. Rocket Propulsion Elements (New York: John Wiley & Sons. For most purposes. and first stages have a higher ∆vag than later stages. AP (ammonium perchlorate) is NH4ClO4.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY the average Isp of a welldesigned booster often exceeds the theoretical Isp at sea $ level (especially for upper stages). SS18. Lance. Saturn 390 RP1 + O2 Thor. Table 3 gives approximate values of ∆vag for several types of missiles. 1315% NO2. N2H4 is hydrazine.5% HF. slowerburning rockets have larger values of ∆vag. NTO (nitrogen tetroxide) is N2O4. IRFNA (inhibited red fuming nitric acid) is about 85% nitric acid (HNO3). 3 . act on the rocket during its burn.S.
34 1.800 3.270 6. August 1986). "Long March Launch Vehicle Family—Current Status and Future Development. vol.780 1. Vengeance Weapon 2: The V2 Guided Missile (Washington: Smithsonian Press.010 1. f Gregory P.15 1.500 65.660 1. average specific impulse Isp.790 3. CO: Martin Marietta. 3 (March 1989).600 116. Brigham City.250 112. no.710 48. 8.32 285 284 304 306 276 279 288 313 317 337 241 198 240 152 2315 1365 329 172 134 2170 407 5670 992 1020 252 120 61 53 54 62 58 46 147 182 85 120 140 68 70 100 28 30 190 22 82 196 18 Pershing IIb Titan IIc SS18d DF3e V2f ScudBg a 315 John Simpson. e Zuwei Huang and Xinmin Ren.000 61. "Ballistic Missiles in the Third World: SCUD and Beyond.900 36.12 267 899 61 34 2 7. 112121. 1983).07 1." International Defense Review. Sacramento.230 20.700 27.800 4.21 1.500 11. and Larry Hales. d Rolf Engel.700 1.720 24.230 1. 371375. 14231427.11 1.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Table 2.850 26. "The SS18 Weapon System. Aerojet General. CO: Martin Marietta Corporation. and burnout altitude hbo for several ballistic missiles. No. pp. propellant mass Mp.12 1.800 8.300 24. Isp T tbo hbo Mt Mp Mt Mp (s) (kN) (s) (km) (kg) (kg) Missile Stage a Minuteman II 1 23.810 171. burn time tbo. 20 July 1983). 4 (1988). Total booster mass Mt. Vol. b "Short burn time ICBM characteristics and considerations.21 275 76 59 Minuteman III MXb 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3.306 44. Stages 1 and 2 of Minuteman III are identical to those of Minuteman II." Space Technology.900 6. 21 (November 1988).07 1.400 8. Thiokol Chemical Corporation." (Denver. Kennedy." Military Technology.10 1. CA.000 38. g Steven Zaloga." (Denver.110 2. personal communication. UT. average thrust T. 15 July 1991.04 1.17 284 266 65 96 3 2.900 3. pp. 4 .10 1.580 2. pp.12 1. Vol. c "Titan II Space Launch Vehicle: Payload Users Guide.150 154.16 1.200 4. 13.
G is the gravitational constant (6. A more precise method of calculating the burnout velocity is to solve numerically the equations of motion of the missile.6 3 0. "The Rocket Performance Computer. as propellant is consumed and empty stages are jettisoned). If the rate of propellant use is constant. gravity is used to turn the missile). T is the thrust.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Table 3.6 1. The atmospheric density as a function of altitude is given in table 4. and the empty rocket body is jettisoned after burnout.e. Sharkey. ρ is the atmospheric density (a function of altitude). table 5 gives the drag coefficient of the V2 missile as a function of velocity.15 Source: E. all of the propellant is consumed during the burn. M is the missile mass (a function of time. 5 ..97×1024 kg). 1959).67×10–20 km3s2kg1).1 2 0." RM23003RC (Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation. the mass is equal to M(t) = Mt – Mp(t/tbo) + mp M(t) = mp [t ≤ tbo] [t > tbo] (11) $ where the tbo = g Mp I$sp / T . ∆vag (km/s) Stage Solidfuel Liquidfuel 1 0. Me is the mass of the Earth (5. Cd is the drag coefficient (a function of v). This equation is easily generalized to n stages. Approximate values of ∆vag for solid and liquid stages of longrange missiles. If the missile's thrust vector is aligned with its velocity vector (i.15 0. and x and y are measured from the center of the Earth.H. A is the crosssectional area of the missile. the equations of motion are: 2 1 GM e x dv x T − 2 ρ ACd v v x − = 3/ 2 dt M x2 + y2 v ( ) (10a) dv y T − 1 ρ ACd v 2 v y GM e y 2 = − 3/ 2 dt M x2 + y2 v ( ) (10b) where vx and vy are the components of the velocity vector v in the x and y directions.
20 1.10 2. Germany: Verlag E. Kurzweg.85×10 7 6 0. Finally.21 200 8.. p.25 2. 6 . The drag coefficient Cd of the V2 missile as a function of its velocity v. the altitude of the missile is given by h = x 2 + y 2 − Re (12) where Re is the radius of the Earth (about 6370 km).12 1.36 4. includes jet effects.0184 7.112 10.660 9. Appelans. Benecke and A. where H is the scale height (interpolated using the values given in the table). a This table should be interpolated using the function ρ(z) = ρ(0)exp(–h/H).15 2 1.08×10 10 10 0.82 80 7.18 3.5 0.42 20 0. “The Aerodynamic Development of the V2.17 Source: Hermann H.2 0.007 10. Quick.5 0. Velocity Velocity Cd Cd (Mach) (Mach) 0.00103 7.S.0 0.62 1 1.0 0.00400 6. 59.06 1. 1976” (Washington.60×10 9 8 0.85 5. Table 5.195 8. 1957).26 5.H.W.10×10 5 5 0.526 9.225 10.24 3.16 300 12.” in T. Assumes zero angle of attack.97 2.19 40 0.43 2.0 0.0889 7.11 1.95 60 7.819 9.0 0.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Table 4. 63.99 3 0.15 0.54×10 11 15 0.a Altitude Density Scale Height Altitude Density Scale Height 3 3 (km) (kg/m ) (km) (km) (kg/m ) (km) 0 1.46 150 7.06 4 4 0. 1976).14 1. “U.909 10. DC: NOAA. Standard Atmosphere.92×10 Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.06 50 0.414 9. Atmospheric density ρ and scale height H as a function of altitude. History of German Guided Missile Development (Brunswick.0 0.28 3.0 0. eds.736 9.5 0.70 100 6.5 0.30 30 0.
where rb is the ballistic range of the missile. and angle at burnout.43 10. DC: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.43 5. 232.86 3.40 5.85 2.52 6.30 7.41 7.32 5.45 7.10 7. Table 6 gives vbo for several values of rb and hbo. p.000 7.05 5. The burnout altitude varies from 30 km for shortrange missiles to 200 km to 400 km for ICBMs (see table 2).64 4.68 7. 1 7 .59 7. altitude.21 7. adjusting the initial velocity vector so as to achieve the desired (or maximum) range for a given payload mass.000 6.65 7.000 5. and θ is the angle of the missile at burnout with respect to the vertical.02 2.96 5.22 6.39 7.20 7. and angle is given by1 vbo = ( Re + hbo ) 2 sin 2 θ − Re (Re + hbo ) sin(θ − φ) sin θ G Me Re (1 − cos φ) (13) where hbo is the burnout altitude.48 7.22 5. hbo (km) (km) 0 30 100 200 300 400 500 2.000 6.15 6.97 1.11 4. rb Burnout altitude.78 6. φ is equal to rb/Re.86 8.02 6.50 7. The maximum range is attained when θ = (φ + π)/4.17 2.25 6. Table 6.53 4. The burnout velocity vbo required for a given range.12 14.92 6. The burnout velocity vbo (km/s) as a function of the maximum ballistic range rb (km) and burnout altitude hbo (km).07 3.000 4.83 12.81 6.75 4.83 4.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Equation 10 is solved by integrating numerically from x = 0 and y = Re until z = Re.98 3.87 4.000 3. 1990). The Range Equation The range of a missile depends on its velocity.32 Paul Zarchan.43 4.12 5. Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance (Washington.97 2.11 1.71 6.000 7.000 7. altitude. this is also known as a “minimumenergy” trajectory.000 4.61 6.01 6.17 7.
then the rocket equation gives 8 . the liftoff thrust of the CZ1 (and therefore of the DF3) is 104 tonnes (te). With this background. the curvature of the Earth can be neglected and equation 13 can be approximated by rb = 2 v bo sin θ cos θ 2 ghbo 1 + 1 + 2 g v bo cos 2 θ (14) The maximum range.4 te. We do this under two assumptions: first. and second. rmax. occurs when θ = π/4 (45 degrees).4 te is propellant. available to the public. including the CZ1. The DF3 booster is also the first stage of the DF4 ballistic missile and the CZ1 space launch vehicle (SLV). With this information we can estimate the payload mass or throwweight of the missile as a function of its range. of which 61. Constant Propellant Mass. China’s DF3 Missile The Chinese DF3 missile is a singlestage liquidfuel intermediaterange ballistic missile (IRBM). For ranges less than 500 km. As a rough estimate.4 te. If the propellant mass is held constant at 61. we can now explore specific missile designs. rbo ≈ hbo tanθ. one must add the downrange distance traveled during the rocket burn: r = rb + rbo. that the propellant mass is a constant 61.5 te). it has made information about their SLVs.5 te. in which case v bo ≈ g(rmax − 2hbo ) (15) where rmax includes the distance traveled during boost. To estimate the total range r. The maximum height above the Earth. or apogee. so that the total mass of the missile remains constant (in this case. that the propellant mass is increased or decreased to compensate for changes in the payload mass. Because China is marketing spacelaunch services. 67.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Note that rb includes only the ballistic portion of the trajectory. The mass of the first stage is 65. is given by hmax ≈ (rmax/4). As noted in table 2. The average specific impulse of the engine is 241 seconds— significantly less than the theoretical maximum of 275 s for nitric acid and UDMH (see table 1).
36 km/s. 1988). rbo = 125 km. 213. Constant Total Mass. 219. p. assume that the total mass of the missile is held constant at a value MT. in this case the rocket equation gives M t − M p + mp v bo + ∆v ag = exp − MT ve (18) which can be solved to give v bo + ∆v ag m p = M T exp − − ( Mt + M p ) ve (19) The results are shown in table 7. p. 3 Changes in hbo have little effect on mp. China Builds the Bomb (Stanford: Stanford University Press. calculated burnout altitudes for optimum trajectories range from 76 to 112 km for constant Mp. In the more accurate calculations presented below. For example. propellant.3 Mark Wade. increasing or decreasing hbo by 20 km increases or decreases mp by 2.DRAFT: 10/31/98 M t − M p + mp v bo + ∆v ag = exp − M t + mp ve DO NOT CITE OR COPY (16) where Mt. which is in excellent agreement with estimates appearing in the unclassified literature. and ∆vag = 1. 1191. John Lewis and Xue Litai. we have v bo + ∆v ag M t exp − − Mt + M p ve mp = v bo + ∆v ag 1 − exp − ve (17) Table 7 gives the throwweight as a function of the maximum range for hbo = 100 km.9 percent for constant MT. and from 92 to 113 km for constant MT. Solving for mp. 1988). "The Chinese Ballistic Missile Program. p.1 km/s. gives a throwweight of 2 te at a range of 2800 km. ve.0 te) and (Mt – Mp) = 4. the exhaust velocity of the booster. 2 9 . Equation 17 predicts a throwweight of about 2 te at a range of 2800 km. is equal to gIsp = 2. gives a range of 2800 km but no throwweight." International Defense Review. Mp. a design throwweight of 2.61 km/s for a maximum range of 2800 km and a burnout altitude of 100 km.1 te. assuming MT = 67..5 te (i.2 (Equation 14 gives a burnout velocity of 4.2 percent for constant Mp or 1. gives a throwweight of 2 te at a range of 2700 km. the International Institute of Strategic Studies.e. As an alternative. August 1990. The Military Balance: 19881989 (London: IISS. and payload masses. and mp are the booster.
It is instructive to check the accuracy of these calculations by solving numerically the equations of motion. The results.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Table 7. These effects were included implicitly through ∆vag and hbo.0 6. are in excellent agreement with those obtained with equations 17 and 19. and to higher velocities and increased aerodynamic heating during reentry. Range Throwweight mp (tonnes) (km) Constant Mp Constant MT 1000 11.4 0.1 2500 2. The throwweight of the DF3 missile as a function of the maximum range. since this will change the center of mass and therefore the aerodynamic stability of the missile.0 4000 0. and for a constant total missile mass MT = 67. for a constant propellant mass Mp = 61.0 1. Note that the above analysis.8 3500 1. does not explicitly include the effects of gravity and air resistance on the booster during launch. while analytically simple.4 4.5 te.8 1. which are given in table 8. since dependable design information is available for the DF3.5 4500 0.3 9.8 3000 1. 10 . Deceases in throwweight (and corresponding increases in range) will also lead to higher accelerations and aerodynamic loads during boost.02 It should be emphasized that it is not a simple matter to change the throwweight significantly.6 1500 7.4 te.9 2.2 2000 4.
11 . "Israel Launches Satellite Into Surveillance Orbit. and for a constant total missile mass MT = 67.5 te. From the orbital characteristics and estimated masses of these satellites one can obtain a fairly good idea of the throwweight/range capabilities of the Shavit. an apogee of 1150 km.0 1000 900 Israel’s JerichoII/Shavit Missile Very little is known publicly about the Israeli Jericho II missile. p.4 The velocity needed to put a satellite into orbit is given by5 2 1 vc = G M e − Re a (20) where a. was placed in an elliptical orbit with a perigee of 250 km.35 km/s.4 te. the semimajor axis of the orbit. 4 April 1990. respectively.5 3800 3900 1. (These orbital parameters have been independently verified. personal communication.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Table 8. was 7070 km for the first satellite and 7200 km for the second satellite. for a constant propellant mass Mp = 61. which was launched on 19 September 1988. the perigee and apogee of the second satellite were 200 km and 1450 km. 4 Jackson Diehl. The first satellite. Sourcebook on the Space Sciences (Princeton: van Nostrand. Gray.0 2800 2800 5. is widely believed to be based on the Jericho II. and the satellites were launched due west over the Mediterranean Sea (to avoid overflying Arab territory). which has been used to orbit two Israeli satellites. 5 Samual Glasstone. which gives vc = 8. and an inclination of 148 degrees. Throwweight Maximum Range r (km) (te) Constant Mp Constant MT 0. and therefore of the Jericho II.) The latitude of the launch site was 32 degrees. 1959).0 1800 1700 10. A35.29 km/s and 8. The Shavit space launch vehicle (SLV).0 4400 4500 0. Steven E.0 3400 3400 2. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Washington Post. The maximum range of the DF3.
we must add to vc the component of the earth's rotational velocity in the direction of the launch (∆vr). and 86164 is the number of seconds per sidereal day. ∆vr is given by ∆v r = 2π Re cos Φ cos Ω 86164 (21) where Φ is the latitude (32 degrees). under these conditions. as well an amount to compensate for the effects of air resistance and gravity during the rocket burn (∆vag). Using the orbital inclination for the first satellite (148 degrees). videotapes of the launches reveal that at least the first stage is solidfueled. If the same rocket were used as a ballistic missile. f is the ratio of the total mass of each stage to the propellant mass. we have ∆vr = 0.33 km/s. the payload mass for a given burnout velocity vbo would be given by −3 v bo + ∆v ag m p ≅ M T 1 − f 1 − exp − − 1 3v e −1 (23) The ratio of the ballisticmissile payload mass to the satellite payload mass is therefore given by v c + ∆v r + ∆v ag 1 − f 1 − exp − 3v e v bo + ∆v ag 1 − f 1 − exp − 3v e −3 −3 mp ≅ mS −1 (24) −1 12 . the mass of the satellite payload would be given by solving equation 5 for the payload mass: −3 v c + ∆v r + ∆v ag ms ≅ M T 1 − f 1 − exp − − 1 3v e −1 (22) where MT is the mass of the missile (excluding the mass of the payload).DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY To get the burnout velocity of the missile. A rough estimate of the Shavit's capbilities can be obtained by assuming that each stage provides the same increase in missile velocity. Ω is the orbital inclination. ve is the exhaust velocity of each stage. The Shavit probably has three stages.
6 km/s.7 4000 1.0 1.8 1.2 8000 0. The throwweight of the Shavit SLVas a function of the maximum range.3 11.5 0. Table 9.8 10000 0. solidfuel rocket. and Sharkey. and it is 6 See table 2.0 5000 1. and ∆vag = 1.S.9 2000 3. The total missile mass given by equation 22 is 33 te.5 6000 0.2 6. which is about the same as the U. Assuming that ms = 200 kg. including a guidance and control package would bring the total satellite payload mass to at least 200 kg. Range Throwweight mp (tonnes) (km) First 2 stages All 3 stages 1000 8. the throwweight predicted by equation 24 is given in table 9 as a function of the maximum range of the missile.7 1500 5. For a large. MinutemanII missile (32.7 4. "The Rocket Performance Computer.8 3000 2. Some analysts have speculated that the Jericho II is simply is the first two stages of the Shavit SLV. ve = 2.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY All that remains is to substitute values for f. Both missiles use solid propellants. Also see Glasstone. scaling the mass up or down to achieve the orbital capability demonstrated by the Shavit.5 te).15. and ∆vag into equation 24.2 2. typical values are f = 1.4 2. assuming a burnout altitude and range of 200 and 450 km. respectively. and the throwweight of the first two stages.3 0. Sourcebook on the Space Sciences.0 km/s. ve. along with the estimates of vc and ∆vr derived above." 13 . table 9 also gives the throwweight of the first two stages of a threestage Shavit.6 Another—and better—way to estimate the capability of the Israeli missile is to compare it to a missile of similar size whose details are well known.6 The satellite mass given by Israeli was 156 kg for the first satellite and 170 kg for the second satellite.
if the Jericho II is indeed the first two stages of the Shavit. the correspondence between tables 9 and 10 is remarkably good. assuming constant propellant mass. Minuteman II would have a throwweight of 800 kg at a range of 9. This clearly demonstrates the importance of multistage rocket technology for longrange delivery. then the throwweight of the first two Minuteman stages should be comparable to that of the Jericho II. the Shavit and the Minuteman II are missiles of similar capability. should be similar. It is interesting to compare the throwweight of the first two stages of the Minuteman II with that of the DF3. (The Minuteman III. which is in good agreement with the 800kg throwweight declared by the United States under the START Treaty.) Table 10 gives the throwweight of the Minuteman II as a function of the maximum range.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY reasonable to assume that Israel could achieve the same level of performance as that of the 1960svintage Minuteman II. At longer ranges. the MinutemanII missile would be capable of launching a 160kg satellite into the same orbit as the first Israeli satellite. whichever is greater. 7 “Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of the Data Base Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. however. 14 . is capable of launching 300kg satellite into the same orbit.000 km. if used as a ballistic missile. Thus. Table 10 also gives the throwweight of the first two stages of the Minuteman II. with its more advanced third stage. At a range of 1700 km both missiles have roughly equal throwweights (about 5 te). the first two stages of the Minuteman could deliver a 200kg payload at intercontinental ranges. unless the throwweight in one of the these tests exceeds by more than 20 percent the throwweight in subsequent tests). The throwweight of the Shavit. Using the equations presented here. this may be the greatest throwweight demonstrated in flight tests (excluding the first seven tests. According to the Treaty. Using equations 2 and 3 and the missile parameters given in table 2. Despite the simplicity of the earlier estimates based on equation 24. or the throwweight at 11. one finds that the Minuteman II could deliver a 700kg payload to a range of 10.7 Using the same assumptions. the twostage missile has the advantage: although the DF3 is limited to ranges of less than 4000 km.” dated 1 September 1990. gives a throwweight of 800 kg for the Minuteman II.000 km.000 km.
Very similar results are obtained if we assume that the Scud has the same initial thrusttoweight ratio as the V2 (i.5 7. and the throwweight of the first two stages. 1989). 9 Zaloga. William M. IV: Soviet Nuclear Weapons (New York: Ballinger.9 assuming a 1. Nuclear Weapons Databook. 84.2 5000 1. the ratio of total booster mass to propellant mass f would be 1.7 km/s).1 1. 10 Gregory P. With these booster characteristics we can use equations 17 and 19 to estimate the Scud’s throwweight at a given range.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Table 10. Like the Chinese DF3 (which itself is based on early Soviet technology).3 8000 0. Vengeance Weapon 2: The V2 Guided Missile (Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.4 12.6 2000 3. November 1988. Cochran. 220222. Sands. The throwweight of the Minuteman II missile as a function of the maximum range. so we may assume about the same exhaust velocity (2.4 3.7 te.9 10000 0. 15 .. Robert S. Vol. "Ballistic Missiles in the Third World: SCUD and Beyond. "Ballistic Missiles. 1983).2 4000 1. p. and Jeffrey I. p.8 1.e.4 0.7 6000 0." International Defense Review. The missile is widely attributed with a throwweight of 1 te at a maximum range of 300 km. Arkin. 14231427.3 3000 2. Thomas B.4 km/s) as the DF3." p. Kennedy. pp. liquidfuel.9 te and a propellant mass of 3. the propellants are UDMH and IRFNA.10 We can also assume that the Scud has about the same burnout altitude as the V2 (28 km) and the same ∆vag (about 0. Norris.7 The Soviet ScudB Missile The ScudB is a singlestage. Although this ratio is large by modern standards.32. the V2 missile had about the same ratio.6 2. shortrange ballistic missile based on German V2 rocket technology.9 5.8 Zaloga gives a total missile mass of 5.9 1500 5. 1427. Range Throwweight mp (tonnes) (km) First 2 stages All 3 stages 1000 8. a 8 Steven Zaloga.0te payload.2 0.
" p. Zagola. A throwweight of 200 kg is consistent with available estimates of the damage caused by these attacks. and that it could deliver the normal 1. the fuel tanks account for only onequarter of the mass of the empty booster. They also state that the fuel tanks were lengthened and 1040 kg of additional propellant added to the missile. "Iraq's AlHusayn Missile Programme.. Jr. 205. 1425. then the throwweight would be about 300 kg at a range of 650 km. The assumptions about the missile’s characteristics appear to be accurate. This can result in a increase in throwweight much greater than 50 percent. In the V2. The throwweight as a function of range under these assumptions is given in table 11. many were launched at Teheran. 11 16 . Note that the al Abbas could deliver a 1te payload to a range of 440 km.9 te). propellant is added to compensate for the reduced payload mass (i. inasmuch as the throwweight is predicted to be 1.13 W. but this clearly would not be necessary to achieve such a small throwweight at this range. Seth Carus and Joseph S.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY thrust of 12 te) and use equation 10 to estimate the maximum range for a given payload." p. "Ballistic Missiles.e. Iraq claimed that by reducing the throwweight they were able to extend the Scud’s range to 650 km. constant propellant mass is the best assumption. If. on the other hand. then f = 1.25 for the modified missile. which was over 500 km from the nearest Iraqi launch sites. and that its throwweight at 900 km would equal that of the ScudB at only 650 km (assuming a constant propellant mass). Bermudez.11 Iraq fired nearly 200 al Husseins against Iranian cities.0 te at 300 km." Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review.12 It was widely reported that Iraq had further extended the range of the ScudB by lengthening the missile to carry additional propellant. a constant total missile mass of 5. 386. these results appear in table 11. table 11 shows that the throwweight at this range would be only oneeighth of its throwweight at 300 km if the propellant mass remained constant. states that Iran claims that the al Hussein missile had a payload containing 190 kg of explosives and a maximum range of 600 km. "Ballistic Missile Proliferation. since the mass of the engines and tail section stay the same—only the mass of the fuel tanks must increase.0te Scud warhead to ranges significantly greater than the al Hussein missile could. Since Iran claimed that the modified Scud (dubbed the “al Hussein” by Iraq) carried a warhead weighing 160 to 180 kg. 12 See appendix B [NEED NEW FOOTNOTE HERE]. and further assume that the al Abbas modification results in a 50% increase in the fueltank and propellant mass only. pp. for example. 13 See Aaron Karp. These estimates are consistent with reports that the al Abbas had a range of up to 900 km. apparently two al Abbas missiles were made from three cannibalized Scuds. May 1990. If we assume the same fraction for the ScudB.
5 450 530 640 700 1. 17 .125 640 840 890 1010 0. table 12 gives the minimum range between several countries that possess ballistic missiles and major cities in the Middle East region. and constant missile mass (5.55 te for al Abbas). for constant propellant mass (3. Maximum Range r (km) al Abbas Throwweight ScudB / al Hussein (tonnes) Constant Mp Constant MT Constant Mp Constant MT 0.7 te for Scud. even missiles with ranges of 1.9 te for al Abbas). For example.0 300 300 440 440 Missile Ranges in Perspective To put these and other ranges given in this appendix in perspective. The Middle East is a small neighborhood.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Table 11.0 730 980 1000 1150 0.000 km or less can strike many potential adversaries. The range of the ScudB and al Abbas missiles as a function of throwweight.800 km) from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. every city is within the range of the DF3 missile (2. 7. 5.25 560 720 800 890 0.9 te for Scud. Note that every city listed (and many major cities not listed) is within IRBM range of every emerging missilecapable country. and every city but Tripoli is within DF3 range of Iran.
plus or minus a factor of two. Iraq Tel Aviv. as well as the relative probability that they will penetrate to their targets.S. Egypt Delhi.g. Sanaa. Aircraft Why use missiles instead of aircraft? After all. 18 . chemical agents) with aircraft than missiles. Libya Karachi. Turkey Baku. Minimum range (km) from several countries with ballistic missile programs to major cities in the region. respectively. Pakistan Riyadh.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Table 12. Israel Tripoli. A detailed answer must take into account the relative costs of missiles and aircraft for a given payload and range. Azerb. Syria Ankara. solidfuel ballistic missiles in 1986 dollars. If we apply this cost per unit mass to the liquidfuel Scud and DF3 (admittedly a questionable procedure). Table 13 gives the mass and unit flyaway cost of several U. and it is much simpler to deliver many payloads (e. even though the missile mass varies by a factor 70. Saudi Arabia Damascus. they are capable of much better accuracy than firstgeneration missiles. Yemem Egypt —— 4100 1600 1000 100 1200 3100 1100 300 900 1600 800 India 3600 —— 1900 2400 3300 5400 170 2200 3100 3500 2200 2700 Iran 1400 1400 —— 120 1000 3100 600 400 800 900 170 1000 Iraq 800 2800 400 —— 400 2500 1900 500 230 800 600 1000 Israel 300 4000 1400 800 —— 2100 3100 1300 60 800 1400 1300 Saudi Arabia 400 2300 800 300 250 2200 1200 —— 240 1000 1200 200 Costeffectiveness of Missiles vs. Iran Baghdad. Missile Launched From Target City Cairo. Moreover. we find that they cost roughly $1 million and $10 million each. India Teheran. Note that the price per kilogram varies by only a factor of four. missiles do not require highly skilled pilots and better control can be maintained over missiles than aircraft (missiles cannot defect). The usual answer is that the higher velocity of missiles gives them a much better chance of penetrating to their targets. aircraft are reusable. The average cost is about $200/kg.
S. MA: Ballinger. The average cost for fighter and attack aircraft is roughly $700 per kilogram of takeoff mass. and unit flyaway cost of several U.S.3 0. ballistic missiles. attrition rates must be very high to make the DF3 a costeffective alternative. Hoenig. Vol. other considerations aside. A6 and the Chinese DF3 missile.9 te.S. Nuclear Weapons Databook. prestige. payload.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Table 13. 1984). while the DF3 costs about $10 million. political control.5 340 Source: Thomas B. As another example. Once again. aircraft.8 220 MX/Peacekeeper 88 22 250 Poseidon C3 29 5. Referring to table 14. Given the unreliability and inaccuracy of ballistic missiles. the A6 costs about $19 million. such as speed.4 2. consider the comparison between the U. an A7 would only have to complete an average of one mission (an attrition rate of 50%) to be cost effective compared the Scud.S. and a unit flyaway cost of $8.5 million dollars. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities (Cambridge. or psychological impact. Since most air defenses cannot impose such high attrition rates. table 14 gives the mass. Arkin. a combat radius of 880 km. Mass Unit Flyaway Cost Cost/Mass Missile (te) (million FY 1986$) ($/kg) Minuteman III 35 7. For comparison. Cochran. the popularity of ballistic missiles must be explained by other factors. the U. A7 aircraft has a maximum payload of 5. combat radius. To deliver an equal payload at a range of only 300 km would require at six ScudB missiles at a cost of roughly $6 million dollars. Once again. the flyaway cost per unit takeoff mass varies by only a factor of four from the least expensive aircraft (A7) to the most expensive (B2). and Milton M.1 270 Trident D5 57 28 490 Lance 1. The mass (in tonnes) and unit flyaway cost (in million FY 1986 dollars) of several U.0 170 Trident C4 30 8. Both delivery systems have (or could have) roughly equal payload/range capabilities. I: U.S. William M.16 120 Pershing II 7. 19 .
S. 20 . Cochran. and unit flyaway cost in 1986 dollars of several U. Hoenig.5 450 F15 31 7.DRAFT: 10/31/98 DO NOT CITE OR COPY Table 14. Arkin. aircraft.4 8.6 4. combat radius.2 1250 19 690 A7 19 5.3 1350 22 710 F16 15 5. 1988). payload. Nuclear Weapons Databook.7 850 24 1200 B1 217 29 4600 228 1000 B2 168 23 5000 274 1600 Source: Thomas B. William M. and International Institute for Strategic Studies.7 660 A6 27. MA: Ballinger.S. 1984). I: U. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities (Cambridge. Vol.4 930 13 870 F18 20 7. The maximum takeoff weight. The Military Balance 19881989 (London: IISS.5 1250 7.9 880 8. and Milton M. Takeoff Mass Payload Combat Radius Flyaway Cost Cost/Mass Aircraft (te) (te) (km) (million 1986$) ($/kg) A4 11.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.