2/24/2008 ELF 1

Professi onal Devel opment
Short Course on
Tact i cal Mi ssi l e Desi gn
Professi onal Devel opment
Short Course on
Tact i cal Mi ssi l e Desi gn
Eugene L. Fleeman
Tactical Missile Design
E-mail: GeneFleeman@msn.com
Web Site: http://genefleeman.home.mindspring.com
2/24/2008 ELF 2
Outline
Outline
4 Introduction / Key Drivers in the Design Process
4 Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Propulsion Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Weight Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Flight Performance Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration
4 Sizing Examples
4 Development Process
4 Summary and Lessons Learned
4 References and Communication
4 Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises,
Example of Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms,
Conversion Factors, Syllabus )
2/24/2008 ELF 3
Emphasis Is on Physics-Based, Analytical Sizing
of Aerodynamic Configuration
Emphasis Is on Physics-Based, Analytical Sizing
of Aerodynamic Configuration
Safe, Arm, and Fuzing
Power Supply
Seeker, Sensors, and Electronics
Launch Platform Integration
Additional Measures of Merit
Cost
Miss Distance
Warhead
Weight
Structure
Propulsion
Aero Flight Performance
Aero Stability & Control
Aero Configuration Sizing
Emphasis Area
Primary Emphasis
Secondary Emphasis
Tertiary Emphasis
Not Addressed
-
-
2/24/2008 ELF 4
Superior Better Comparable Inferior
Axial Acceleration AGM-88
Maneuverability AA-11
Speed / altitude SM-3
Dynamic pressure PAC-3
Size Javelin
Weight FIM-92
Production cost GBU-31
Observables AGM-129
Range AGM-86
Kills per use Storm Shadow
Target acquisition LOCAAS
Tactical Missile
Characteristics
Comparison With
Fighter Aircraft




Tactical Missiles Are Different from Fighter Aircraft
Tactical Missiles Are Different from Fighter Aircraft
Example of
State-of-the-Art
2/24/2008 ELF 5
Aero Configuration Sizing Parameters
Emphasized in This Course
Aero Configuration Sizing Parameters
Emphasized in This Course
Nose Fineness
Diameter
Propulsion Sizing /
Propellant or Fuel
Wing Geometry / Size
Stabilizer
Geometry / Size
Flight Control
Geometry / Size
Length
Thrust
Profile
Flight Conditions ( α, M, h )
2/24/2008 ELF 6
Conceptual Design Process Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Conceptual Design Process Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
• Mission / Scenario
Definition
• Weapon
Requirements,
Trade Studies
and Sensitivity
Analysis
• Launch Platform
Integration
• Weapon Concept
Design Synthesis
• Technology
Assessment and
Dev Roadmap
Initial
Tech
Initial
Reqs
Baseline
Selected
Alt
Concepts
Initial Carriage /
Launch
Iteration
Refine
Weapons
Req
Initial Revised
Trades / Eval Effectiveness / Eval
Tech
Trades
Initial
Roadmap
Revised
Roadmap
Alternate Concepts ⇒Select Preferred Design ⇒Eval / Refine
Update
Note: Typical conceptual design cycle is 3 to 9 months. House of Quality may be used to translate customer requirements
to engineering characteristics. DOE may be used to efficiently evaluate the broad range of design solutions.
2/24/2008 ELF 7
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Yes
Define Mission Requirements
Establish Baseline
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Weight
Trajectory
Meet
Performance?
Measures of Merit and Constraints
No
No
Yes
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Alt Mission
Alt Baseline
2/24/2008 ELF 8
Examples of Air-Launched Missile Missions /
Types
Examples of Air-Launched Missile Missions /
Types
4 Air-to-air Example SOTA
• Short range ATA. AA-11. Maneuverability
• Medium range ATA. AIM-120. Performance / weight
• Long range ATA. Meteor. Range
4 Air-to-surface
• Short range ATS. AGM-114. Versatility
• Medium range ATS. AGM-88. Speed
• Long range ATS. Storm Shadow. Modularity
Permission of Missile Index. Copyright 1997©Missile.Index All Rights Reserved
10 feet
2/24/2008 ELF 9
4 Surface-to-surface Example SOTA
• Short range STS. Javelin. Size
• Medium range STS. MGM-140. Modularity
• Long range STS. BGM-109. Range
4 Surface-to-air
• Short range STA. FIM-92. Weight
• Medium range STA. PAC-3. Accuracy
• Long range STA. SM-3. High altitude
Examples of Surface-Launched Missile Missions /
Types
Examples of Surface-Launched Missile Missions /
Types
Permission of Missile.Index. Copyright 1997©Missile.Index All Rights Reserved
10 feet
2/24/2008 ELF 10
Aero Configuration Range / Time to Robust- Miss Observ- Launch
Sizing Parameter Weight Maneuver Target ness Lethality Distance ables Survivability Cost Platform
Nose Fineness
Diameter
Length
Wing Geometry / Size
Stabilizer Geometry / Size
Flight Control
Geometry / Size
Propellant / Fuel
Thrust Profile
Flight Conditions
( α, M, h )
Aero Configuration Sizing Has High Impact on
Mission Requirements
Aero Configuration Sizing Has High Impact on
Mission Requirements
Impact on Weapon Requirement
Aero Measures of Merit Other Measures of Merit Constraint

Very Strong Strong Moderate Relatively Low
2/24/2008 ELF 11

Alternatives for Precision Strike
Cost per
Shot
Future Systems
4Standoff platforms / hypersonic missiles
4Overhead loitering UCAVs / hypersonic missiles
4Overhead loitering UCAVs / light weight PGMs
Current Systems
4Penetrating aircraft / subsonic PGMs
4Standoff platforms / subsonic missiles
Note: Superior Good Average Poor
Number of
Launch Platforms
Required
TCT
Effectiveness



Example of Assessment of Alternatives to
Establish Future Mission Requirements
Example of Assessment of Alternatives to
Establish Future Mission Requirements
Note: C4ISR targeting state-of-the-art for year 2010 projected to provide sensor-to-shooter / weapon connectivity
time of less than 2 m and target location error ( TLE ) of less than 1 m for motion suspended target.
Measures of Merit
2/24/2008 ELF 12
C4ISR Tactical Satellites and UAVs Have High
Impact on Mission Capability
C4ISR Tactical Satellites and UAVs Have High
Impact on Mission Capability
4Launch Platforms
•Fighter Aircraft
•Bomber
•Ship / Submarine
•UCAV
4Precision Strike Weapons
•Hypersonic SOW
•Subsonic PGM
•Subsonic CM
4Launch Platforms
•Fighter Aircraft
•Bomber
•Ship / Submarine
•UCAV
4Precision Strike Weapons
•Hypersonic SOW
•Subsonic PGM
•Subsonic CM
4Off-board Sensors
•Tactical Satellite
•UAV
4Off-board Sensors
•Tactical Satellite
•UAV
Note: C4ISR targeting state-of-the-art for year 2010 projected to provide sensor-to-shooter / weapon connectivity
time of less than 2 m and target location error ( TLE ) of less than 1 m for motion suspended target.
4Time Critical Targets
•TBM / TEL
•SAM
•C3
•Other Strategic
4Time Critical Targets
•TBM / TEL
•SAM
•C3
•Other Strategic
2/24/2008 ELF 13
Example of System-of-Systems Analysis to
Develop Future Mission Requirements
Example of System-of-Systems Analysis to
Develop Future Mission Requirements
1. Compare Targeting of Subsonic Cruise Missile
Versus Hypersonic Missile
t
0
t
1
TBM
Launch
Launch
Pt Rcvd
t
2
t
3
Cruise Missile Launch
HM Intercept
at XXX nm
Range 3 > R
2
Range 2 > R
1
Range 1
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Average Speed, fps
T
i
m
e
,

M
i
n
120
0
20
40
60
80
100
20
40
60
80
100
0
2000 0 4000 6000
Average Speed to Survive, fps
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e


1
0
0
0

f
t
L
e
t
h
a
l
i
t
y

/

C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(

f
t

) 50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 0
Impact Velocity, fps
W/H W
3
> W
2
W/H W
2
> W
1
Warhead W
1
0
2. Time To Target
3. Alt / Speed / RCS Required
For Survivability
4. Lethality
Selected For All:
• Value of Speed /
Range
• Time Urgent Targets
• High Threat
Environments
• Buried Targets
• Launch Platform
Alternatives
• Operating and
Attrition Cost in
Campaign
• Weapon Cost in
Campaign
• Mix of Weapons in
Campaign
• Cost Per Target Kill
• C4ISR Interface
5. Campaign Model Weapons
Mix ( CM, Hypersonic
Missile ) Results
( eg., Korean Scenario )
Hypersonic
Missile Launch
RCS1 RCS2 > RCS1
1
-
2 3
-
4
2
-
3
4
-
5
2/24/2008 ELF 14
Example of Technological Surprise Driving
Immediate Mission Requirements
Example of Technological Surprise Driving
Immediate Mission Requirements
Archer AA-11 / R-73 ( IOC 1987 )
4Performance
•> +/- 60 deg off boresight
•20 nm range
4New Technologies
•TVC
•Split canard
•Near-neutral static margin
•+/- 90 deg gimbal seeker
•Helmet mounted sight
Sidewinder AIM-9L ( IOC 1977 )
4Performance
•+/- 25 deg off boresight
•6.5 nm range
Note: AIM-9L maneuverability shortfall compared to
Archer drove sudden development of AIM-9X.
2/24/2008 ELF 15
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Yes
Establish Baseline
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Weight
Trajectory
Meet
Performance?
Measures of Merit and Constraints
No
No
Yes
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Alt Mission
Alt Baseline
Define Mission Requirements
2/24/2008 ELF 16
Baseline Design Benefits and Guidelines
Baseline Design Benefits and Guidelines
4 Benefits of Baseline Design
4 Allows simple, conceptual design methods to be used with good
accuracy
4 Well documented benchmark / configuration control / traceability
between cause and effect
4 Balanced subsystems
4 Gives fast startup / default values for design effort
4 Provides sensitivity trends for changing design
4 Baselines can cover reasonable range of starting points
4 Baselines can normally be extrapolated to ±50% with good accuracy
4 Guidelines
4 Don’t get locked-in by baseline
4 Be creative
4 Project state-of-the-art ( SOTA ) if baseline has obsolete subsystems
4 Sensors and electronics almost always need to be updated
2/24/2008 ELF 17
Configuration Drawing Weight / Geometry Flow Path Geometry
Aerodynamics Ramjet Propulsion Rocket Propulsion
Flight Performance House of Quality Paredo Sensitivity for DOE
Inlet
Conical forebody angle, deg 17.7
Ramp wedge angle, deg 8.36
Capture area, ft
2
0.52
Throat area, ft
2
0.29
Body
Length, in 171.0
Diameter, in 20.375
Fineness ratio 8.39
Volume, ft
3
28.33
Wetted area, ft
2
68.81
Base area, ft2 ( cruise ) 0.58
Boattail fineness ratio N/A
Nose half angle, deg 15.0
Tail ( Exposed )
Area ( 2 panels ), ft
2
2.24
Wetted area ( 4 panels ), ft
2
8.96
Aspect ratio ( exposed ) 1.64
Taper ratio 0.70
Root chord, in 16.5
Span, in. ( exposed ) 23.0
L.E. sweep, deg 37.0
M.A.C., in 14.2
Thickness ratio 0.04
X MAC, in 150.5
Y MAC, in ( from root chord ) 5.4
Reference values:
Reference area, ft
2
2.264
Reference length, ft 1.698










M, Mach Number
I
s
p
,

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

I
m
p
u
l
s
e
,

s
e
c
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4
Note:
φ = 1
30
20
10
0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
B
o
o
s
t T
h
r
u
s
t ~
1
0
0
0
lb
s

Time ~ sec
5.0 6.0
( ISP )Booster = 250 sec
3.0
2.5
2.0
B
u
r
n
o
u
t
M
a
c
h
N
u
m
b
e
r
h, Altitude 1,000 ft
2.0
1.0
0
ML = 0.80
constant altitude flyout
B
o
o
s
t
R
a
n
g
e
~
n
m
0 20 40 60
0 20 40 60 80
h, Altitude 1,000 ft
Note: Constant altitude flyout
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4
R
a
n
g
e
~
n
m
M, Mach Number
h = SL
20,000 ft
40,000 ft
60,000 ft
Note:
• ML = 0.8, Constant Altitude Flyout
Example:
• Breguet Range for Mach 3 / 60 Kft flyout:
Rmax = V ISP ( L / D )Max ln [ WBC / ( WBC - Wf )]
= 2901 ( 950 ) ( 3.15 ) ln ( 1739 / ( 1739 - 476 )) = 2,777,192 ft or 457 nm
Nose 15.9 15.7
Forebody 42.4 33.5
Guidance 129.0 33.5
Payload Bay 64.5 60.0
Warhead 510.0 60.0
Midbody 95.2 101.2
Inlet 103.0 80.0
Electrical 30.0 112.0
Hydraulic 20.0 121.0
Fuel Distribution 5.0 121.0
Aftbody 44.5 142.5
Engine 33.5 142.5
Tailcone 31.6 165.0
Exit Duct 31.0 165.0
Controls 37.0 164.0
Fins ( 4 ) 70.0 157.2
End of Cruise 1,262.6 81.8
Ramjet Fuel ( 6.9 ft3 ) 476.0 87.0
Start of Cruise 1,738.6 83.2
Boost Nozzle ( Ejected ) 31.0 164.0
Frangible Port 11.5 126.0
End of Boost 1,781.1 84.9
Boost Propellant 449.0 142.5
Booster Ignition 2,230.1 96.5
Component Weight, lb CG Sta, In.
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
C D
0
M, Mach Number
0 1 2 3 4
C N
δ
~
p
e
r
d
e
g
0 1 2 3 4
C m
δ
~
p
e
r
d
e
g
-.4
-.2
0
.10
.05
0
SRef = 2.264 ft2
LRef = DRef = 1.698 ft
Xcg @ Sta 82.5 in.
M, Mach Number
+ .4
0
-.4
-.8
-1.2
-1.6
P
i
t
c
h
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

C
m
α, Angle of Attack ~ deg
0 4 8 12 16
Mach
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.2
S
Ref
= 2.264 ft
2
L
Ref
= D
Ref
= 1.698 ft
X
cg
@Sta 82.5 in.
N
o
r
m
a
l F
o
r
c
e
C
o
e
ff
ic
ie
n
t, C
N
α, Angle of Attack ~ deg
0 4 8 12 16
Mach
1.2
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
.40
.30
.20
.10
0
A
x
ia
l F
o
r
c
e
C
o
e
ff
ic
ie
n
t
, C
A
0 4 8 12 16
Mach
1.2
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
SRef = 2.264 ft2
LRef = Dref = 1.698 ft
Xcg @ Sta 82.5 in.
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
α, Angle of Attack ~ deg






• •

• •

• •
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
0 1 2 3 4
M, Mach Number
T
,

N
e
t

T
h
r
u
s
t
,

l
b
Note:
φ = 1
h = SL
h = 20K ft
h = 40K ft
h = 60K ft
h = 80K ft
Example of Missile Baseline Data
Example of Missile Baseline Data
Ac Inlet capture area
AIT Inlet throat area
SRef Reference area
A5 Nozzle throat area
Isp Specific impulse
φ Equivalence ratio – operating fuel / air ratio divided by fuel / air ratio for stochiometric combustion
Ramjet Engine Station Identification
0
Free Stream
2 3 4 5 6
Subscripts
0 Free stream conditions ( Ramjet Baseline A0 = 75.4 in2 at Mach 4, α = 0 deg, Note: AC = 114 in2 )
1 Inlet throat ( Ramjet Baseline A1 = AIT = 41.9 in2 )
2 Diffuser exit ( Ramjet Baseline A2 = 77.3 in2 )
3 Flame holder plane ( Ramjet Baseline A3 = 287.1 in2 )
4 Combustor exit ( Ramjet Baseline A4 = 287.1 in2 )
5 Nozzle throat ( Ramjet Baseline A5 = 103.1 in2 )
6 Nozzle exit ( A6 = 233.6 in2 )
Ref Reference Area ( Ramjet Baseline Body Cross-sectional Area, SRef = 326 in2 )
1
Inlet Throat
( CD0
)Nose Corrected = ( CD0
)Nose Uncorrected x ( 1 - Ac / SREF )
120°
Ac = 114 in2
20.375 in diameter
Source: Bithell, R.A. and Stoner, R.C. “Rapid Approach for Missile Synthesis”, Vol. II, Air-breathing
Synthesis Handbook, AFWAL TR 81-3022, Vol. II, March 1982.
Sta 0.
Guidance
Warhead
Ramjet Fuel
Boost Propellant
Booster, and
Ramjet Engine
Boost Nozzle
Tail Cone Aft-body Mid-body Payload Bay Fore-body Nose
23.5 43.5 76.5 126.0
159.0 171.0
Sta 150.3
11.6
11.5
16.5
37°
Note: Dimensions are in inches
Chin
Inlet
Transport Air Duct
20.375 dia
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
ISP Fuel
Weight
Thrust CD0, Zero-
Lift Drag
Coefficient
CLA, Lift-
Curve-
Slope
Coefficient
Inert
Weight
Parameter
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

R
a
n
g
e

S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y

t
o

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Sea Level Flyout at Mach 2.3 20 Kft Flyout at Mach 2.5
40 Kft Flyout at Mach 2.8 60 Kft Flyout at Mach 3.0
2/24/2008 ELF 18
Baseline Design Data Allows Correction of
Computed Parameters in Conceptual Design
Baseline Design Data Allows Correction of
Computed Parameters in Conceptual Design
4 P
CD, C
Parameter of conceptual design, corrected
4 P
B, C
Parameter of baseline, corrected ( actual data )
4 P
B, U
Parameter of baseline, uncorrected ( computed )
4 P
CD, U
Parameter of conceptual design, uncorrected (computed )
4 Example
• Ramjet Baseline with RJ-5 fuel ( heating value = 11,300,000 ft-lbf / lbm )
• Advanced Concept with slurry fuel ( 40% JP-10 / 60% boron carbide =
18,500,000 ft-lbf / lbm )
• Flight conditions: Mach 3.5 cruise, 60k ft altitude, combustion temperature
4,000 R
• Calculate specific impulse ( I
SP
)
CD,C
for conceptual design, based on corrected
baseline data
– ( I
SP
)
B, C
= 1,120 s
– ( I
SP
)
B, U
= 1387 s
– ( I
SP
)
CD, U
= 2,271 s
– ( I
SP
)
CD, C
= [( I
SP
)
B, C
/ ( I
SP
)
B, U
] ( I
SP
)
CD, U
= [( 1120 ) / ( 1387 )] ( 2271 ) = 0.807 ( 2271 )
= 1,834 s
P
CD, C
= ( P
B, C
/ P
B, U
) P
CD, U
2/24/2008 ELF 19
Summary of This Chapter
Summary of This Chapter
4 Overview of Missile Design Process
4 Examples
4 Tactical missile characteristics
4 Conceptual design process
4 SOTA of tactical missiles
4 Aerodynamic configuration sizing parameters
4 Processes that establish mission requirements
4 Process for correcting design predictions
4 Discussion / Questions?
4 Classroom Exercise
2/24/2008 ELF 20
Introduction Problems
Introduction Problems
1. The missile design team should address the areas of mission / scenario
definition, weapon requirements, launch platform integration, design, and
t_______ a_________.
2. The steps to evaluate missile flight performance require computing
aerodynamics, propulsion, weight, and flight t_________.
3. Air-to-air missile characteristics include light weight, high speed, and high
m______________.
4. Air-to-surface missiles are often versatile and m______.
5. Four aeromechanics measures of merit are weight, range, maneuverability,
and t___ to target.
6. The launch platform often constrains the missile span, length, and w_____.
7. An enabling capability for hypersonic strike missiles is fast and accurate
C____.
8. An enabling capability for large off boresight air-to-air missiles is a h_____
m______ sight.
9. A baseline design improves the accuracy and s____ of the design process.
2/24/2008 ELF 21
Outline
Outline
4 Introduction / Key Drivers in the Design Process
4 Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Propulsion Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Weight Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Flight Performance Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration
4 Sizing Examples
4 Development Process
4 Summary and Lessons Learned
4 References and Communication
4 Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises,
Example of Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms,
Conversion Factors, Syllabus )
2/24/2008 ELF 22
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Yes
Establish Baseline
Propulsion
Weight
Trajectory
Meet
Performance?
Measures of Merit and Constraints
No
No
Yes
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Alt Mission
Alt Baseline
Define Mission Requirements
Aerodynamics
2/24/2008 ELF 23
Missile Diameter Tradeoff
Missile Diameter Tradeoff
4 Drivers toward Small Diameter
• Decrease drag
• Launch platform diameter constraint
4 Drivers toward Large Diameter
• Increase seeker range and signal-to-noise, better resolution and tracking
• Increase blast frag and shaped charge warhead effectiveness ( larger diameter
⇒higher velocity fragments or higher velocity jet )
• Increase body bending frequency
• Subsystem diameter packaging
• Launch platform length constraint
4 Typical Range in Body Fineness Ratio 5 < l / d < 25
• Man-portable anti-armor missiles are low l / d ( Javelin l / d = 8.5 )
• Surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles are high l / d ( AIM-120 l / d = 20.5 )
2/24/2008 ELF 24
Small Diameter Missiles Have Low Drag
Small Diameter Missiles Have Low Drag
10
100
1000
10000
100000
4 8 12 16 20
d, Diameter, in
D

/

C
D
,

D
r
a
g

/

D
r
a
g

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

l
b
Dynamic Pressure =
1,000 psf
Dynamic Pressure =
5,000 psf
Dynamic Pressure =
10,000 psf
Example for Rocket Baseline:
d = 8 in = 0.667 ft
Mach 2, h = 20k ft, ( C
D
0
)
Powered
= 0.95
q = 1/2 ρ V
2
= 1/2 ρ ( M a )
2
= 1/2 ( 0.001267 ) [( 2 ) ( 1037 )]
2
= 2,725 psf
D
0
/ C
D
0
= 0.785 ( 2725 ) ( 0.667 )
2
= 952
D
0
= 0.95 ( 952 ) = 900 lb
D = C
D
q S
Ref
= 0.785 C
D
q d
2
Note: D = drag in lb, C
D
= drag coefficient, q = dynamic pressure in psf,
d = diameter ( reference length ) in ft
2/24/2008 ELF 25
Large Diameter Radar Seeker Provides Longer
Detection Range and Better Resolution
Large Diameter Radar Seeker Provides Longer
Detection Range and Better Resolution
1
10
100
0 5 10 15 20
d, Diameter, Inches
Example Seeker Range for Transmitted Power Pt = 100 W, nm
Example Seeker Range for Transmitted Power Pt = 1,000 W, nm
Example Seeker Range for Transmitted Power Pt = 10,000 W, nm
Example Seeker Beam Width, deg
R
D
= { π σ n
3/4
/ [ 64 λ
2
K T BF L ( S / N ) ]}
1/4
P
t
1/4
d
θ
3dB
= 1.02 λ / d, θ
3dB
in rad
Assumptions: Negligible clutter, interference, and
atmospheric attenuation; non-coherent radar ( only
signal amplitude integrated ); uniformly illuminated
circular aperture; receiver sensitivity limited by
thermal noise
Symbols:
σ = Target radar cross section, m
2
n = Number of pulses integrated
λ = Wavelength, m
K = Boltzman’s constant = 1.38 x 10
-23
J / K
T = Receiver temperature, K
B = Receiver bandwidth, Hz
F = Receiver noise factor
L = Transmitter loss factor
S / N = Signal-to-noise ratio for target detection
P
t
= Transmitted power, W
d = Antenna diameter
Example: Rocket Baseline
d = 8 in = 0.20 m, P
t
= 1000 W, λ = 0.03 m ( f = 10 GHz )
R
D
= Target detection range = { π ( 10 ) ( 100 )
3/4
/ [ 64 (
0.03 )
2
( 1.38 x 10
-23
) ( 290 ) ( 10
6
) ( 5 ) ( 5 )( 10 )]}
1/4
(
1000 )
1/4
( 0.203 ) = 13,073 m or 7.1 nm
θ
3dB
= 3-dB beam width = 1.02 ( 0.03 ) / 0.203 = 0.1507
rad or 8.6 deg
Note for figure: σ = 10 m
2
, n = 100, λ = 0.03 m ( f = Transmitter
frequency = 10 x 10
9
Hz ), T = 290 K, B = 10
6
Hz ( 10
-6
s pulse ), F
= 5, L = 5, S / N = 10
2/24/2008 ELF 26
Large Diameter IR Seeker Provides Longer
Detection Range and Better Resolution
Large Diameter IR Seeker Provides Longer
Detection Range and Better Resolution
1
10
100
0 2 4 6 8 10
do, Optics Diameter, Inches
Example Seeker Range for Exo-atmospheric, km
Example Seeker Range for Humidity at 7.5 g / m3, km
Example Seeker Range for Rain at 4 mm / hr, km
Example Seeker IFOV, 10-5 rad
R
D
= { ( I
T
)
Δλ
η
a
A
o
{ D* / [( Δf
p
)
1/2
( A
d
)
1/2
]} ( S / N )
D
-1
}
1/2
IFOV= d
p
/ [ ( f-number ) d
o
]
Example: d
o
= 5 in = 0.127 m, exo-atmospheric
L
λ
= 3.74 x 10
4
/ { 4
5
{ e
{ 1.44 x 10
4
/ [ 4 ( 300 ) ]}
– 1 }} = 0.000224 W cm
-2
sr
-2
μm
-1
, ( I
T
)
Δλ
= 0.5 ( 0.000224 ) ( 4.2 – 3.8 ) 2896 = 0.1297 W / sr, A
d
=
256 x 256 x ( 20 μm )
2
= 0.262 cm
2
, f-number = 20 / [ 2.44 ( 4 ) ] = 2.05
R
D
= { 0.1297 ( 1 ) ( 0.01267 ) { 8 x 10
11
/ [( 250 )
1/2
( 0.262 )
1/2
]} ( 1 )
-1
}
1/2
= 12, 740 m
IFOV = 0.000020 / [ 2.05 ( 0.127 )] = 0.0000769 rad
Figure: d
T
= 2 ft ( 60.96 cm ), T
T
= 300 K, λ
1
= 3.8 μm,
λ
2
= 4.2 μm, ε = 0.5, λ = 4 μm, FPA ( 256 x 256, 20 μm
), D* = 8 x 10
11
cm Hz
1/2
/ W, ( S / N )
D
= 1, Δf
p
= 250 Hz.
R
D
= Target detection range, m
( I
T
)
Δλ
= Target radiant intensity between λ
1
and λ
2
= ε
L
λ
( λ
2
- λ
1
) A
T
, W / sr
η
a
= Atmospheric transmission
A
o
= Optics aperture area, m
2
D* = Specific detectivity, cm Hz
1/2
/ W
Δf
p
= Pixel bandwidth, Hz
A
d
= Detectors total area, cm
2
( S / N )
D
= Signal-to-noise ratio required for detection
ε = Emissivity coefficient
L
λ
= Spectral radiance ( Planck’s Law ) = 3.74 x 10
4
/ {
λ
5
{ e
[ 1.44 x 10
4
/ ( λ T
T
)]
– 1 }}, W cm
-2
sr
-2
μm
-1
λ
2
= Upper cutoff wavelength for detection, μm
λ
1
= Lower cutoff wavelength for detection, μm
A
T
= Target planform area, cm
2
λ = Average wavelength, μm
T
T
= Target temperature, K
IFOV = Instantaneous field-of-view of pixel, rad
f-number = d
spot
/ ( 2.44 λ )
d
p
= Pixel diameter, either μm
d
spot
= Spot resolution if diffraction limited = d
p
, μm
2/24/2008 ELF 27
Missile Fineness Ratio May Be Limited by
Impact of Body Bending on Flight Control
Missile Fineness Ratio May Be Limited by
Impact of Body Bending on Flight Control
100
1000
10000
0 10 20 30
l / d, length / diameter
F
i
r
s
t

M
o
d
e

B
o
d
y

B
e
n
d
i
n
g

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
,

r
a
d

/

s
E t / W = 1,000 per in
E t / W = 10,0000 per in
E t / W = 100,000 per in
Derived from: AIAA Aerospace Design Engineers Guide, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1993.
ω
BB
= 18.75 { E t / [ W ( l / d ) ]}
1/2
Example for Rocket Baseline:
l / d = 18
E
AVG
= 19.5 x 10
6
psi
t
AVG
= 0.12 in
W = 500 lb
E t / W = 19.5 x 10
6
( 0.12 ) / 500 = 4680 per in
ω
BB
= 18.75 ( 4680 / 18 )
1/2
= 302 rad / sec = 48 Hz
ω
Actuator
= 100 rad / sec = 16 Hz
ω
BB
/ ω
Actuator
= 302 / 100 = 3.02 > 2
Assumes body cylinder structure, thin skin, high
fineness ratio, uniform weight distribution, free-free
motion. Neglects bulkhead, wing / tail stiffness.
ω
BB
= First mode body bending frequency, rad / s
E = Modulus of elasticity in psi
t = Thickness in inches
W = Weight in lb
l / d = Fineness ratio
2/24/2008 ELF 28
Nose Fineness Tradeoff
Nose Fineness Tradeoff
d
Example: l
N
/ d = 5 tangent ogive
Example: l
N
/ d = 0.5 ( hemisphere )
High Nose Fineness Superior Aerodynamically, Low Observables
Low Nose Fineness Ideal Electromagnetically, High Propellant Length / Volume
Moderate Nose Fineness Compromise Dome
d
Examples: l
N
/ d = 2 tangent ogive l
N
/ d = 2 faceted l
N
/ d = 2 window l
N
/ d = 2 multi-lens
d
W
in
d
o
w
2/24/2008 ELF 29
4Firestreak
4Mistral
4 SLAM-ER
4JASSM
4THAAD
Faceted and Flat Window Domes Can Have Low
Dome Error Slope, Low Drag, and Low RCS
Faceted and Flat Window Domes Can Have Low
Dome Error Slope, Low Drag, and Low RCS
Faceted Dome ( Mistral ) Video
2/24/2008 ELF 30
Supersonic Body Drag Driven by Nose Fineness
while Subsonic Drag Driven by Wetted Area
Supersonic Body Drag Driven by Nose Fineness
while Subsonic Drag Driven by Wetted Area
0.01
0.1
1
10
0 1 2 3 4 5
M, Mach Number
(CD0)Body,Wave;
lN / d = 0.5
(CD0)Body,Wave;
lN / d = 1
(CD0)Body,Wave;
lN / d = 2
(CD0)Body,Wave;
lN / d = 5
(CD)Base,Coast
Example for Rocket Baseline:
( C
D
0
)
Body, Wave
( C
D
0
)
Body, Friction
( C
D
)
Base
l
N
/ d = 2.4, A
e
= 11.22 in
2
, S
Ref
= 50.26 in
2
, M =
2, h = 20k ft, q = 2725 psf, l / d = 18, l = 12 ft
( C
D
0
)
Body, Friction
= 0.053 ( 18 ) { ( 2 ) / [( 2725 )
( 12 ) ]}
0.2
= 0.14
( C
D
)
Base Coast
= 0.25 / 2 = 0.13
( C
D
)
Base Powered
= ( 1 - 0.223 ) ( 0.25 / 2 ) = 0.10
( C
D
0
)
Body, Wave
= 0.14
( C
D
0
)
Body, Coast
= 0.14 + 0.13 + 0.14 = 0.41
( C
D
0
)
Body, Powered
= 0.14 + 0.10 + 0.14 = 0.38
( C
D
0
)
Body
= (C
D
0
)
Body,Friction
+ ( C
D
0
)
Base
+ ( C
D
0
)
Body, Wave
(C
D
0
)
Body,Friction
= 0.053 ( l / d ) [ M / ( q l )]
0.2
. Based on Jerger reference, turbulent boundary layer, q in psf, l in ft.
( C
D
0
)
Base,Coast
= 0.25 / M, if M > 1 and (C
D
0
)
Base,Coast
= ( 0.12 + 0.13 M
2
), if M < 1
( C
D
0
)
Base,Powered
= ( 1 – A
e
/ S
Ref
) ( 0.25 / M ), if M > 1 and ( C
D
0
)
Base,Powered
= ( 1 – A
e
/ S
Ref
) ( 0.12 + 0.13 M
2
), if M < 1
( C
D
0
)
Body, Wave
= ( 1.59 + 1.83 / M
2
) { tan
-1
[ 0.5 / ( l
N
/ d )]}
1.69
, for M > 1. Based on Bonney reference, tan
-1
in rad.
Note: ( C
D
0
)
Body,Wave
= body zero-lift wave drag coefficient, ( C
D
0
)
Base
= body base drag coefficient, ( C
D
0
)
Body, Friction
= body skin
friction drag coefficient, ( C
D
0
)
Body
= body zero-lift drag coefficient, l
N
= nose length, d = missile diameter, l = missile body
length, A
e
= nozzle exit area, S
Ref
= reference area, q = dynamic pressure, tan
-1
[ 0.5 / ( l
N
/ d )] in rad.
2/24/2008 ELF 31
Moderate Nose Tip Bluntness Causes a
Negligible Change in Supersonic Drag
Moderate Nose Tip Bluntness Causes a
Negligible Change in Supersonic Drag
4 Steps to Calculate Wave Drag of a Blunted Nose
1. Relate blunted nose tip geometry to pointed nose tip geometry
2. Compute (C
D
0
)
Wave,SharpNose
for sharp nose, based on the body reference area
( C
D
0
)
Wave
,
SharpNose
= ( 1.59 + 1.83 / M
2
) { tan
-1
[ 0.5 / ( l
N
/ d )]}
1.69
3. Compute ( C
D
0
)
Wave,Hemi
of the hemispherical nose tip ( l
NoseTip
/ d
NoseTip
= 0.5 ), based on the
nose tip area
( C
D
0
)
Wave,Hemi
= ( 1.59 + 1.83 / M
2
) {[ tan
-1
( 0.5 / ( 0.5 )]}
1.69
= 0.665 ( 1.59 + 1.83 / M
2
)
4. Finally, compute ( C
D
0
)
Wave,BluntNose
of the blunt nose, based on the body reference area
( C
D
0
)
Wave,BluntNose
= ( C
D
0
)
Wave,SharpNose
( S
Ref
- S
NoseTip
) / S
Ref
+ ( C
D
0
)
Wave,Hemi
S
NoseTipi
/ S
Ref
4 Example Rocket Baseline ( d
Ref
= 8 in ) with 10% Nose Tip Bluntness at Mach 2
• ( C
D
0
)
Wave,SharpNose
= [ 1.59 + 1.83 / ( 2 )
2
] [ tan
-1
( 0.5 / 2.4)]
1.69
= 0.14
• d
NoseTip
= 0.10 ( 8 ) = 0.8 in
• S
NoseTip
= π d
NoseTip
2
/ 4 = 3.1416 ( 0.8 )
2
/ 4 = 0.503 in
2
= 0.00349 ft
2
• ( C
D
0
)
Wave,Hemi
= 0.665 [ 1.59 + 1.83 / ( 2 )
2
] = 1.36
• ( C
D
0
)
Wave,BluntNose
= 0.14 ( 0.349 - 0.003 ) / 0.349 + ( 1.36 ) ( 0.003 ) / ( 0.349 ) = 0.14 + 0.01 = 0.15
d
Ref
d
NoseTip
l
N
2/24/2008 ELF 32
Boattail Decreases Base Pressure Drag Area
Boattail Decreases Base Pressure Drag Area
Without Boattail
With Boattail
During Motor Burn After Motor Burnout
Base Pressure Drag Area
θ
BT
Note: Boattail angle θ
BT
and boattail diameter d
BT
limited by propulsion nozzle packaging, tail flight
control packaging, and flow separation
d
Ref
d
BT
Reference: Chin, S. S., Missile Configuration Design, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1961
2/24/2008 ELF 33
Boattailing Reduces Drag for Subsonic Missiles
Boattailing Reduces Drag for Subsonic Missiles
0.45
0.40
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
C
D
O
,

E
x
a
m
p
l
e

Z
e
r
o
-
L
i
f
t

D
r
a
g

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
M

Note: Boatail half angle should be less than 10 deg, to avoid flow separattion.
Source: Mason, L.A., Devan, L. and Moore, F.G., “Aerodynamic Design Manual for Tactical Weapons,” NSWC TR 81-156, July
1981
3.00 6.00 1.50
Center body Nose
10.50
d
BT
/ d
Ref
= 1.0
d
BT
/ d
Ref
= 0.9
d
BT
/ d
Ref
= 0.8
d
BT
/ d
Ref
= 0.6
d
BT
/ d
Ref
= 0.4
Boattail
Note:
d
BT
= Boattail Diameter
d
Ref
= Body Reference Diameter
2/24/2008 ELF 34
Note:
If α negative, C
N
negative
Based on slender body theory ( Pitts, et al ) and cross flow theory ( Jorgensen ) references
Valid for l / d > 5
Example l / d = length / diameter = 20
d = 2 ( a b )
1/2
φ = 0°
Lifting Body Has Higher Normal Force
Lifting Body Has Higher Normal Force
C
N
,
Example
Normal
Force
Coefficient
for l / d = 20
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
α, Angle of Attack, Deg
φ
2a
2b
a / b = 3
a / b = 2
a / b = 1
⏐ C
N
⏐ = [⏐( a / b ) cos
2
φ + ( b / a ) sin
2
φ ⏐] [⏐ sin ( 2α ) cos ( α / 2 ) ⏐ + 2 ( l / d ) sin
2
α ]
C
N
2/24/2008 ELF 35
L / D Is Impacted by C
D
0
, Body Fineness, and
Lifting Body Cross Section Geometry
L / D Is Impacted by C
D
0
, Body Fineness, and
Lifting Body Cross Section Geometry
L / D,
Lift / Drag
4
3
2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
α, Angle of Attack, Deg
Note:
• If α negative, L / D negative
•d = 2 ( a b )
1/2
•Launch platform span constraints ( e.g., VLS launcher ) and length constraints ( e.g., aircraft compatibility )
may limit missile aero configuration enhancements
L / D = C
L
/ C
D
= ( C
N
cos α – C
D
0
sin α ) / ( C
N
sin α + C
D
0
cos α )
For a lifting body, ⏐ C
N
⏐ = [⏐( a / b ) cos
2
( φ ) + ( b / a ) sin
2
( φ ) ⏐] [⏐ sin ( 2α ) cos ( α / 2 ) ⏐ + 2 ( l / d ) sin
2
α ]
High drag, low fineness body ( a / b = 1, l / d = 10, C
D
O
= 0.5 )
Low drag nose ( a / b = 1, l / d = 10, C
D
O
= 0.2 )
High fineness, low drag ( a / b = 1, l / d = 20, C
D
O
= 0.2 )
Lifting body, high fineness, low drag ( a / b = 2 @ φ = 0°, l / d =
20, C
D
O
= 0.2 )
φ
2a
2b
C
N
2/24/2008 ELF 36
Lifting Body Requires Flight at Low Dynamic
Pressure to Achieve High Aero Efficiency
Lifting Body Requires Flight at Low Dynamic
Pressure to Achieve High Aero Efficiency
0
1
2
3
4
100 1000 10000 100000
q, Dynamic Pressure, lb / ft2
E
x
a
m
p
l
e

L

/

D
,

L
i
f
t

/

D
r
a
g
Circular Cross Section ( a / b = 1 ) Lifting Body ( a / b = 2 )
L / D = C
L
/ C
D
= ( C
N
cos α – C
D
O
sin α ) / ( C
N
sin α + C
D
O
cos α )
⏐ C
N
⏐ = [⏐( a / b ) cos
2
( φ ) + ( b / a ) sin
2
( φ ) ⏐] [⏐ sin ( 2α ) cos ( α / 2 ) ⏐ + 2 ( l / d ) sin
2
α ]
Note. Example figure based on following assumptions:
Body lift only ( no surfaces ), cruise flight ( lift = weight ), W = L = 2,000 lb, d = 2 ( a b )
1/2
, S = 2 ft
2
,
l / d = 10, C
D
0
= 0.2
Example:
q = 500 psf
•a / b = 1 ⇒L / D = 2.40
•a / b = 2 ⇒L / D = 3.37
q = 5,000 psf
•a / b = 1 ⇒L / D = 0.91
•a / b = 2 ⇒L / D = 0.96
2/24/2008 ELF 37
6
5
4
3
Body Planform Area
( Body Volume )
2/3
(

L

/

D

)
M
a
x
,

(

L
i
f
t

/

D
r
a
g

)
M
a
x
Lower
Radar
Cross
Section
Tailored
Weapons
Conventional
Weapons
( circular
cross section )
Trade-off of Low Observables and ( L / D )
Max
Versus Volumetric Efficiency
Trade-off of Low Observables and ( L / D )
Max
Versus Volumetric Efficiency
2 4 6 8 10
Advantages:
• ( L / D )
Max
• Low RCS
Advantages:
• Payload
• Launch Platform
Integration
Circular
Cross Section
2/24/2008 ELF 38
Δ C
m
/ Δ α and Static Margin Define Static
Stability
Δ C
m
/ Δ α and Static Margin Define Static
Stability
C
m
Statically Stable: ΔC
m
/ Δα < 0,
with x
ac
behind x
cg
δ
1
δ
2
C
m
Statically Unstable: ΔC
m
/ Δα > 0,
with x
ac
in front of x
cg
δ
1
δ
2
Non-oscillatory
Convergent
Oscillatory
Convergent
t
Non-oscillatory
Divergent
Oscillatory
Divergent
t
α
α
α
α
Note: Statically unstable missile requires high bandwidth autopilot.
Autopilot negative rate feedback provides stability augmentation.
x
CG
x
AC
x
CG
x
AC
2/24/2008 ELF 39
Body Aerodynamic Center Is a Function of Angle
of Attack, Nose Fineness, and Body Length
Body Aerodynamic Center Is a Function of Angle
of Attack, Nose Fineness, and Body Length
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle of Attack, Deg
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

B
o
d
y

A
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r

/

L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

N
o
s
e
total length of body /
length of nose = 1
total length of body /
length of nose = 2
total length of body /
length of nose = 5
total length of body /
length of nose = 10
( x
AC
)
B
/ l
N
= 0.63 ( 1 - sin
2
α ) + 0.5 ( l
B
/ l
N
) sin
2
α
Note: Based on slender body theory ( Pitts, et al ) and cross flow theory ( Jorgensen ) references. No flare.
( x
AC
)
B
= Location of body aerodynamic center, l
N
= length of nose, α = angle of attack, l
B
= total length of body.
Example:
Rocket Baseline Body
l
B
/ l
N
= 143.9 / 19.2 = 7.49
α = 13 deg
( x
AC
)
B
/ l
N
= 0.81
19.2
143.9
2/24/2008 ELF 40
4 Based on Slender Body Theory:
4 ( C
N
α
)
F
= 2 [( d
F
/ d )
2
– 1 ]
4 ( x
ac
)
F
= x
F
+ 0.33 l
F
[ 2 ( d
F
/ d ) + 1 ] / [ ( d
F
/ d ) + 1 ]
4 ( C
N
α
)
B
= 2 per rad
4 ( x
ac
)
B
= 0.63 l
N
4 ΣM = 0 at Aerodynamic Center. For a Body-Flare:
4 ( C
N
α
)
B
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
B
] / d } + ( C
N
α
)
F
[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
F
] / d = - [( C
N
α
)
B
+ ( C
N
α
)
F
]
[( x
AC
– x
CG
) / d ]
4 Static Margin for a Body-Flare
4 ( x
AC
– x
CG
) / d = - {( C
N
α
)
B
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
B
] / d } + ( C
N
α
)
F
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
F
] / d }} /
[( C
N
α
)
B
+ ( C
N
α
)
F
]
Flare Increases Static Stability
Flare Increases Static Stability
+M

x = 0
( x
ac
)
B
( C
N
α
)
B
( C
N
α
)
F
l
B
l
N
( x
ac
)
F
x
F
9
x
CG
d d
F
x
AC
C
N
α
= ( C
N
α
)
B +
( C
N
α
)
F
2/24/2008 ELF 41
Example of Static Margin for THAAD ( Statically Unstable Missile )
4 ( C
N
α
)
F
= 2 [( 18.7 / 14.6 )
2
– 1 ] = 2 [(1.28)
2
– 1 ] = 1.28 per rad
4 ( x
ac
)
F
= 230.9 + 0.33 ( 12.0 )[ 2 ( 18.7 / 14.6 ) + 1 ] / [ ( 18.7 / 14.6 ) + 1 ] = 237.1 in
4 ( x
ac
)
B
= 0.63 ( 91.5 ) = 57.7 in
4 x
CG
Launch
= 146.9 in
4 ( x
AC
– x
CG
)
Launch
/ d = - { 2 {[ 146.9 – 57.7 ] / 14.6 } + 1.28 {[ 146.9 – 237.1 ] / 14.6 }}
/ [ 2 + 1.28 ] = - 0.41
Flare Increases Static Stability ( cont )
Flare Increases Static Stability ( cont )
9
( C
N
α
)
B
( x
ac
)
B
= 57.7
91.5 146.9
14.6 18.7 in
( x
ac
)
F
= 237.1
230.9 242.9
( C
N
α
)
F
x
AC
= 140.9
C
N
α
= ( C
N
α
)
B +
( C
N
α
)
F
2/24/2008 ELF 42
Tail Stabilizers Have Lower Drag While Flares
Have Lower Aero Heating and Stability Changes
Tail Stabilizers Have Lower Drag While Flares
Have Lower Aero Heating and Stability Changes
Type Stabilizer Drag Span Heating ΔC
N
α
Tail Control
Flare ( e.g., THAAD )
Tails ( e.g., Standard Missile )
Note: Superior Good Average Poor –




2/24/2008 ELF 43
Wing Sizing Trades
Wing Sizing Trades
4 Advantages of Small Wing / Strake / No Wing
• Range in high supersonic flight / high dynamic pressure
• Max angle of attack
• Launch platform compatibility
• Lower radar cross section
• Volume and weight for propellant / fuel
4 Advantages of Larger Wing
• Range in subsonic flight / low dynamic pressure
• Lower guidance time constant*
• Normal acceleration*
• High altitude intercept*
• Less body bending aeroelasticity ( wing stiffens body )
• Less seeker error due to dome error slope ( lower angle of attack )
• Less wipe velocity for warhead ( lower angle of attack )
• Lower gimbal requirement for seeker
*Based on assumption of aerodynamic control and angle of attack below wing stall
2/24/2008 ELF 44
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 Aphid AA-8 Sidewinder AIM-9X
ASRAAM AIM-132 Grumble SA-10 / N-8 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 Wingless
Most Supersonic Missiles Are Wingless
Permission of Missile Index. Copyright 1997©Missile.Index All Rights Reserved
2/24/2008 ELF 45
Wings, Tails, and Canards with Large Area and
at High Angle of Attack Have High Normal Force
Wings, Tails, and Canards with Large Area and
at High Angle of Attack Have High Normal Force
0
1
2
3
4
0 30 60 90
M < 1.35, based on slender wing theory + Newtonian impact theory
M = 2, based on linear wing theory + Newtonian impact theory
M = 5, based on linear wing theory + Newtonian impact theory
(

C
N
)
W
i
n
g
S
R
E
F
/

S
W
,
W
i
n
g

N
o
r
m
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

f
o
r

R
o
c
k
e
t

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
α’ = α
W
= α + δ , Wing Effective Angle of Attack for Rocket Baseline, Deg
⏐( C
N
)
Surface
⏐ = [ 4⏐sin α’ cos α’⏐ / ( M
2
– 1 )
1/2
+ 2 sin
2
α’ ] ( S
Surface
/ S
Ref
), if M > { 1 + [ 8 / ( π A )]
2
}
1/2
⏐( C
N
)
Surface
⏐ = [ ( π A / 2) ⏐sin α’ cos α’⏐ + 2 sin
2
α’ ] ( S
Surface
/ S
Ref
), if M < { 1 + [ 8 / ( π A )]
2
}
1/2
Note: Linear wing theory applicable if M > { 1 + [ 8 / ( π A )]
2
}
1/2
, slender wing theory applicable if M < { 1 + [ 8 / ( π A )]
2
}
1/2
,
A = Aspect Ratio < 3, S
Surface
= Surface Planform Area, S
Ref
= Reference Area
Example for Rocket Baseline
Wing
A
W
= 2.82
S
W
= 2.55 ft
2
S
Ref
= 0.349 ft
2
δ = 13 deg, α = 9 deg
M = 2
{ 1 +[ 8 / ( π A )]
2
}
1/2
= 1.35
Since M > 1.35, use linear wing
theory + Newtonian theory
α’ = α
W
= α + δ = 22°
( C
N
)
Wing
S
Ref
/ S
W
= 4 sin 22°
cos 22° / ( 2
2
– 1 )
1/2
+ 2 sin
2
22°
= 1.083
( C
N
)
Wing
= 1.08 ( 2.55 ) / 0.349 =
7.91
2/24/2008 ELF 46
Aerodynamic Center of a Thin Surface ( e.g.,
Wing, Tail, Canard ) Varies with Mach Number
Aerodynamic Center of a Thin Surface ( e.g.,
Wing, Tail, Canard ) Varies with Mach Number
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
M, Mach Number
X
A
C

/

C
M
A
C
,

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

N
o
n
-
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

A
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c

C
e
n
t
e
r
A = 1
A = 2
A = 3
Note: Based on linear wing theory
Thin wing ⇒M ( t / c ) << 1
( x
AC
)
Surface
= Surface aerodynamic
center distance from leading
edge of ( c
MAC
)
Surface
c
MAC
= Mean aerodynamic chord
A = Aspect ratio = b
2
/ S
( x
AC
/ c
MAC
)
Surface
= [ A ( M
2
– 1 )
1/2
– 0.67 ] / [ 2A ( M
2
–1 )
1/2
– 1 ], if M > ~ 2
( x
AC
/ c
MAC
)
Surface
= 0.25, if M < ~ 0.7
Example: Rocket Baseline Wing
A = 2.82
c
MAC
= 13.3 in
( x
MAC
)
Wing
= 67.0 in
M = 2
( x
AC
/ c
MAC
)
Wing
= 0.481
( x
AC
)
Wing
= 6.4 in from mac leading
edge = 73.4 in from nose tip
x
AC
x
MAC
c
MAC
2/24/2008 ELF 47
Hinge Moment Increases with Dynamic Pressure
and Effective Angle of Attack
Hinge Moment Increases with Dynamic Pressure
and Effective Angle of Attack
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0 10 20 30
H
M
,

E
x
a
m
p
l
e

H
i
n
g
e

M
o
m
e
n
t
,

i
n

-

l
b
q = 436 psf ( M = 0.8 ) q = 1242 psf ( M = 1.35 )
q = 2725 psf ( M = 2 ) q = 17031 psf ( M = 5 )
HM = N
Surface
( x
AC
- x
HL
)
Surface
α’ = α
W
= α + δ , Wing Effective Angle of Attack of Rocket Baseline, Deg
Note: Based on linear wing
theory, slender wing theory,
and thin wing ( M ( t / c ) << 1 )
N
Surface
= Normal force on surface
( two panels )
( x
AC
- x
HL
)
W
= distance from
surface aerodynamic center to
hinge line of surface
Example for Rocket Baseline
Wing Control
c
mac
= 13.3 in
x
HL
= 0.25 c
mac
S
Ref
= 0.349 ft
2
S
W
= 2.55 ft
2
δ = 13 deg, α = 9 deg
α’ = α
W
= α + δ = 22°
M = 2, h = 20k ft, q = 2725 psf
N
W
= [ C
N
W
( S
Ref
/ S
W
)] qS
W
=
1.083 ( 2725 ) ( 2.55 ) = 7525 lb
x
AC
/ c
mac
= 0.48
HM = 7525 ( 0.48 – 0.25 ) ( 13.3 )
= 23019 in – lb for two panels
N
W
x
H
L
x
A
C
c
m
a
c
2/24/2008 ELF 48
Wings, Tails, and Canards Usually Have Greater
Skin Friction Drag Than Shock Wave Drag
Wings, Tails, and Canards Usually Have Greater
Skin Friction Drag Than Shock Wave Drag
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50


M / ( q cmac ) = 0.00001 ft / lb M / ( q cmac ) = 0.0001 ft / lb
M / ( q cmac ) = 0.001 ft / lb M / ( q cmac ) = 0.01 ft / lb
( C
D
0
)
Surface,Friction
= n
Surface
{ 0.0133 [ M / ( q c
mac
)]
0.2
} ( 2 S
Surface
/ S
Ref
), q in psf, c
mac
in ft
( C
D
O
)
Surface,Wave
= n
Surface
( 1.429 / M
Λ
LE
2
){( 1.2 M
Λ
LE
2
)
3.5
[ 2.4 / ( 2.8 M
Λ
LE
2
– 0.4 )]
2.5
– 1 } sin
2
δ
LE
cos Λ
LE
t
mac
b / S
Ref
, based on Newtonian impact theory
( C
D
O
)
Surface
= ( C
D
O
)
Surface,Wave
+ ( C
D
O
)
Surface,Friction
n
Surfaces
= number of surface planforms ( cruciform = 2 )
q = dynamic pressure in psf
c
mac
= length of mean aero chord in ft
γ = Specific heat ratio = 1.4
M
Λ
LE
= M cos Λ
LE
= Mach number ⊥ leading edge
δ
LE
= leading edge section total angle
Λ
LE
= leading edge sweep angle
t
mac
= max thickness of mac
b = span
Example for Rocket Baseline Wing:
n
W
= 2, M = 2, h = 20k ft ( q = 2,725 psf ), c
mac
= 1.108
ft, S
Ref
= 50.26 in
2
, S
W
= 367 in
2
, δ
LE
= 10.01 deg, Λ
LE
=
45 deg, t
mac
= 0.585 in, b = 32.2 in, M
Λ
LE
= 1.41 ( M= 2 )
M / ( q c
mac
) = 2 / [ 2725 ( 1.108 )] = 0.000662 ft / lb
n S
Surface
/ S
Ref
= 2 ( 367 ) / 50.26 = 14.60
( C
D
O
)
Wing,Friction
= 0.090
( C
D
0
)
Wing,Wave
= 0.024
( C
D
O
)
Wing
= 0.024 + 0.090 = 0.11
E
x
a
m
p
l
e

(

C
D
0
)
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
,
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
n S
Surface
/ S
Ref
2/24/2008 ELF 49
Examples of Wing, Tail, and Canard Panel
Geometry Alternatives
Examples of Wing, Tail, and Canard Panel
Geometry Alternatives
Parameter
Variation x
AC
Bending Moment / Friction
Supersonic Drag
RCS
Span Constraint
Stability & Control
Aeroelastic Stab.
λ = Taper ratio = c
T
/ c
R
A = Aspect ratio = b
2
/ S = 2 b / [( 1 + λ ) c
R
]
y
CP
= Outboard center-of-pressure = ( b / 6 ) ( 1 + 2 λ ) / ( 1 + λ )
c
MAC
= Mean aerodynamic chord = ( 2 / 3 ) c
R
( 1 + λ + λ
2
) / ( 1 + λ )
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 LE
Bow Tie
Rectangle


2/24/2008 ELF 50
Examples of Surface Arrangement and
Aerodynamic Control Alternatives
Examples of Surface Arrangement and
Aerodynamic Control Alternatives
Two Panels
( Mono-Wing )
Three
( Tri-Tail )
Four
( Cruciform )
Six* Eight*
Folded
Wraparound
Extended Balanced Actuation
Control
Flap Control
Interdigitated In-line
Note: More than four tails are usually free-to-roll pitch / yaw stabilizers, for low induced roll.
2/24/2008 ELF 51
Control Integ Control Surfaces Example Control Effect Cost Packaging
4Pitch / Yaw 2 Stinger FIM-92
4 Pitch / Roll 2 ALCM AGM-86
4Pitch / Yaw / Roll 3 SRAM
4Pitch / Yaw / Roll 4 Adder AA-12
4Pitch + Yaw + Roll 5 Kitchen AS-4
4Pitch / Yaw + Roll 6 Derby / R-Darter
Most Missiles Use Four Control Surfaces with
Combined Pitch / Yaw / Roll Control Integration
Most Missiles Use Four Control Surfaces with
Combined Pitch / Yaw / Roll Control Integration
Note: Superior Good Average Poor –







2/24/2008 ELF 52
There Are Many Flight Control Configuration
Alternatives
There Are Many Flight Control Configuration
Alternatives
Control
Control Design
Alternatives
Tail Cruciform ( 4 )
Tri-tail ( 3 )
Not Compressed
Folded
Wraparound
Switchblade
Canard Above
Rolling Airframe ( 2 )
Wing
Tail ( 3, 4, 6, 8 )
Strake / Canard & Tail
In Line with Controls
Interdigitated with Controls
TVC or
Reaction Jet
Control
Movable Nozzle
Jet Tab
Jet Vane
Axial Plate
Secondary Injection
Normal Jet / JI
Spanwise Jet / JI
Fixed Surface
Alternatives
Wingless
Wing
Strake / Canard
In Line with Controls
Interdigitated with Controls
Number ( 2, 3, 4 )
Tail ( 3, 4, 6, 8 )
Tail + Wing
In Line with Controls
Interdigitated with Controls
Tail ( 3, 4, 6, 8 )
Tail + Canard / Strake
Tail + Wing
Above
2/24/2008 ELF 53
Tail Control Is Efficient at High Angle of Attack
Tail Control Is Efficient at High Angle of Attack
α
V

ΔC
N
C
N Trim
( assumed statically stable )
C
N
at δ = 0
C
N
C
Negative δ
C
N
C
at δ = 0
☺Efficient Packaging
☺Low Hinge Moment / Actuator
Torque
☺Low Induced Rolling Moment
☺Efficient at High α
®Decreased Lift at Low α if
Statically Stable
c
g
2/24/2008 ELF 54
Tail Control Is More Effective Than Conventional
Canard Control at High Angle of Attack
Tail Control Is More Effective Than Conventional
Canard Control at High Angle of Attack
V

α
+ δ
• Assumed static stability
• Control surface local
angle of attack α’ = α + δ
• Panel stalled at high α*
Conventional Canard Control
V

α
– δ
• Assumed static stability
• Control surface local
angle of attack α’ = α – δ
• Panel not stalled at high α
Tail Control
α ~ Angle of Attack ( deg ) α ~ Angle of Attack ( deg )
C
m
δ
/
(

C
m
δ
)
α
=

0
°
1.0
0
Conven
Canard
Control
®
Tail
Control

10 – 20° 20 – 30°
C
l
δ
/

(

C
l
δ
)
α
=

0
°
1.0
0
Conven
Canard
Control
®
Tail
Control

10 – 15° 15 – 30°
Ø = 0°
*Note: Additional forward fixed surfaces ( such as Python 4 ) in front of movable canards alleviate stall
at high α. Free-to-roll tails ( such as Python 4 ) alleviate induced roll from canard control at high α.
2/24/2008 ELF 55
JASSM AGM-158 Maverick AGM-65 CALCM JSOW AGM-154
Tomahawk BGM-109 Taurus KEPD 350 Storm Shadow / Scalp Popeye AGM-142
Exocet MIM40 TOW2-BGM71D AMRAAM AIM-120 Sunburn SS-N-22
Standard RIM-66 / 67 RBS-70 / 90 Shipwreck SS-N-19 Super 530
Sea Dart ( two stage ) FSAS Aster R-37 ( AA-X-13 ) Mica
Adder AA-12 Rapier 2000 SD-10 / PL-12 Seawolf
About 70% of Tail Control Missiles Also Have Wings
About 70% of Tail Control Missiles Also Have Wings
Permission of Missile Index. Copyright 1997©Missile.Index All Rights Reserved
2/24/2008 ELF 56
Control Hinge
Type of Tail Control Effectiveness Drag Moment RCS
4Balanced Actuation Fin ( Example: ASRAAM AIM-132 )
4 Flap ( Example: Hellfire AGM-114 )
4Lattice Fin ( Example: Adder AA-12 / R-77 )
Tail Control Alternatives: Conventional Balanced
Actuation Fin, Flap, and Lattice Fin
Tail Control Alternatives: Conventional Balanced
Actuation Fin, Flap, and Lattice Fin


Note: Superior Good Average Poor –
2/24/2008 ELF 57
Lattice Fins Have Advantages for Low Subsonic
and High Supersonic Missiles
Lattice Fins Have Advantages for Low Subsonic
and High Supersonic Missiles
4Advantages
4High control effectiveness at
low subsonic and high
supersonic Mach number
4Low hinge moment
4Short chord length
4Disadvantages
4High RCS ( cavities, normal
leading edges )
4High drag at transonic Mach
number ( choked flow )
Low Subsonic Transonic Low Supersonic High Supersonic
☺ ® ® ☺
2/24/2008 ELF 58
Conventional Canard Control Is Efficient at Low
Angle of Attack But Stalls at High Alpha
Conventional Canard Control Is Efficient at Low
Angle of Attack But Stalls at High Alpha
α
V

δ
ΔC
N
C
N Trim
( assumed statically stable )
C
N
at δ = 0
C
N
C
☺Efficient Packaging
☺Simplified
Manufacturing
☺Increased Lift at Low α
if Statically Stable
®Stall at High α if
Statically Stable
®Induced Roll
Note: = C
N
C
at δ = 0°
= C
N
C
at δ = δ
*Note: Additional forward fixed surface in
front of movable canard alleviates stall at
high α. Free-to-roll tails alleviate induced
roll at high α. Dedicated roll control
surfaces avoid roll control saturation and
simplify autopilot design.
c
g
2/24/2008 ELF 59
Canard Control Missiles Are Wingless and Most
Are Supersonic
Canard Control Missiles Are Wingless and Most
Are Supersonic
Permission of Missile Index. Copyright 1997©Missile.Index All Rights Reserved
Stinger FIM-92 Grouse SA-18 Grison SA-19 ( two-stage ) Gopher SA-13
Starburst Gauntlet SA-15 Mistral AIM-9L
Archer AA- 11 Magic R 550 Python 4 U-Darter
Python 5 Derby / R-Darter Aphid AA-8 Kegler AS-12
GBU-12 GBU-22 GBU-27 GBU-28
2/24/2008 ELF 60
Kegler AS-12 Archer AA-11 Aphid AA-8
Magic R 550 Python 4 U-Darter
Missiles with Split Canards Have Enhanced
Maneuverability at High Angle of Attack
Missiles with Split Canards Have Enhanced
Maneuverability at High Angle of Attack
Note: Forward fixed surface reduces local angle-of-attack for movable canard, providing higher stall angle of attack. Forward
surface also provides a fixed, symmetrical location for vortex shedding from the body.
Python 4 also has free-to-roll tails and separate roll control ailerons.
α’ ~ α
α

~
δ
α
δ
ΔC
N
C
N
C
Note: α’ = Local angle of attack
2/24/2008 ELF 61
Wing Control Requires Less Body Rotation But
Has High Hinge Moment, Induced Roll and Stall
Wing Control Requires Less Body Rotation But
Has High Hinge Moment, Induced Roll and Stall
δ
V
Δ C
N
~ C
N Trim
☺Low Body α / Dome Error Slope
☺Fast Response ( if skid-to-turn )
®Poor Actuator Packaging
®Large Hinge Moment
®Larger Wing Size
®Induced Roll
®Wing Stall
( α small )
cg
2/24/2008 ELF 62
Wing Control Missile Susceptible to High Vortex
Shedding
Wing Control Missile Susceptible to High Vortex
Shedding
Strong vortices from wing interact with tail
Source: Nielsen Engineering & Research ( NEAR ) web site:
http://www.nearinc.com/near/project/MISDL.htm
Video of Vortices from Delta
Wing at High Angle of Attack
Source: University of Notre Dame web site:
http://www.nd.edu/~ame/facilities/SubsonicTunnels.html
2/24/2008 ELF 63
Wing Control Missiles Are Old Technology
Wing Control Missiles Are Old Technology
4 Sparrow AIM-7: IOC 1956
4 Skyflash: IOC 1978
4 Alamo AA-10 / R-27: IOC 1980
4 HARM AGM-88: IOC 1983
4 Aspide: IOC 1986
Permission of Missile Index. Copyright 1997©Missile.Index All Rights Reserved
2/24/2008 ELF 64
TVC and Reaction Jet Flight Control
TVC and Reaction Jet Flight Control
Liquid Injection Hot Gas Injection
Axial Plate Jet Tab Movable Nozzle
± 7°
± 12°
± 7°
± 15°
± 20°
Note: Jet vanes provide roll control and share
actuators with aero control, but have reduced I
SP
Reaction Jet
M

Jet Flow
Jet Vane
*
± 10°
Note:
•TVC and reaction jet flight control provide
high maneuverability at low dynamic pressure
•TVC usually has lower time constant and
miss distance than aero control
•Reaction jets usually have lower time
constant and miss distance than TVC
•Reaction jets can be either impulse jets or
controlled duration jets Jet inter. Thrust Jet interaction
2/24/2008 ELF 65
4Jet Vane + Aero Control:
Mica Sea Sparrow RIM-7 AIM-9X
Sea Wolf GWS 26 IRIS-T A-Darter Javelin
4Jet Tab + Aero Control:
Archer AA-11
4Reaction Jet + Aero Control:
PAC-3
4Movable Nozzle + Aero Control + Reaction Jet:
SM-3 Standard Missile Aster FSAF 15
4Movable Nozzle + Reaction Jet:
THAAD
4Reaction Jet:
LOSAT
Most Tactical Missiles with TVC or Reaction Jet
Control Also Use Aero Control
Most Tactical Missiles with TVC or Reaction Jet
Control Also Use Aero Control
Example Video of TVC ( FSAF-15 and Javelin )
2/24/2008 ELF 66
Skid-to-Turn Is the Most Common Maneuver Law
Skid-to-Turn Is the Most Common Maneuver Law
4 Skid-To-Turn ( STT )
• Advantage: Fast response
• Features
– Does not require roll commands from autopilot
– Works best for axisymmetric cruciform missiles
4 Bank-To-Turn ( BTT )
• Advantage: Provides higher maneuverability for planar
wing, noncircular / lifting bodies, and airbreathers
• Disadvantages
– Time to roll
– Requires fast roll rate
– May have higher dome error slope
• Features
– Roll attitude commands from autopilot
– Small sideslip
4 Rolling Airframe ( RA )
• Advantage: Requires only two sets of gyros /
accelerometers / actuators ( packaging for small missile )
• Disadvantages for aero control
– Reduced maneuverability for aero control
– Requires high rate gyros / actuators
– Requires precision geometry and thrust alignment
• Features
– Bias roll rate and roll moment
– Can use impulse steering ( e.g., PAC-3, LOSAT )
– Compensates for thrust offset
Step 1: Roll Until
Wing ⊥ LOS
Step 2: Maneuver @ Roll
Rate = 0 and Wing ⊥ LOS
Bias Roll Rate ( e.g., 3 Hz )
Maneuver w / o Roll Command
Target
Target
Target
L
O
S
Target
Maneuver with Bias Roll
Moment
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
STT
BTT ( with
Planar Wing )
RA
2/24/2008 ELF 67
4Examples of Twin Inlet Missiles with Bank-to-Turn
4Twin Side Inlets Ramjet: ASMP
4Twin Cheek Inlets Ducted Rocket: HSAD
4Twin Cheek Inlets Ducted Rocket: Meteor
4Examples of Single Inlet Missiles with Bank-to-Turn
4Chin Inlet Ramjet: ASALM
4Bottom Inlet Turbojet: BGM-109 Tomahawk
4Bottom Inlet Turbojet: Storm Shadow / Scalp
4Top Inlet Turbofan: AGM-86 ALCM
Asymmetric Inlets Require Bank-to-Turn
Maneuvering
Asymmetric Inlets Require Bank-to-Turn
Maneuvering
Note: Bank-to-turn maneuvering maintains low sideslip for better inlet efficiency.
2/24/2008 ELF 68
Yaw Right
X Roll Orientation Is Usually Better Than + Roll
Orientation
X Roll Orientation Is Usually Better Than + Roll
Orientation
Fin 1
Fin 3
Roll Right
+ Roll Orientation with Four Tail Surfaces Control of Pitch / Yaw / Roll, Looking Forward from Base
X Roll Orientation with Four Tail Surfaces Control of Pitch / Yaw / Roll, Looking Forward from Base
Roll Right
Note: + roll orientation usually has lower trim drag, less static stability and control effectiveness in pitch and yaw, and
statically unstable roll moment derivative ( C
l
φ
> 0 ).
X roll orientation has better launch platform compatibility, higher L / D, higher static stability and control
effectiveness in pitch and yaw, and statically stable roll moment derivative ( C
l
φ
< 0 ).
4
1
3 2
Pitch Up Yaw Right
Pitch Up
Fin 2
Fin 4
T
r
a
i
l
i
n
g

e
d
g
e

d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
2/24/2008 ELF 69
Trimmed Normal Force Is Defined at Zero
Pitching Moment
Trimmed Normal Force Is Defined at Zero
Pitching Moment
P
i
t
c
h
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t
,

C
m
N
o
r
m
a
l

F
o
r
c
e
,

C
N
Angle of Attack ( Deg )
α
Trim
@ C
m
= 0
δ = 0
δ = δ
Trim
for either statically stable tail
control or statically unstable canard control
δ = 0
δ = δ
Max
δ = δ
Trim
for either statically unstable tail
control or statically stable canard control
Angle of Attack ( Deg )
2/24/2008 ELF 70
Note: Rocket Baseline
X
CG
= 75.7 in.
Mach 2
( α + δ )
Max
= 21.8 deg, ( C
N
Trim
)
Max
α / δ = 0.75, ( Static Margin = 0.88 Diam )
α / δ = 1.5, ( SM = 0.43 Diam )
α / δ = ∞, ( SM = 0 )
Relaxed Static Margin Allows Higher Trim Angle
of Attack and Higher Normal Force
Relaxed Static Margin Allows Higher Trim Angle
of Attack and Higher Normal Force
( C
N, Trim
)
max,
Max
Trimmed Normal
Force Coefficient of
Rocket Baseline
0 4 8 12 16 20
24
16
12
8
4
0
( α
Trim
)
max
, Μax Trim Angle of Attack, deg
2/24/2008 ELF 71
Tails Are Sized for Desired Static Margin
Tails Are Sized for Desired Static Margin
( C
N
α
)
B
( C
N
α
)
W
( C
N
α
)
T
( x
AC
)
T
( x
AC
)
B
( x
AC
)
W
+M
+ α
x = 0
x
CG
x = l
B
x = l
N
x
AC
ΣM = 0 at aerodynamic center
( C
N
α
)
B
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
B
] / d } + ( C
N
α
)
W
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
W
] / d } S
W
/ S
Ref
+ ( C
N
α
)
T
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
T
] / d } S
T
/ S
Ref
= - [( C
N
α
)
B
+ ( C
N
α
)
W
S
W
/ S
Ref
+ ( C
N
α
)
T
S
T
/ S
Ref
] [( x
AC
– x
CG
) / d ]
Static margin for a specified tail area is
( x
AC
– x
CG
) / d = - {( C
N
α
)
B
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
B
] / d } + ( C
N
α
)
W
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
W
] / d } S
W
/ S
Ref
+ ( C
N
α
)
T
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
T
] / d } ( S
T
/ S
Ref
)} /
[(C
N
α
)
B
+ (C
N
α
)
W
S
W
/ S
Ref
+ ( C
N
α
)
T
S
T
/ S
Ref
]
Required tail area for a specified static margin is
S
T
/ S
Ref
= ( C
N
α
)
B
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
B
] / d } + ( C
N
α
)
W
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
W
] / d } ( S
W
/ S
Ref
) + {[( C
N
α
)
B
+ ( C
N
α
)
W
S
W
/ S
Ref
][( x
AC
– x
CG
) / d ]}
/ {( C
N
α
)
T
[( x
AC
)
T
– x
CG
] / d - ( x
AC
– x
CG
) / d }
C
N
α
2/24/2008 ELF 72
Larger Tail Area Is Required for Neutral Stability
at High Mach Number
Larger Tail Area Is Required for Neutral Stability
at High Mach Number
0
1
2
3
0 1 2 3 4 5
M, Mach Number
(
S
T
)
N
e
u
t
r
a
l

/

S
R
e
f
,

N
e
u
t
r
a
l

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

T
a
i
l

A
r
e
a

/

R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

A
r
e
a
(S
T
)
Neutral
/ S
Ref
= { (C
N
α
)
B
[ x
CG
– (x
AC
)
B
] / d + (C
N
α
)
W
{[ x
CG
– (x
AC
)
W
] / d } ( S
W
/ S
Ref
)} / {{[ (x
AC
)
T
– x
CG
] / d } (C
N
α
)
T
}
Assumptions for figure:
•X
CG
≈ l / 2, (X
AC
)
B
≈ d, ( X
AC
)
T
≈ l – d
•α < 6 deg, turbulent boundary layer
•(C
N
α
)
B
= 2 per rad
•(C
N
α
)
T
= (C
N
α
)
W
= 4 / [ M
2
–1 ]
1/2
, if M
> { 1 + [ 8 / ( π A )]
2
}
1/2
•(C
N
α
)
T
= (C
N
α
)
W
= π A / 2, if M < { 1 +
[ 8 / ( π A )]
2
}
1/2
Example Rocket Baseline:
l = 144 in, d = 8 in, S
W
= 2.55 ft
2
, S
Ref
=
0.349 ft
2
, A
W
= 2.82, (c
MAC
)
W
= 13.3 in,
x
MAC
= 67.0 in from nose tip, burnout
( x
CG
= 76.2 in from tip ), M
max
= 3
(x
AC
)
W
= 0.49 ( 13.3 ) = 6.5 in from
leading edge of MAC
(x
AC
)
W
= 6.5 + 67.0 = 73.5 in from nose
{[ x
CG
– (x
AC
)
W
] / l } ( S
W
/ S
Ref
) = 0.14
( forward wing )
(S
T
)
Neutral
/ S
Ref
= 1.69 provides neutral
stability
(S
T
)
Neutral
= 1.69 ( 0.349 ) = 0.59 ft
2
{
[

x C
G

(
x A
C
)
W
]
/

l

}
(

S W
/

S R
e
f
)

=

0
{
[

x C
G

(
x A
C
)
W
]
/

l

}

(

S W
/

S R
e
f
)

=

0
.
2
5
(

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

w
i
n
g

)
{
[

x C
G

(
x A
C
)
W
]
/

l

}
(

S W
/

S R
e
f
)

=

-
0
.
2
5
(

a
f
t

w
i
n
g

)
2/24/2008 ELF 73
Stability and Control Derivatives Conceptual
Design Criteria
Stability and Control Derivatives Conceptual
Design Criteria
z
y
x
C
l
δ
r
C
l
δ
a
z
y
x
C
n
δ
a
C
n
δ
r
z
y
x
C
l
φ
C
l
δ
a
z
y
x
C
m
α
C
m
δ
z
y
x
C
l
β
C
l
δ
a
| C
l
δ
r
/ C
l
δ
a
| < 0.3 ( Roll Due to Rudder Deflection ) | C
l
φ
/ C
l
δ
a
| < 0.5 ( Roll Due to Roll Angle )
| C
n
δ
a
/ C
n
δ
r
| < 0.2 ( Yaw Due to Aileron Deflection ) | C
m
α
/ C
m
δ
| < 1 ( Pitch Due to α )
| C
l
β
/ C
l
δ
a
| < 0.3 ( Roll Due to Sideslip ) | C
n
β
/ C
n
δ
r
| < 1 ( Yaw Due to Sideslip )
z
y
x
C
n
δ
r
C
n
β
Note: The primary control derivative ( larger bold font ) should be larger than the undesirable stability and control derivative.
2/24/2008 ELF 74
Most of the Rocket Baseline Body Buildup Normal
Force Is Provided by the Wing
Most of the Rocket Baseline Body Buildup Normal
Force Is Provided by the Wing
C
N
, Normal Force
Coefficient of
Rocket Baseline
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
α, Angle of Attack, Deg
Body + Wing + Tail
Body + Wing
Body
Note for figure: M = 2, δ = 0
( C
N
)
Total
= ( C
N
)
Wing-Body-Tail
≅ ( C
N
)
Body
+ ( C
N
)
Wing
+ ( C
N
)
Tail
Note: ( C
D
0
)
Total
= ( C
D
0
)
Wing-Body-Tail
≅ ( C
D
0
)
Body
+ ( C
D
0
)
Wing
+ ( C
D
0
)
Tail
( C
m
)
Total
= ( C
m
)
Wing-Body-Tail
≅ ( C
m
)
Body
+ ( C
m
)
Wing
+ ( C
m
)
Tail
2/24/2008 ELF 75
Summary of Aerodynamics
Summary of Aerodynamics
4 Conceptual Design Prediction Methods of Bodies and Surfaces
4 Normal force coefficient
4 Drag coefficient
4 Aerodynamic center / pitching moment coefficient / hinge moment
4 Design Tradeoffs
4 Diameter
4 Nose fineness
4 Boattail
4 Lifting body versus axisymmetric body
4 Wings versus no wings
4 Tails versus flares
4 Surface planform geometry
4 Flight control alternatives
4 Maneuver alternatives
4 Roll orientation
4 Static margin / time to converge or diverge
4 Tail sizing
2/24/2008 ELF 76
Summary of Aerodynamics ( cont )
Summary of Aerodynamics ( cont )
4 Stability and Control Design Criteria
4 Static stability
4 Control effectiveness
4 Cross coupling
4 Body Buildup
4 New Aerodynamics Technologies
4 Faceted / window / multi-lens domes
4 Bank-to-turn maneuvering
4 Lifting body airframe
4 Forward swept surfaces
4 Neutral static margin
4 Lattice fins
4 Split canard control
4 Free-to-roll tails
4 Discussion / Questions?
4 Classroom Exercise
2/24/2008 ELF 77
Aerodynamics Problems
Aerodynamics Problems
1. Missile diameter tradeoffs include consideration of seeker range, warhead
lethality, structural mode frequency, and d___.
2. Benefits of a high fineness nose include lower supersonic drag and lower
r____ c____ s______.
3. Three contributors to drag are base drag, wave drag, and s___ f_______
drag.
4. To avoid flow separation, a boatail or flare angle should be less than __ deg.
5. A lifting body is most efficient at a d______ p_______ of about 700 psf.
6. At low angle of attack the aerodynamic center of the body is on the n___.
7. Subsonic missiles often have w____ for enhanced range.
8. The aerodynamic center of the wing is between 25% and 50% of the m___
a__________ c____.
9. Hinge moment increases with the local flow angle due to control surface
deflection and the a____ o_ a_____.
10. Increasing the surface area increases the s___ f_______ d___.
2/24/2008 ELF 78
Aerodynamics Problems ( cont )
Aerodynamics Problems ( cont )
11. Leading edge sweep reduces drag and r____ c____ s______.
12. A missile with six control surfaces, four surfaces providing combined pitch /
yaw control plus two surfaces providing roll control, has an advantage of
good c______ e____________.
13. A missile with two control surfaces providing only combined pitch / yaw
control has advantages of lower c____ and good p________.
14. A tail control missile has larger trim normal force if it is statically u_______.
15. Lattice fins have low h____ m_____.
16. Split canards allow higher maximum angle of attack and higher
m______________.
17. Two types of unconventional control are thrust vector control and r_______
j__ control.
18. The most common type of TVC for tactical missiles is j__ v___ control.
19. Three maneuver laws are skid to turn, bank to turn, and r______ a_______.
20. Bank to turn maneuvering is usually required for missiles with a single wing
or with a_________ inlets.
2/24/2008 ELF 79
Aerodynamics Problems ( cont )
Aerodynamics Problems ( cont )
21. A missile is statically stable if the aero center is behind the c_____ o_
g______.
22. Tail stabilizers have low drag while a f____ stabilizer has low aero heating
and a relatively small shift in static stability.
23. If the moments on the missile are zero the missile is in t___.
24. Total normal force on the missile is approximately the sum of the normal
forces on the surfaces ( e.g., wing, tail, canard ) plus normal force on the
b___.
25. Increasing the tail area increases the s_____ m________.
2/24/2008 ELF 80
Outline
Outline
4 Introduction / Key Drivers in the Design Process
4 Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Propulsion Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Weight Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Flight Performance Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration
4 Sizing Examples
4 Development Process
4 Summary and Lessons Learned
4 References and Communication
4 Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises,
Example of Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms,
Conversion Factors, Syllabus )
2/24/2008 ELF 81
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Yes
Establish Baseline
Weight
Trajectory
Meet
Performance?
Measures of Merit and Constraints
No
No
Yes
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Alt Mission
Alt Baseline
Define Mission Requirements
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
2/24/2008 ELF 82
Scramjet: I
SP
typically
constrained by thermal choking
High Specific Impulse Is Indicative of Lower Fuel /
Propellant Consumption
High Specific Impulse Is Indicative of Lower Fuel /
Propellant Consumption
Turbojet: I
SP
typically constrained by turbine temperature limit
Ramjet: I
SP
typically constrained by
combustor insulation temperature limit
Solid Rocket: I
SP
typically constrained
by safety
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
I
S
P
,

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

I
m
p
u
l
s
e
,

T
h
r
u
s
t

/

(

F
u
e
l

o
r

P
r
o
p
e
l
l
a
n
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e

)
,

S
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Mach Number
Ducted Rocket
2/24/2008 ELF 83
Cruise Range Is Driven by L/D, I
sp
, Velocity, and
Propellant or Fuel Weight Fraction
Cruise Range Is Driven by L/D, I
sp
, Velocity, and
Propellant or Fuel Weight Fraction
Typical Value for 2,000 lb Precision Strike Missile
Note: Ramjet and Scramjet missiles booster propellant for Mach 2.5 to 4 take-over speed not included in W
P
for cruise. Rockets require thrust magnitude control ( e.g., pintle, pulse, or gel motor ) for effective cruise.
Max range for a rocket is usually a semi-ballistic flight profile, instead of cruise flight. Multiple stages may
be required for rocket range greater than 200 nm.
R = ( L / D ) I
sp
V In [ W
L
/ ( W
L
– W
P
)] , Breguet Range Equation
Parameter
L / D, Lift / Drag
I
sp
, Specific Impulse
V
AVG
, Average Velocity
W
P
/ W
L
, Cruise Propellant or
Fuel Weight / Launch Weight
R, Cruise Range
10
3,000 s
1,000 ft / s
0.3
1,800 nm
5
1,300 s
3,500 ft / s
0.2
830 nm
3
1,000 s
6,000 ft / s
0.1
310 nm
5
250 s
3,000 ft / s
0.4
250 nm
Solid Rocket
Hydrocarbon Fuel
Scramjet Missile
Liquid Fuel
Ramjet Missile
Subsonic Turbojet
Missile
2/24/2008 ELF 84
Solid Rockets Have High Acceleration Capability
Solid Rockets Have High Acceleration Capability
1,000
100
10
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Ramjet
T
Max
= (π / 4 ) d
2
ρ
0
V
0
2
[( V
e
/ V
0
) -
1 ]
Solid Rocket
T
Max
= 2 P
c
A
t
= m
.
V
e
M, Mach Number
(

T

/

W

)
M
a
x
,

(

T
h
r
u
s
t

/

W
e
i
g
h
t

)
M
a
x
Note:
P
c
= Chamber pressure, A
t
= Nozzle throat area, m
.
= Mass flow rate
d = Diameter, ρ
0
= Free stream density, V
0
= Free stream velocity,
V
e
= Nozzle exit velocity ( Turbojet: V
e
~ 2,000 ft / s, Ramjet: V
e
~ 4,500 ft / s, Rocket: V
e
~ 6,000 ft / s )
Turbojet
T
Max
= (π / 4 ) d
2
ρ
0
V
0
2
[( V
e
/ V
0
) -
1 ]
2/24/2008 ELF 85
Turbojet Nomenclature
Turbojet Nomenclature
0
Free Stream
1
Inlet Entrance
3
Compressor Exit
2
Compressor Entrance
4
Turbine Entrance
Inlet Compressor Combustor Turbine Nozzle
5
Turbine Exit
2/24/2008 ELF 86
High Temperature Compressors Are Required to
Achieve High Pressure Ratio at High Speed
High Temperature Compressors Are Required to
Achieve High Pressure Ratio at High Speed
0
1000
2000
3000
0 1 2 3 4
M0, Free Stream Mach Number
T
3
,

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
o
r

E
x
i
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

R
p3 / p2 = 1
p3 / p2 = 2
p3 / p2 = 5
p3 / p2 = 10
T
3
≈ T
0
{ 1 + [( γ
0
- 1 ) / 2 ] M
0
2
}( p
3
/ p
2
)
( γ
3
- 1 ) / γ
3
γ
0
= 1.4, γ
3
≈ 1.29 + 0.16 e
-0.0007 T
3
Note: Ideal inlet; ideal compressor; low subsonic,
isentropic flow
Example:
M
0
= 2, h = 60k ft ( T
0
= 398 R )
p
3
/ p
2
= 5 ⇒T
3
= 1118 R, γ
3
= 1.36
T
3
= Compressor exit temperature in Rankine, T
0
= free stream temperature in Rankine, γ = specific heat
ratio, M
0
= free stream Mach number, p
3
= compressor exit pressure, p
2
= compressor entrance pressure
T
3
2/24/2008 ELF 87
High Turbine Temperature Is Required for High
Speed Turbojet Missiles
High Turbine Temperature Is Required for High
Speed Turbojet Missiles
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
f / a, Fuel-to-Air Ratio
T
4
,
T
u
r
b
o
j
e
t

T
u
r
b
i
n
e

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

R
T3 = 500 R
T3 = 1000 R
T3 = 2000 R
T3 = 4000 R
T
4
≈ T
3
+ ( H
f
/ c
p
) f / a, T in R
c
p
4
≈ 0.122 T
4
0.109
, c
p
in BTU / lb / R
Example:
M
0
= 2, h = 60K ft ( T
0
= 398 R ),
p
3
/ p
2
= 5 ⇒T
3
= 1118 R
RJ-5 fuel ( H
f
= 14,525 BTU / lb ),
c
p
= 0.302 BTU / lb / R , f / a =
0.067 ( stochiometric ) ⇒T
4
=
1118 + ( 14525 / 0.302 ) 0.067 =
4,340 R
T
4
= Turbojet turbine entrance temperature in Rankine, T
3
= compressor exit temperature in Rankine,
H
f
= heating value of fuel, c
p
= specific heat at constant pressure, f / a = fuel-to-air ratio
T
4
2/24/2008 ELF 88
Turbine Material Temperature Limit Is a
Constraint for a High Speed Turbojet Missile
Turbine Material Temperature Limit Is a
Constraint for a High Speed Turbojet Missile
Slightly Constrained Turbojet
Moderately Constrained Turbojet
Moderately Constrained Turbojet
Highly Constrained Turbojet
Very Highly Constrained Turbojet,
Air Turbo Rocket, Turbo Ramjet
Very Highly Constrained Turbojet,
Air Turbo Rocket, Turbo Ramjet
Temperature Constrained
Turbines for Mach 4 Cruise
≈ 1,500 s Ceramic Matrix Composites ≈ 4,000R
≈ 2,000 s Rhenium Alloys ≈ 4,500R
≈ 2,500 s Tungsten Alloys ≈ 5,000R
≈ 1,200 s Single Crystal Nickel
Aluminides
≈ 3,500R
≈ 1,000 s Titanium Aluminides ( lighter
weight than nickel super alloys )
≈ 3,000R
≈ 1,000 s Nickel Super Alloys ≈ 3,000R
I
SP
for Mach
4 Cruise
Turbine Material Max Short
Duration Temp
Note: Constrained turbojet for Mach 4 cruise imposes a limit on turbine temperature that is less than ideal. Constraints
could consist of a combination of:
• Constraint on compressor pressure ratio to limit turbine temperature
• Constraint on fuel-to-air ratio to limit turbine temperature
• Use of afterburner to limit turbine temperature
2/24/2008 ELF 89
Turbine-Based Missiles Are Capable of Subsonic
to Supersonic Cruise
Turbine-Based Missiles Are Capable of Subsonic
to Supersonic Cruise
4 Turbojet
4 Turbo Ramjet
4 Air Turbo Rocket
Regulus II
Firebee II
SS-N-19 Shipwreck
SR-71
2/24/2008 ELF 90
Compressor Pressure Ratio for Maximum Thrust
Turbojet Is Limited by Turbine Temperature
Compressor Pressure Ratio for Maximum Thrust
Turbojet Is Limited by Turbine Temperature
1
10
100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
M0, Mach Number
(

p
3

/

p
2

)
@
T
m
a
x
T4 = 2000 R T4 = 3000 R
T4 = 4000 R T4 = 5000 R
Source: Ashley, H., Engineering Analysis of Flight Vehicles, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1974
( p
3
/ p
2
)
@Tmax
≈ {( T
4
/ T
0
)
1/2
/ { 1 + [( γ
0
- 1 ) / 2 ] M
0
2
}}
γ
4
/ ( γ
4
- 1 )
Assumptions: Ideal turbojet ( isentropic inlet, compressor, turbine, nozzle; low subsonic and constant pressure
combustion; exit pressure = free stream pressure )
Example:
M
0
= 2.0, h = 60k ft (T
0
= 390 R ) , T
4
= 3,000 R,
γ
4
= 1.31
( p
3
/ p
2
)
@Tmax
= {{ ( 3000 / 390 )
1/2
/ { 1 + [( 1.4 -
1 ) / 2 ] 2.0
2
}}
1.31/ ( 1.31 – 1 )
= 6.31
Note:
T
0
= Free stream temperature
T
4
= Turbine entrance temperature
γ = Specific heat ratio
2/24/2008 ELF 91
Turbojet Thrust Is Limited by Turbine Maximum
Allowable Temperature
Turbojet Thrust Is Limited by Turbine Maximum
Allowable Temperature
0
5
10
15
20
0 1 2 3 4
M0, Mach Number
T
m
a
x

/

[
(

p
0

)

(

A
0

)
]
,

N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

M
a
x
i
m
u
m
T
h
r
u
s
t
T4 = 2000 R T4 = 3000 R
T4 = 4000 R T4 = 5000 R
R
a
m
j
e
t

(

p
3
/

p
2
=

1

)
Example: M
0
= 2, h = 60 k ft ( T
0
= 390 R, p
0
= 1.047 psi ), T
4
= 3,000 R, γ
4
= 1.31, ( p
3
/
p
2
)
@Tmax
= 6.31, p
2
= 8.19 psi, p
3
= 51.7 psi,
A
0
= 114 in
2
, T
2
= 702 R, T
3
= 1133 R, γ
3
=
1.36
T
5
t
= 2569 R, γ
5
= 1.32, p
5
t
= 23.0 psi, V
e
=
4524 ft / s, ( T / m
.
)
IdealMax
= 2588 ft / s,
T
IdealMax
/ p
0
A
0
= 7.49
T
IdealMax
= 7.49 ( 1.047 ) ( 114 ) = 894 lb
T
IdealMax
/ ( p
0
A
0
) = ( γ
0
M
0
/ a
0
) ( T / m
.
)
IdealMax
Assumption: Ideal turbojet
Note:
( T / m
.
)
IdealMax
= V
e
– V
0
V
e
= { 2 c
p
T
5
t
[ 1 – ( p
0
/ p
5
t
)
( γ
5
- 1 ) / γ
5 ]}
1/2
T
5
t
≈ T
4
– T
3
+ T
2
T
3
≈ T
2
( p
3
/ p
2
)
( γ
3
- 1 ) / γ
3
T
2
≈ T
0
{ 1 + [( γ
0
- 1 ) / 2 ] M
0
2
}
p
5
t
≈ p
4
( T
5
/ T
4
)
γ
4
/ ( γ
4
- 1 )
p
4
= p
3
p
2
≈ p
0
{ 1 + [( γ
0
- 1 ) / 2 ] M
0
2
}
γ
0
/ ( γ
0
- 1 )
p
0
= Free stream static pressure
A
0
= Free stream flow area into inlet
T
4
= Turbine entrance temperature
2/24/2008 ELF 92
Turbojet Specific Impulse Decreases with
Supersonic Mach Number
Turbojet Specific Impulse Decreases with
Supersonic Mach Number
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 1 2 3 4
M0, Mach Number
(

I
S
P

)
I
d
e
a
l

(

g
c

)

(

c
p

)

(

T
0
)

/

[

(

a
0

)


(

H
f

)
]
,

N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

I
d
e
a
l

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

I
m
p
u
l
s
e
T4 = 2000 R T4 = 3000 R
T4 = 4000 R T4 = 5000 R
( I
SP
)
Ideal@T
max
g
c
c
p
T
0
/ ( a
0
H
f
) = T
IdealMax
T
0
/ [( p
0
A
0
γ
0
M
0
) ( T
4
– T
3
)]
Assumptions: Ideal turbojet ( isentropic inlet, compressor, turbine, nozzle; flow, low subsonic, constant pressure combustion;
exit pressure = free stream pressure), max thrust
Example:
M
0
= 2, h = 60k ft ( T
0
= 390 R, a
0
= 968 ft / s
), RJ-5 fuel ( H
f
= 14,525 BTU / lbm ), T
4
=
3,000 R, c
p
= 0.293 BTU / lbm / R, γ
0
= 1.4
Calculate ( I
SP
)
Ideal@T
max
g
c
c
p
T
0
/ ( a
0
H
f
) =
0.559
( I
SP
)
Ideal@Tmax
= 0.559 ( 968 ) ( 14525 ) / [ 32.2
( 0.293 ) ( 390 )] = 2136 s
Note:
g
c
= Gravitational constant = 32.2
c
p
= Specific heat at constant pressure
T
0
= Free stream temperature
a
0
= Free stream speed of sound
H
f
= Heating value of fuel
T
IdealMax
= Ideal maximum thrust
γ = Specific heat ratio
T
4
= Combustor exit temperature
T
3
= Compressor exit temperature
R
a
m
j
e
t

(

p
3 /

p
2 =

1

)
2/24/2008 ELF 93
Tactical Missile Ramjet Propulsion Alternatives
Tactical Missile Ramjet Propulsion Alternatives
Rocket Boost Inboard Profile
Ramjet Sustain Inboard Profile
Liquid Fuel Ramjet
Solid Fuel Ramjet
Solid Ducted Rocket
Boost
Sustain
Boost
Sustain
Note:
Booster Propellant
Fuel
2/24/2008 ELF 94
High Specific Impulse for a Ramjet Occurs Using
High Heating Value Fuel at Mach 3 to 4
High Specific Impulse for a Ramjet Occurs Using
High Heating Value Fuel at Mach 3 to 4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
M0, Free Stream Mach Number
(

I
S
P

)
I
d
e
a
l

(

g
c

)

(

c
p

)

(

T
0
)

/

[

(

a
0

)

(

H
f

)
]
,

N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

I
d
e
a
l

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

I
m
p
u
l
s
e
T4 / T0 = 3 T4 / T0 = 5
T4 / T0 = 10 T4 / T0 = 15
( I
SP
)
Ideal
g
c
c
p
T
0
/ ( a
0
H
f
) = { M
0
{{( T
4
/ T
0
) / { 1 + [( γ
0
- 1 ) / 2 ] M
0
2
}}
1/2
- 1 } / {{ 1 + [( γ
0
- 1 ) / 2 ] M
0
2
} {( T
4
/ T
0
) / {
1 + [( γ
0
- 1 ) / 2 ] M
0
2
}} – 1 }
Assumptions: Ideal ramjet, isentropic inlet and nozzle, low subsonic and constant pressure combustion, exit pressure = free
stream pressure, φ ≤ 1
Example for Ramjet Baseline:
M = 3.5, h = 60k ft ( T
0
= 390 R, a
0
= 968 ft / s ),
RJ-5 fuel ( H
f
= 14,525 BTU / lbm ), T
4
= 4,000 R,
c
p
= 0.302 BTU / lbm / R, γ
0
= 1.4
Calculate ( I
SP
)
Ideal
g
c
c
p
T
0
/ ( a
0
H
f
) = { 3.5 {{(
4000 / 390 ) / { 1 + [( 1.4 - 1 ) / 2 ] 3.5
2
}}
1/2
- 1 } / {{
1 + [( 1.4 - 1 ) / 2 ] 3.5
2
} {( 4000 / 390 ) / { 1 + [(
1.4 - 1 ) / 2 ] 3.5
2
}} – 1 } = 0.372
( I
SP
)
Ideal
= 0.372 ( 968 ) ( 14525 ) / [ 32.2 ( 0.302 ) (
390 ) = 1387 s
Note:
g
c
= Gravitational constant = 32.2
c
p
= Specific heat at constant pressure
T
0
= Free stream temperature
a
0
= Free stream speed of sound
H
f
= Heating value of fuel
γ = Specific heat ratio
T
4
= Combustor exit temperature
Source: Ashley, H., Engineering Analysis of Flight Vehicles, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1974
2/24/2008 ELF 95
High Thrust for a Ramjet Occurs from Mach 3 to
5 with High Combustion Temperature
High Thrust for a Ramjet Occurs from Mach 3 to
5 with High Combustion Temperature
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5
M0, Free Stream Mach Number
T

/

[

P
H
I

(

p
0

)

(
A
0

)

]
,

N
o
n
d
i
m
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

T
h
r
u
s
t
T4 / T0 = 3 T4 / T0 = 5
T4 / T0 = 10 T4 / T0 = 15
T
Ideal
/ ( φ p
0
A
0
) = γ
0
M
0
2
{{[ T
4
/ T
0
] / { 1 + [( γ
0
- 1 ) / 2 ] M
0
2
}}
1/2
- 1 }
Assumptions: Ideal ramjet, isentropic inlet and nozzle, low subsonic and constant pressure
combustion, exit pressure = free stream pressure, φ ≤ 1
Note: T
4
and T
0
in R
Example for Ramjet Baseline:
M
0
= 3.5, α = 0 deg, h = 60k ft ( T
0
= 390 R, p
0
=
1.047 psi ), T
4
= 4,000 R, ( f / a ) = 0.055, φ =
0.82, A
0
= 114 in
2
, γ
0
= 1.4
T
Ideal
/ ( φ p
0
A
0
) = 1.4 ( 3.5 )
2
{{[ 4000 / 390 ] / { 1
+ [( 1.4 – 1 ) / 2 ] ( 3.5 )
2
}}
1/2
– 1 } = 12.43
T
Ideal
= 12.43 ( 0.82 ) ( 1.047 ) ( 114 ) = 1216 lb
Note:
( T )
Ideal
= Ideal thrust
p
0
= Free stream static pressure
A
0
= Free stream flow area into inlet
γ
0
= Free stream specific heat ratio
M
0
= Free stream Mach number
T
4
= Combustor exit temperature
T
0
= Free stream temperature
φ = Equivalence ratio = fuel-to-air ratio /
stochiometric fuel-to-air ratio
Source: Ashley, H., Engineering Analysis of Flight Vehicles, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1974
2/24/2008 ELF 96
Ramjet Combustor Temperature Increases with
Mach Number and Fuel Flow
Ramjet Combustor Temperature Increases with
Mach Number and Fuel Flow
0
2000
4000
6000
0 1 2 3 4 5
M0, Free Stream Mach Number
T
4
,

C
o
m
b
u
s
t
o
r

E
x
i
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

R
J
-
5

F
u
e
l
,

R
a
n
k
i
n
e
f / a = 0.01 f / a = 0.03 f / a = 0.05 f / a = 0.067
Example:
•M
0
= 3.5
•h = 60k ft ( T
0
= 390 R )
•RJ-5 fuel ( H
f
= 14,525 BTU / lb / R )
•f / a = 0.055
•γ
0
= 1.4
•c
p
= 0.122 T
0.109
BTU / lbm / R.
Note: c
p
≈ 0.302 +/- 5% if 2500 R < T < 5000 R
•Then T
4
= 390 { 1 + [( 1.4 – 1 ) / 2 ] ( 3.5 )
2
} +
[( 14525 ) / ( 0.302 )] 0.055 = 3,991 R
Note: ( f / a )
φ = 1
≈ 0.067 for stochiometric combustion of liquid hydrocarbon fuel, e.g., RJ-5.
T
4
≈ T
0
{ 1 + [( γ
0
- 1 ) / 2 ] M
0
2
} + ( H
f
/ c
p
) ( f / a )
Assumptions: Low subsonic combustion. No heat transfer through inlet ( isentropic
flow ). φ ≤ 1.
T
4
= combustor exit temperature in Rankine, T
0
= free stream temperature in Rankine,
γ = specific heat ratio, M
0
= free stream Mach number, H
f
= heating value of fuel, c
p
=
specific heat at constant pressure, f / a = fuel-to-air ratio.
2/24/2008 ELF 97
Ramjet Combustor Entrance Mach Number
Should Be Low, to Avoid Thermal Choking
Ramjet Combustor Entrance Mach Number
Should Be Low, to Avoid Thermal Choking
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5
M0, Free Stream Mach Number
(

M
3

)
T
C
,

C
o
m
b
u
s
t
o
r

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e

M
a
c
h

N
u
m
b
e
r

w
i
t
h

T
h
e
r
m
a
l

C
h
o
k
i
n
g
T4t / T0 = 3 T4t / T0 = 5
T4t / T0 = 10 T4t / T0 = 15
( M
3
)
TC
= {{ - b + [ b
2
– 4 γ
3
2
]
1/2
} / ( 2 γ
3
2
)}
1/2
b = 2 γ
3
+ ( T
4
t
/ T
0
)( 1 + γ
4
)
2
/ {( 1 + 0.2 M
0
2
)[ 1 + ( γ
4
– 1 ) / 2 ]}
Assumptions: Constant area combustion, [( γ
3
– 1 ) / 2 ] M
3
2
<< 1, isentropic inlet
Example:
M
0
= 2, h = 60k ft ( T
0
= 390 R ), T
4
t
= 4,000 R, γ
0
= 1.4
γ
4
= 1.29 + 0.16 e
-0.0007 ( 4000 )
= 1.300
T
0
t
= ( 1 + 0.2 M
0
2
) T
0
= 702 R
γ
3
= 1.29 + 0.16 e
-0.0007 ( 702 )
= 1.388
b = 2 ( 1.388 ) + ( 4000 / 390 )( 1 + 1.300 )
2
/ {( 1 + 0.2
( 2
2
)[ 1 + ( 1.300 – 1 ) / 2 ]} = - 24.211
( M
3
)
TC
= {{ 24.211 + [( -24.211 )
2
– 4 ( 1.388
2
)
]
1/2
} / [ 2 ( 1.388
2
)]}
1/2
= 0.204
Note:
( M
3
)
TC
= Combustor entrance Mach number with
thermal choking ( M
4
= 1 )
γ
3
= Specific heat ratio at combustor entrance
M
0
= Free stream Mach number
T
4
t
= Combustor exit total temperature
T
0
= Free stream static temperature
γ
4
= Specific heat ratio in combustion
2/24/2008 ELF 98
A Ramjet Combustor with a Low Entrance Mach
Number Requires a Small Inlet Throat Area
A Ramjet Combustor with a Low Entrance Mach
Number Requires a Small Inlet Throat Area
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
( A )IT / A3, Inlet Throat Area to Combustor Area Ratio

M
3
,

C
o
m
b
u
s
t
o
r

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e

M
a
c
h

N
u
m
b
e
r
A
IT
/ A
3
= [( γ + 1 ) / 2 ]
( γ + 1 ) / [ 2 ( γ - 1 )]
M
3
{[ 1 + ( γ - 1 ) / 2 ] M
3
2
}
-( γ + 1 ) / [ 2 ( γ - 1 )]
= ( 216 / 215 ) M
3
( 1 + M
3
2
/ 5 )
-3
Assumptions: Isentropic inlet, M
IT
= 1, γ = 1.4
Note:
A
IT
= Inlet throat area
A
3
= Combustor entrance area
M
3
= Combustor entrance Mach number
γ = Specific heat ratio
Example:
Ramjet Baseline
A
IT
= 41.9 in
2
A
3
= 287 in
2
A
IT
/ A
3
= 41.9 / 287 = 0.1459
Assume sonic flow ( M = 1 ) at A
IT
M
3
= 0.085
M
3
= 0.085 < ( M
3
)
TC
= 0.204
2/24/2008 ELF 99
Typical Ramjet Has Nearly Constant Pressure
Combustion
Typical Ramjet Has Nearly Constant Pressure
Combustion
4 Assume Rayleigh Flow, with Heat Addition at
4 Constant Area
4 Negligible Friction
4 Pressure Loss in Combustor is Given by
4 p
4
/ p
3
= ( 1 + γ
3
M
3
2
) / ( 1 + γ
4
M
4
2
)
4 Mach Number Increase in Combustor Is Given by
4 T
4
t
/ T
0
= [( 1 + γ
3
M
3
2
) / ( 1 + γ
4
M
4
2
)]
2
( M
4
/ M
3
)
2
{ 1 + [( γ
4
– 1 ) / 2 ] M
4
2
} / { 1 + [( γ
3
– 1 ) / 2 ] M
3
2
}
4 From Prior Example
4 M
0
= 2, h = 60k ft ( T
0
= 390 R ), T
4
t
= 4,000 R, γ
0
= 1.4, γ
4
= 1.300, and γ
3
= 1.388
4 Assume Ramjet Baseline with Sonic Inlet Throat
4 A
IT
/ A
3
= 41.9 / 287 = 0.1459 ⇒M
3
= 0.085
4 Solving Above Equations
4 M
4
= 0.304
4 p
4
/ p
3
= 0.902
4 Assumption of Nearly Constant Pressure Combustion Is Reasonably Accurate
4 10% error
2/24/2008 ELF 100
Minimum Length for the Combustor Is a
Function of Combustion Velocity
Minimum Length for the Combustor Is a
Function of Combustion Velocity
0.1
1
10
100 1000 10000
Vcomb, Combustion Velocity, ft / s
M
i
n
i
m
u
m

C
o
m
b
u
s
t
o
r

L
e
n
g
t
h
,

f
t
tcomb = 0.001 s
tcomb = 0.002 s
tcomb = 0.004 s
Example for t
comb
= 0.002 s and
Subsonic Combustion Ramjet:
•V
comb
= 200 ft / s
•( l
comb
)
min
= 0.002 ( 200 ) = 0.4 ft
Example for t
comb
= 0.002 s and
Scramjet:
•V
comb
= 3,000 ft / s
•( l
comb
)
min
= 0.002 ( 3000 ) = 6.0 ft
( l
comb
)
min
= t
comb
V
comb
2/24/2008 ELF 101
Ramjet Engine / Booster Integration Options
Ramjet Engine / Booster Integration Options
Integral-Rocket Ramjet ( IRR )
Aft Drop-off Booster
Podded Drop-off Booster
Forward Booster
Podded Ramjet
Podded Ramjet, Aft Drop-off Booster
Podded IRR
Fuel
Boost Propellant
Source: Kinroth, G.D. and Anderson, W.R., “Ramjet
Design Handbook,” CPIA Pub. 319, June 1980
4Low Cruise Drag ( Modern Ramjets )
4High Cruise Drag
2/24/2008 ELF 102
Superior Above Average Average Below average
Ramjet Engine / Booster Integration Trades
Ramjet Engine / Booster Integration Trades
L
e
n
g
t
h
D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
W
e
i
g
h
t
E
j
e
c
t
a
b
l
e
s
C
r
u
i
s
e

D
r
a
g
C
a
r
r
y

D
r
a
g
C
o
s
t
C
y
c
l
e

C
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
I
n
l
e
t
C
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Selection Factors
Source: Kinroth, G.D. and Anderson, W.R., “Ramjet Design Handbook,” CPIA Pub. 319, June 1980
Integral Rocket – Ramjet ( IRR )
Aft Booster ( Drop-off )
Forward Booster
Podded Booster ( Drop-off )
Podded Ramjet
Podded IRR
Podded Ramjet
Aft Booster ( Drop-off )





– –

– – – –






2/24/2008 ELF 103
Ramjets with Internal Boosters and No Wings
Have Low Drag
Ramjets with Internal Boosters and No Wings
Have Low Drag
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
2 3 4 5
M, Mach Number
C
D
0
= D
O
/ ( q S
REF
), Zero-Lift Drag
Coefficient
Note:
Nose Fineness Ratio ≥ 2.25
Nose Bluntness Ratio ≤ 0.20
• IRR
• Aft Drop Off Booster
• Forward Booster
• Podded Drop Off Booster
With Wings
Without Wings
• IRR
• Aft Drop-off Booster
• Forward Booster
• Podded Drop-off Booster
• Podded Ramjet
• Podded IRR
• Podded Ramjet, Aft Drop
Off Booster
Source: Kinroth, G.D. and Anderson, W.R., “Ramjet Design Handbook,” CPIA Pub. 319, June 1980
C
D
0
2/24/2008 ELF 104
Sketch
Ramjet Inlet Options
Ramjet Inlet Options
Nose
Source: Kinroth, G.D. and Anderson, W.R., “Ramjet Design Handbook,” CPIA Pub. 319, June 1980.
Nose-full axisymmetric
Aft-cruciform ( four ) two dimensional
Aft underside-belly mounted two dimensional
Aft underside-full axisymmetric
Aft-twin cheek-mounted two dimensional
Placement Type Inlet
Cruciform Two-dimensional
Underslung Two-
dimensional
Underslung Axisymmetric
Twin Two-dimensional
Under Wing Axisymmetric
Aft Cruciform
Axisymmetric
Forward Cruciform
Axisymmetric
Chin
In planar wing compression field-twin axisymmetric
Aft-cruciform ( four ) axisymmetric
Forward in nose compression field-cruciform ( four )
axisymmetric
Forward underside in nose compression field-
partial axisymmetric
2/24/2008 ELF 105
Ramjet Inlet Concept Trades
Ramjet Inlet Concept Trades
Superior Above Average Average Below average
Source: Kinroth, G.D. and Anderson, W.R., “Ramjet Design Handbook,” CPIA Pub. 319, June 1980

C
a
r
r
i
a
g
e
E
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
A
l
p
h
a

C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
D
r
a
g
W
a
r
h
e
a
d

S
h
r
o
u
d
i
n
g
i
n
l
e
t

C
o
s
t
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

S
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
P
r
i
m
e

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

S
u
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Note:
BTT = Bank to Turn
STT = Skid to Turn
W = Wing C = Canard
T = Tail
Selection Factors
STT W, C ATS, STA
BTT T ATS, ATA, STA


STT T ATS, ATA, STA
STT T ATS
BTT T ATS, ATA, STA

BTT T ATS, ATA, STA

BTT T ATS
– BTT T ATS, ATA, STA
STT T ATS
Type Inlet
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y




2/24/2008 ELF 106
4United Kingdom
Sea Dart GWS-30
4France
ASMP ANS
4Russia
AS-17 / Kh-31 Kh-41 SS-N-22 / 3M80
SA-6 SS-N-19 SS-N-26
4China
C-101 C-301
4Taiwan
Hsiung Feng III
4India
BrahMos
Current Supersonic Air-breathing Missiles Have
Either a Nose Inlet or Axisymmetric Aft Inlets
Current Supersonic Air-breathing Missiles Have
Either a Nose Inlet or Axisymmetric Aft Inlets
• 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.
2/24/2008 ELF 107
Shock on Inlet Cowl Lip Prevents Spillage
Shock on Inlet Cowl Lip Prevents Spillage
4Inlet w/o External Compression
4Inlet Swallows 100% of the Free
Stream Flow
4External Compression Required for
Efficient Pressure Recovery if Mach
Number > 2 and Inlet Start at Low
Supersonic Mach number
4External Compression Inlet ( with
Spillage )
4Shocks Converge Outside Inlet Lip
( Results in Spillage Air )
4External Compression Inlet ( w/o
Spillage )
4Inlet Swallows 100% of the Free
Stream Flow
4Shocks Converge at Inlet Lip ( Inlet
Captures Maximum Free Stream
Flow )
Shocks
Spillage
Shocks
2/24/2008 ELF 108
Shock Wave Angle Increases with Deflection
Angle and Decreases with Mach Number
Shock Wave Angle Increases with Deflection
Angle and Decreases with Mach Number
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 5 10 15 20
Alpha + Delta, Deflection Angle, Degrees
T
h
e
t
a
,

2
D

S
h
o
c
k

W
a
v
e

A
n
g
l
e

@

G
a
m
m
a

=

1
.
4
,

D
e
g
r
e
e
s
Mach 2 ( Deltamax = 23 deg ) Mach 3 ( Deltamax = 34 deg )
Mach 5 ( Deltamax = 41 deg )
tan ( α + δ ) = 2 cot θ
2D
( M
2
sin
2
θ
2D
– 1 ) / [ 2 + M
2
( γ + 1 – 2 sin
2
θ
2D
)] , for 2D flow, perfect gas
Note: θ
2D
= 2D shock wave angle, M = Mach number, α = angle of attack, δ = body deflection angle, γ = specific heat
ratio, θ
conical
≈ 0.81 θ
2D
Example for Ramjet Baseline:
δ = 17.7 deg, M = 3.5, α = 0 deg, γ = 1.4
⇒ θ
2D
= 32 deg
θ
conical
≈ 0.81 θ
2D
= 0.81 ( 32 ) = 26 deg
δ
θ
α
Approximate estimate of θ:
θ
2D
≈ μ + α + δ = sin
-1
( 1 / M ) + α + δ
θ
conical
≈ 0.81 θ
2D
= 0.81 [ sin
-1
( 1 / M ) +
α + δ ]
2/24/2008 ELF 109
Capture Efficiency of an Inlet Increases with Mach
Number
Capture Efficiency of an Inlet Increases with Mach
Number
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
M, Mach Number
A
0

/

A
c
,

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

R
a
m
j
e
t

I
n
l
e
t

C
a
p
t
u
r
e

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Alpha = 0 Deg Alpha = 10 Deg
A
c
A
0
streamline s
tre
a
m
lin
e
oblique shock
h inlet
nose body
δ
s
tre
a
m
lin
e
streamline
( A
0
/ A
c
)
conical
= ( h / l ) ( 1 + δ M + αM ) / [( 1 – 0.23δM + αM )( δ + h / l )] , conical nose with forward inlet
( A
0
/ A
c
)
2D
= ( h / l ) ( 1 + δ M + αM ) / [( 1 + αM )( δ + h / l )] , 2D nose with forward inlet
Note: A
0
/ A
c
≤ 1, A
C
= inlet capture area, A
0
= free stream flow area, δ = defection angle in rad, h = inlet height, l =
distance from nose tip to inlet
α
Example for baseline ramjet ( conical
nose )
h = 3 in
l = 23.5 in
h / l = 0.1277
A
C
= 114 in
2
δ = 17.7 deg ( 0.3089 rad )
M = 3.5, α = 0 deg
A
0
/ A
c
= 0.81 ⇒A
0
= 92 in
2
Spillage = A
c
- A
0
= 114 - 92 = 22 in
2
2/24/2008 ELF 110
Isentropic Compression Allows Inlet Start at
Lower Mach Number
Isentropic Compression Allows Inlet Start at
Lower Mach Number
0
1
2
3
4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
AIT / A0
(

M

)
I
E
,

I
n
l
e
t

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e

S
t
a
r
t

M
a
c
h

N
u
m
b
e
r
Inlet Start for Isentropic Compression
Inlet Start for Single Normal Shock
A
IT
/ A
0
= 1.728 ( M
IE
)
start
[ 1 + 0.2 ( M
IE
)
start
2
)
-3
, Assumptions: 2-D inlet, Isentropic flow through inlet ( n = ∞ ), γ = 1.4
A
IT
/ A
0
= ( M
IE
)
start
{[ 0.4 ( M
IE
)
start
2
+ 2 ] / [ 2.4 ( M
IE
)
start
2
]
3.5
}{[2.8 ( M
IE
)
start
2
– 0.4 ] / 2.4 }
2.5
{[ 1.2 / ( 1 + 0.2 (
M
IE
)
start
2
]}
3
, Assumptions: 2-D inlet, single normal shock ( n = 1 ), γ = 1.4
Note: A
IT
= inlet throat area, A
0
= free stream flow area, ( M
IE
)
start
= inlet entrance start Mach number, γ = specific heat
ratio, n = number of shocks
Example for ramjet baseline
A
IT
= 0.29 ft
2
A
c
= 114 in
2
= 0.79 ft
2
⇒A
IT
/ A
c
= 0.367
Process:
1. Assume ( M
IE
)
start
2. Compute capture efficiency A
IT
/ A
0
3. Compute ( M
IE
)
start
and compare with
assumed ( M
IE
)
start
4. Iterate until convergence
Limit for isentropic compression
- From Prior Figure, A
0
/ A
c
= 0.53
- Compute A
IT
/ A
0
= ( A
IT
/ A
c
) / ( A
0
/ A
c
) =
0.367 / 0.53 = 0.69 ⇒( M
IE
)
start
= 1.8
Ramjet baseline has mixed compression
with n = 5. Actual inlet start Mach
number is ( M
IE
)
start
> 1.8
n = 1 n = ∞
2/24/2008 ELF 111
Forebody Shock Compression Reduces the Inlet
Entrance Mach Number
Forebody Shock Compression Reduces the Inlet
Entrance Mach Number
0
1
2
3
4
0 10 20 30 40
Alpha + Delta, Local Angle of Attack at Inlet Entrance, Deg
(

M

)
I
E
,

I
n
l
e
t

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e

M
a
c
h

N
u
m
b
e
r
M0 = 2 M0 = 3 M0 = 5
( M
IE
)
2D
= {{ 36 M
0
4
sin
2
θ
2D
- 5 [ M
0
2
sin
2
θ
2D
- 1 ][ 7 M
0
2
sin
2
θ
2D
+ 5 ]} / {[ 7 M
0
2
sin
2
θ
2D
- 1 ][ M
0
2
sin
2
θ
2D
+ 5 ]}}
1/2
tan ( α + δ ) = 2 cot θ
2D
( M
0
2
sin
2
θ
2D
– 1 ) / [ 2 + M
0
2
( 2.4 – 2 sin
2
θ
2D
)]
Assumptions: 2D flow, perfect gas, γ = specific heat ratio = 1.4
Note: M
IEt
= inlet entrance Mach number, M
0
= free stream Mach number, θ = oblique shock angle, α = angle of attack, δ = body
deflection angle
Example for ramjet baseline
δ = 17.7 deg
( M
IE
)
start
= 1.8 ( from prior example )
Compute M
0
= 2.55
Note: Ramjet baseline forebody is
conical, not 2D
2/24/2008 ELF 112
Optimum Forebody Deflection Angle(s) for Best
Pressure Recovery Increases with Mach Number
Optimum Forebody Deflection Angle(s) for Best
Pressure Recovery Increases with Mach Number
0
20
40
60
0 1 2 3 4
M0, Free Stream Mach Number
O
p
t
i
m
u
m

T
o
t
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

A
n
g
l
e
,

D
e
g
n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 4 Isentropic Compression
δ
1
First External Shock
Second External Shock
δ
2
Note: δ
Total
= Total deflection angle,
δ
1
= 1st deflection angle, δ
2
= 2
nd
deflection, δ
3
= 3rd deflection.
Optimum deflection angle provides
equal loss in total pressure across
each shock wave.
Optimum deflection angles are
nearly equal for M > 4.
Reference: “Technical Aerodynamics Manual,” North American Rockwell Corporation, DTIC AD 723823, June 1970.
Example: Optimum forebody deflection angles for
double wedge ( n = 3 ) at Mach 2: δ
1
= 10.4 deg, δ
2
= 11.2 deg ⇒ δ
total
= 10.4 + 11.2 = 21.6 deg
δ
Total
10.4, 11.2
15.0, 18.8
16.1, 22.1
7.6, 8.2, 8.2
11.1, 13.0, 15.5
12.1, 15.2, 19.4
2/24/2008 ELF 113
Oblique Shocks Prior to the Inlet Normal Shock
Are Required to Satisfy MIL-E-5008B
Oblique Shocks Prior to the Inlet Normal Shock
Are Required to Satisfy MIL-E-5008B
0.01
0.1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
M, Mach Number
P
t
I
n
l
e
t

/

p
t
0
,

I
n
l
e
t

T
o
t
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

R
a
t
i
o
n = 1 ( Normal Shock )
n = 2 ( 1 Optimum Oblique
Shock + Normal Shock )
n = 3 ( 2 Opt Oblique
Shocks + Normal Shock )
n = 4 ( 3 Opt Oblique
Shocks + Normal Shock
Ideal Isentropic Inlet
MIL-E-5008B
Source for Optimum 2D Shocks: Oswatitsch, K.L., “Pressure Recovery for Missiles with Reaction Propulsion at High
Supersonic Speeds”, NACA TM - 1140, 1947.
Example: MIL-E-5008B requirement for Mach 3.5 ( p
t
Inlet
/ p
t
0
= η
inlet
= 0.74 ) can be satisfied only if there are more
than three oblique shocks prior to inlet normal shock.
Note: 2D flow assumed
p
t
Inlet
= Inlet total pressure
p
t
0
= Free stream total pressure
MIL-E-5008B Requirement: p
t
Inlet
/ p
t
0
= 1 – 0.075 ( M – 1 )
1.35
2/24/2008 ELF 114
Turbine ( JP-4, JP-5, JP-7, JP-8, JP-10 ) ~ 0.028 559
Liquid Ramjet ( RJ-4, RJ-5, RJ-6, RJ-7 ) ~ 0.040 581
HTPB ~ 0.034 606
Slurry ( 40% JP-10 / 60% carbon ) ~ 0.049 801
Solid Carbon ( graphite ) ~ 0.075 1132
Slurry ( 40% JP-10 / 60% aluminum ) ~ 0.072 866
Slurry ( 40% JP-10 / 60% boron carbide ) ~ 0.050 1191
Solid Mg ~ 0.068 1200
Solid Al ~ 0.101 1300
Solid Boron ~ 0.082 2040
High Density Fuels Provide Higher Volumetric
Performance but Have Higher Observables
High Density Fuels Provide Higher Volumetric
Performance but Have Higher Observables

Type Fuel
Volumetric
Performance,
BTU / in
3
Superior
Above average Average Below average
Low
Observables





Density,
lb / in
3

2/24/2008 ELF 115
Ducted Rocket Design Implications
Ducted Rocket Design Implications
4 Excess Fuel from Gas Generator
4 ~ 30 % ⇒Behaves more like a rocket ( higher burn rate, higher burn
temperature, lower I
SP
)
4 ~ 70 % ⇒Behaves more like a ramjet ( higher I
SP
, lower burn rate, lower
burn temperature )
4 Choice of Fuel
4 Metal ( e.g., B, Al, Mg ) ⇒Higher I
SP
, higher density, deposits, higher
observables
4 Carbon based ( e.g., C, HTPB ) ⇒Lower observables, higher reliability,
lower I
SP
4 Choice of Oxidizer
4 AP ⇒Higher burn rate, lower hazard, HCl contrail
4 Min Smoke ( e.g., HMX, RDX ) ⇒Lower Observables, lower heating value,
lower burn rate, hazardous
4 Thrust Magnitude Control Approaches
4 Pintle or valve in gas generator throat
4 Retractable wires in grain
2/24/2008 ELF 116
0
High Propellant Fraction Increases Burnout
Velocity
High Propellant Fraction Increases Burnout
Velocity
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Example: Rocket Baseline
W
i,boost
= W
L
= 500 lb, W
p, boost
= 84.8 lb
I
SP, boost
= 250 s
W
P, boost
/ W
i
= 84.8 / 500 = 0.1696
ΔV = -32.2 ( 250 ) ln ( 1 - 0.1696 ) = 1496 ft / s
ΔV, Missile
Incremental
Burnout Velocity,
ft / s
W
P
/ W
i
, Propellant Weight / Initial Missile Weight
I
sp
= 250 s
I
sp
= 200 s
Assumption: T >> D, T >> W sin γ, γ = const
ΔV = -g
c
I
sp
ln (1 - W
p
/ W
i
)
2/24/2008 ELF 117
High Specific Impulse Requires High Chamber
Pressure and Optimum Nozzle Expansion
High Specific Impulse Requires High Chamber
Pressure and Optimum Nozzle Expansion
200
250
300
0 10 20 30
Nozzle Expansion Ratio
I
s
p
,

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

I
m
p
u
l
s
e

o
f

R
o
c
k
e
t

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
,

s
pc = 300 psi pc = 1000 psi
pc = 2000 psi pc = 3000 psi
Note:
ε = nozzle expansion ratio
p
e
= exit pressure
p
c
= chamber pressure
p
0
= atmospheric pressure
w
.
P
= propellant weight flow rate
A
t
= nozzle throat area ( minimum, sonic, choked )
γ = specific heat ratio = 1.18 in figure
c
d
= discharge coefficient = 0.96 in figure
c* = characteristic velocity = 5,200 ft / s in figure
h = 20k ft, p
0
= 6.75 psi in figure
Example for Rocket Baseline:
ε = A
e
/ A
t
= 6.2 ⇒p
e
/ p
c
= 0.02488, A
t
= 1.81 in
2
( p
c
)
boost
= 1769 psi, p
e
= 44 psi, ( I
SP
)
boost
= 257 s
( I
SP
)
ε = 6.2
/ ( I
SP
)
ε = 1
= 257 / 200 = 1.29
( T )
boost
= ( 32.2 / 5200 ) ( 1769 ) (1.81 )( 257 ) = 5096 lb
( p
c
)
sustain
= 301 psi, p
e
= 7.49 psi, ( I
SP
)
sustain
= 239 s
( I
SP
)
ε = 6.2
/ ( I
SP
)
ε = 1
= 240 / 200 = 1.20
( T )
sustain
= ( 32.2 / 5200 ) ( 301 ) (1.81 )( 240 ) = 810 lb
I
SP
= c
d
{{[ 2 γ
2
/ ( γ - 1 )] [ 2 / ( γ + 1 )]
( γ + 1 ) / ( γ - 1 )
[ 1 – ( p
e
/ p
c
)
( γ - 1 ) / γ
]}
1/2
+ ( p
e
/ p
c
) ε - ( p
0
/ p
c
) ε } c* / g
c
T = w
.
p
I
SP
= ( g
c
/ c* ) p
c
A
t
I
SP
ε = {[ 2 / ( γ + 1 )]
1 / ( γ - 1 )
[( γ -1 ) / ( γ + 1 )]
1/2
} / {( p
e
/ p
c
)
1 / γ
[ 1 - ( p
e
/ p
c
)
( γ - 1 ) / γ
]
1/2
}
2/24/2008 ELF 118
High Propellant Weight Flow Rate Requires High
Chamber Pressure and Large Nozzle Throat
High Propellant Weight Flow Rate Requires High
Chamber Pressure and Large Nozzle Throat
100
1000
10000
100000
1 10 100
Propellant Weight Flow Rate, lb / s
(
p
c
)
A
t
,

C
h
a
m
b
e
r

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

x

N
o
z
z
l
e

T
h
r
o
a
t

A
r
e
a
,

l
b

c* = 4800 ft / s
c* = 5200 ft / s
c* = 5600 ft / s
w
.
p
= g
c
p
c
A
t
/ c*
Rocket Baseline A
t
for Boost:
c* = 5200 ft / s
( p
c
)
boost
= 1,769 psi
w
.
p
= W
p
/ t
b
= 84.8 / 3.69 = 23.0 lb / s
p
c
A
t
= c* w
.
p
/ g
c
= 5200 ( 23.0 ) / 32.2
= 3,714 lb
A
t
= 3714 / 1769 = 2.10 in
2
Note: A
t
= nozzle throat area, c* = characteristic velocity, w
.
p
= propellant weight flow rate, g
c
= gravitational constant,
p
c
= chamber pressure
2/24/2008 ELF 119
High Chamber Pressure Requires Large
Propellant Burn Area and Small Nozzle Throat
High Chamber Pressure Requires Large
Propellant Burn Area and Small Nozzle Throat
0
200
400
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pc, Rocket Baseline Motor Chamber Pressure, psi
A
b
,

R
o
c
k
e
t

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

P
r
o
p
e
l
l
a
n
t

B
u
r
n

A
r
e
a
,

i
n
2
A
b
= g
c
p
c
A
t
/ ( ρc*r )
r = r
p
c
=1000 psi
( p
c
/ 1000 )
n
Example A
b
for Rocket
Baseline:
A
t
= 1.81 in
2
ρ = 0.065 lb / in
3
n = 0.3
r
p
c
= 1000 psi
= 0.5 in / s
c* = 5,200 ft / s
T
atmosphere
= 70 °F
For sustain ( p
c
= 301 psi ):
•r = 0.5 ( 301 / 1000 )
0.3
= 0.35
in / s
•A
b
= 149 in
2
For boost ( p
c
= 1,769 psi )
•r = 0.59 in / s
•A
b
= 514 in
2
Note: A
b
= propellant burn area, g
c
= gravitation constant, A
t
= nozzle throat area, ρ = density of propellant, c* = characteristic velocity,
r = propellant burn rate, r
p
c
=1000 psi
= propellant burn rate at p
c
= 1,000 psi, p
c
= chamber pressure, n = burn rate exponent
2/24/2008 ELF 120
Conceptual Design Sizing Process for a Rocket
Motor
Conceptual Design Sizing Process for a Rocket
Motor
Yes
1. Define Altitude and Required Thrust-time
4. Compute Propellant Weight Flow Rate and Propellant Used
No
No
Yes
5. Determine Diameter and Length to Satisfy w
p
and A
e
OK?
OK?
OK?
Yes
New Value ( s )
New Value ( s )
No
2. Assume Propellant ( Characteristic Velocity, Nominal
Burn Rate, Burn Rate Exponent ), Chamber Pressure, Burn
Area, and Nozzle Geometry ( Expansion Ratio, Throat Area )
3. Compute I
SP
and
Thrust
2/24/2008 ELF 121
Example Web Cross Section / Volumetric Loading
~ 82% ~95% ~90%
End Burner Radial Slotted Tube
~ 79%
~ 87%
~ 85%
~ 85%
Conventional Solid Rocket Thrust-Time Design
Alternatives with Propellant Cross-Section
Conventional Solid Rocket Thrust-Time Design
Alternatives with Propellant Cross-Section
T
h
r
u
s
t

(

l
b

)
Burning Time ( s )
Constant
Thrust
Regressive
Thrust
Progressive
Thrust
Boost-Sustain
Boost-Sustain-Boost
Burning Time ( s )
Burning Time ( s )
Burning Time ( s )
Burning Time ( s )
T
h
r
u
s
t

(

l
b

)
T
h
r
u
s
t

(

l
b

)
T
h
r
u
s
t

(

l
b

)
T
h
r
u
s
t

(

l
b

)
Medium Burn Rate Propellant
High Burn Rate Propellant
Note: 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
Production of Star Web Propellant.
Photo Courtesy of BAE
2/24/2008 ELF 122
Conventional Rocket Has Fixed Burn while
Thrust Magnitude Control Can Vary Burn Interval
Conventional Rocket Has Fixed Burn while
Thrust Magnitude Control Can Vary Burn Interval
End Burning
Conventional Fixed Burn Interval ( Boost )
Conventional Fixed Burn Interval ( Boost – Sustain )
Radial Boost
End Burning Sustain
Simultaneous Burning
1
st
Pulse: Radial Boost
2
nd
Pulse: End Burning Sustain
Separate Burning ( Pulsed Motor )
1
st
Pulse: Radial Boost
2
nd
Pulse: Radial Sustain / Boost
Separate Burning ( Pulsed Motor )
Concentric Radial Burning
High Burn Rate Boost
Low Burn Rate Sustain
Radial Burning
Boost Propellant
Sustain Propellant
Pulse Motor TMC Variable Burn Interval ( Boost – Coast – Boost / Sustain - Coast )
Note: Each pulse increases motor cost approximately 40%.
2/24/2008 ELF 123
Tactical Rocket Motor Thrust Magnitude Control
Alternatives
Tactical Rocket Motor Thrust Magnitude Control
Alternatives
Solid Pulse Motor
☺High I
SP
®Limited Pulses
Solid Pintle Motor
☺Continuously Select Up to
40:1 Variation in Thrust
☺Reduce MEOP on Hot Day
©Good I
SP
Only If Burn Rate
Exponent n →1
Bi-propellant Gel Motor
☺High I
SP
☺Duty Cycle Thrust
☺Insensitive Munition
®Lower Max Thrust
®Toxicity
Thermal or Mechanical Barriers
Pintle
Pressurization Gelled Oxidizer Gelled Fuel Combustion
Chamber
2/24/2008 ELF 124
250 - 260 0.062 0.1 - 1.5
Solid Rocket Propellant Alternatives
Solid Rocket Propellant Alternatives
Superior Above Average Average Below Average
• Min Smoke. No Al fuel or AP
oxidizer. Either Composite with
Nitramine Oxidizer ( CL-20, ADN,
HMX, RDX ) or Double Base. Very low
contrail (H
2
O).
• Reduced Smoke. No Al ( binder
fuel ). AP oxidizer. Low contrail ( HCl ).
• High Smoke. Al fuel. AP oxidizer.
High smoke ( Al
2
O
3
).

I
SP
,
Specific
Impulse, s
ρ,
Density,
lb / in
3
Burn
Rate @
1,000 psi,
in / s
Safety Observables
– –


Type
220 - 255 0.055 - 0.062 0.25 - 2.0
260 - 265 0.065 0.1 - 3.0
2/24/2008 ELF 125
Steel is the Most Common Motor Case Material
Steel is the Most Common Motor Case Material
Superior Above Average Average Below Average
4Steel
4Aluminum
4Strip Steel /
Epoxy Laminate
4Composite
4Titanium

Volumetric
Efficiency
Weight
Airframe /
Launcher
Attachment
Cost

Type




– –
Temper-
ature

IM
2/24/2008 ELF 126
Heat Transfer Drives Rocket Nozzle Materials,
Weight, and Cost
Heat Transfer Drives Rocket Nozzle Materials,
Weight, and Cost
Housing
Throat
Exit Cone
Dome Closeout
Rocket Nozzle Element High Heating ( High Chamber
Pressure or Long Burn ) ⇒
High Cost / Heavy Nozzle

Low Heating ( Low Chamber
Pressure or Short Burn ) ⇒
Low Cost / Light Weight Nozzle
♦ Housing Material
Alternatives
♦ Steel ♦ Cellulose / Phenolic
♦ Aluminum

♦ Throat Material
Alternatives
♦ Tungsten Insert
♦ Rhenium Insert
♦ Molybdenum Insert
♦ Cellulose / Phenolic Insert
♦ Silica / Phenolic Insert
♦ Graphite Insert
♦ Carbon – Carbon Insert

♦ Exit Cone, Dome Closeout,
and Blast Tube Material
Alternatives
♦ Silica / Phenolic Insert
♦ Graphite / Phenolic Insert
♦ Silicone Elastomer Insert
♦ No Insert
♦ Glass / Phenolic Insert


2/24/2008 ELF 127
Summary of Propulsion
Summary of Propulsion
4 Emphasis
4 Turbojet propulsion
4 Ramjet propulsion
4 Rocket propulsion
4 Conceptual Design Prediction Methods
4 Thrust
4 Specific impulse
4 Design Trades
4 Turbojet turbine material, compressor ratio, and cycle
4 Ramjet engine / booster / inlet integration
4 Ramjet fuel
4 Propellant burn area requirement
4 Nozzle throat area
4 Nozzle expansion ratio
4 Rocket motor grain
4 Thrust magnitude control
2/24/2008 ELF 128
Summary of Propulsion ( cont )
Summary of Propulsion ( cont )
4 Design Trades ( cont )
4 Solid propellant alternatives
4 Motor case material alternatives
4 Nozzle materials
4 New Propulsion Technologies
4 Hypersonic turbojet
4 Ramjet / ducted rocket
4 Scramjet
4 Combined cycle propulsion
4 High temperature turbine materials
4 High temperature combustor
4 Oblique shock airframe compression
4 Mixed compression inlet
4 Low drag inlet
4 High density fuel / propellant
4 Endothermic fuel
2/24/2008 ELF 129
Summary of Propulsion ( cont )
Summary of Propulsion ( cont )
4 New Propulsion Technologies ( cont )
4 Solid rocket thrust magnitude control
4 High burn exponent propellant
4 Low observable fuel / propellant
4 Discussion / Questions?
4 Classroom Exercise ( Appendix A )
2/24/2008 ELF 130
Propulsion Problems
Propulsion Problems
1. An advantage of turbojets compared to ramjets is s_____ thrust.
2. The specific impulse of a turbojet is often limited by the maximum
allowable temperature of the t______.
3. The specific impulse of a ramjet is often limited by the maximum allowable
temperature of the c________.
4. Ducted rockets are based on a fuel-rich g__ g________.
5. A safety advantage of solid rocket propulsion over liquid propulsion is less
t_______.
6. A rocket boost to a take-over Mach number is required by ramjets and
s________.
7. Parameters that enable the long range of subsonic cruise turbojet missiles
are high lift, low drag, available fuel volume, and high s_______ i______.
8. High thrust and high acceleration are achievable with s____ r_____
propulsion.
9. In a turbojet the power to drive the compressor is provided by the t______.
2/24/2008 ELF 131
Propulsion Problems ( cont )
Propulsion Problems ( cont )
10. The compressor exit temperature is a function of the flight Mach number
and the compressor p_______ r____.
11. Compressor exit temperature, fuel heating value, and fuel-to-air ratio
determine the turbojet t______ temperature.
12. Three types of turbine based propulsion are turbojet, turbo ramjet, and a__
t____ r_____.
13. Mach number and fuel-to-air ratio determine the ramjet c________
temperature.
14. An example of a ramjet with low drag and light weight is an i_______ r_____
ramjet.
15. Russia, France, China, United Kingdom, Taiwan, and India are the only
countries with currently operational r_____ missiles.
16. 100% inlet capture efficiency occurs when the forebody shock waves
intercept the i____ l__.
17. Excess air that does not flow into the inlet is called s_______ air.
2/24/2008 ELF 132
Propulsion Problems ( cont )
Propulsion Problems ( cont )
18. Starting a ramjet inlet at lower supersonic Mach number requires a larger
area of the inlet t_____.
19. Optimum pressure recovery across shock waves is achieved when the total
pressure loss across each shock wave is e____.
20. The specific impulse and thrust of a ramjet are a function of the efficiency
of the combustor, nozzle, and i____.
21. High density fuels have high payoff for v_____ limited missiles.
22. The specific impulse of a ducted rocket with large excess fuel from the gas
generator can approach that of a r_____.
23. High speed rockets require large p_________ weight.
24. At the throat, the flow area is minimum, sonic, and c_____ .
25. For an optimum nozzle expansion the nozzle exit pressure is equal to the
a__________ pressure.
26. High thrust and chamber pressure are achievable through a large propellant
b___ area.
2/24/2008 ELF 133
Propulsion Problems ( cont )
Propulsion Problems ( cont )
27. Three approaches to solid rocket thrust magnitude control are pulse motor,
pintle motor, and g__ motor.
28. A high burn exponent propellant allows a large change in thrust with only a
small change in chamber p_______.
29. Three tradeoffs in selecting a solid propellant are safety, observables, and
s_______ i______.
30. A low cost motor case is usually based on steel or aluminum material while
a light weight motor case is usually based on c________ material.
31. Rockets with high chamber pressure or long burn time may require a
t_______ throat insert.
2/24/2008 ELF 134
Outline
Outline
4 Introduction / Key Drivers in the Design Process
4 Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Propulsion Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Weight Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Flight Performance Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration
4 Sizing Examples
4 Development Process
4 Summary and Lessons Learned
4 References and Communication
4 Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises,
Example of Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms,
Conversion Factors, Syllabus )
2/24/2008 ELF 135
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Yes
Establish Baseline
Trajectory
Meet
Performance?
Measures of Merit and Constraints
No
No
Yes
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Alt Mission
Alt Baseline
Define Mission Requirements
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Weight
2/24/2008 ELF 136
Designing Light Weight Missile Has High Payoff
Designing Light Weight Missile Has High Payoff
4 Production cost
4 Logistics cost
4 Size
4 Firepower
4 Observables
4 Mission flexibility
4 Expeditionary warfare
2/24/2008 ELF 137
Flight Performance ( Range, Speed,
Maneuverability ) Sensitive to Subsystem Weight
Flight Performance ( Range, Speed,
Maneuverability ) Sensitive to Subsystem Weight
High Sensitivity Low Sensitivity - Minor Sensitivity
Dome - Seeker - Guidance and
Control -
Propulsion Wings Stabilizers
Warhead
Insulation
Flight
Control
Power
Supply
Structure
Data
Link -
2/24/2008 ELF 138
Missile Range is a Function of Launch Weight,
Propellant Weight, and Specific Impulse
Missile Range is a Function of Launch Weight,
Propellant Weight, and Specific Impulse
10
100
1000
100 1000 10000
Wi, Example Initial Launch Weight, lb
R
m
a
x
,

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

R
a
n
g
e
,

n
m
Single-Stage Missile Two-Stage Missile
ΔV ≈ -g
c
I
sp
ln ( 1 - W
Propellant
/ W
i
)
R ≈ V
2
sin ( 2θ
i
) / g
c
Assumptions:
θ
I
= Launch Incidence Angle = 45 deg for max
range
Thrust Greater Than Drag and Weight
Flat, Non-rotating Earth
For Two-Stage Missile with ( W
i
)
Min
: ΔV
1
= ΔV
2
Example: Two-Stage Missile with Minimum
Weight and R
max
= 200 nm = 1.216 x 10
6
ft
Assume I
SP
= 250 sec, W
Payload
= 500 lb, W
Inert
=
0.2 W
Propellant
V = [( 32.2 ) ( 1.216 x 10
6
)]
1/2
= 6251 ft / s
ΔV
1
= ΔV
2
= V / 2 = 3125 ft / s
W
i,SecondStage
= W
Payload
+ W
Inert
+ W
Propellant
= 814 lb
W
i, FirstStage
= W
Inert
+ W
Propellant
= 85 + 427 = 512 lb
W
i
= W
i,FirstStage
+ W
i,SecondStage
= 1326 lb
Compare: Single-Stage Missile, R = 200 nm
ΔV = 6251 = - 32.2 ( 250 ) ln [ 1 – W
Propellant
/ (
W
Propellant
+ 0.2 W
Propellant
+ 500 )] ⇒W
p
= 767 ⇒
W
i
= 1420 lb
2/24/2008 ELF 139
Missile Weight Is a Function of Diameter and
Length
Missile Weight Is a Function of Diameter and
Length
10
100
1000
10000
100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
ld2, Missile Length x Diameter2, in3
W
L
,

M
i
s
s
i
l
e

L
a
u
n
c
h

W
e
i
g
h
t
,

l
b
FIM-92 SA-14 Javelin RBS-70 Starstreak Mistral HOT Trigat LR
LOCAAS AGM-114 Roland RIM-116 Crotale AIM-132 AIM-9M Magic 2
Mica AA-11 Python 3 AIM-120C AA-12 Skyflash Aspide AIM-9P
Super 530F Super 530D AGM-65G PAC-3 AS-12 AGM-88 Penguin III AIM-54C
Armat Sea Dart Sea Eagle Kormoran II AS34 AGM-84H MIM-23F ANS
MM40 AGM-142 AGM-86C SA-10 BGM-109C MGM-140 SSN-22 Kh-41
W
L
= 0.04 l d
2
Units: W
L
( lb ), l ( in ), d ( in )
2/24/2008 ELF 140
Most Subsystems for Tactical Missiles Have a
Density of about 0.05 lb / in
3
Most Subsystems for Tactical Missiles Have a
Density of about 0.05 lb / in
3
Guidance:
0.04 lb / in
3
Flight Control:
0.04 lb / in
3
Warhead:
0.07 lb / in
3
Propellant:
0.06 lb / in
3
Structure and Motor Case:
0.10 ( Al ) to 0.27 ( steel ) lb / in
3
Aero Surfaces:
0.05 ( built-up Al ) to 0.27 ( solid
steel ) lb / in
3
Data Link:
0.04 lb / in
3
Dome Material:
0.1 lb / in
3
2/24/2008 ELF 141
Modeling Weight, Balance, and Moment-of-Inertia
Is Based on a Build-up of Subsystems
Modeling Weight, Balance, and Moment-of-Inertia
Is Based on a Build-up of Subsystems
Example Missile Configuration
Model
Structure and Subsystems Engine Structure and Subsystems
Warhead and Structure Fuel
Inlet Structure and Subsystems Aero Surfaces
Legend
Assume Uniform Weight Distribution For a Given Segment
+x
Inlet
Engine
Inlet Section
With Fuel
Wing Section
With Fuel
Fuel
Plug
+z
Nose G&C Warhead
x
CG
= Σ ( x
subsystem1
W
subsystem1
+ x
subsystem2
W
subsystem2
+ …) / W
total
I
Y
= Σ [ ( I
y,subsystem1
)
local
+ W
subsystem1
( x
subsystem1
- x
CG
)
2
/ g
c
+ ( I
y,subsystem2
)
local
+ W
subsystem2
( x
subsystem2
- x
CG
)
2
/ g
c
+ …]
2/24/2008 ELF 142
Moment-of-Inertia Is Higher for High Fineness
Ratio Body
Moment-of-Inertia Is Higher for High Fineness
Ratio Body
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0 10 20 30
l / d, Length / Diameter
(

I
y
,
l
o
c
a
l

)

g

/

(

W

d
2

)
,

N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

Y
a
w

L
o
c
a
l

M
o
m
e
n
o
f

I
n
e
r
t
i
a
Example for Ramjet Baseline at Launch ( x
cg
= 8.04 ft )
Assume missile can be approximated as a conical nose-cylinder
For the cone, d = 1.25 ft, l / d = 1.57, W
cone
= 15.9 lb, x
cg,cone
= 1.308 ft
For the cylinder, l / d = 7.22, d = 1.698 ft, W
cylinder
= 2214 lb, x
cg,cylinder
= 8.09 ft
I
y
= ( I
y,cone
)
local
+ W
cone
( x
cg,cone
- x
CG
)
2
/ g
c
+ ( I
y,cylinder
)
local
+ W
cylinder
( x
cg,cylinder
-
x
CG
)
2
/ g
c
( I
y,cone
)
local
= [ 15.9 ( 1.25 )
2
/ 32.2 ] [ 0.0375 + 0.0375 ( 1.57 )
2
] = 0.10 slug-ft
2
( I
y,cylinder
)
local
= [ 2214 ( 1.698 )
2
/ 32.2 ] [ 0.0625 + 0.0833 ( 7.22 )
2
] = 872 slug-ft
2
I
y
= 0.10 + 22.4 + 872 + 0.16 = 895 slug-ft
2
C
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
C
o
n
e
( I
y,cylinder
)
local
= [ W d
2
/ g
c
] [( 1 / 16 ) + ( 1 / 12 ) ( l / d )
2
]
( I
y,cone
)
local
= [ W d
2
/ g
c
] [ ( 3 / 80 ) + ( 3 / 80 ) ( l / d )
2
]
2/24/2008 ELF 143
Structure Design Factor of Safety Is Greater for
Hazardous Subsystems / Flight Conditions
Structure Design Factor of Safety Is Greater for
Hazardous Subsystems / Flight Conditions
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
FOS,
Factor of Safety
( Ultimate / Yield )
Note:
• MIL STDs include environmental ( HDBK-310, NATO STANAG 4370, 810F, 1670A ), strength and rigidity ( 8856 ), and captive
carriage ( 8591 ).
•The entire environment ( e.g., manufacturing, transportation, storage, ground handling, captive carriage, launch separation,
post-launch maneuvering, terminal maneuvering ) must be examined for driving conditions in structure design.
•FOS Δ for castings is expected to be reduced in future as casting technology matures.
•Reduction in required factor of safety is expected as analysis accuracy improves will result in reduced missile weight / cost.
Pressure Bottle ( 2.50 / 1.50 )
Ground Handling Loads ( 1.50 / 1.15 )
Captive Carriage and Separation Flight Loads ( 1.50 / 1.15 )
Motor Case ( MEOP ) ( 1.50 / 1.10 )
Free Flight Loads ( 1.25 / 1.10 )
Δ Castings ( 1.25 / 1.25 )
Δ Fittings ( 1.15 / 1.15 )
Thermal Loads ( 1.00 / 1.00 )
2/24/2008 ELF 144
Structure Concepts and Manufacturing
Processes for Low Parts Count
Structure Concepts and Manufacturing
Processes for Low Parts Count
Structure Manufacturing Process Alternatives
Composites Metals
Geometry
Alternatives
Vacuum
Assist
RTM
Vacuum
Bag /
Autoclave
High
Speed
Machine
Compression
Mold
Filament
Wind
Pultrusion
Thermal
Form
Forming Cast
Monocoque
Integrally Hoop
Stiffened
Integrally
Longitudinal
Stiffened
Solid
Sandwich
Axisymmetric
Airframe
Surface
Lifting Body
Airframe
Structure
Concept
Alternatives
Monocoque
Integrally Hoop
Stiffened
Integrally
Longitudinal
Stiffened
Strip
Laminate
Note: Manufacturing process cost is a function of recurring cost ( unit material, unit labor ) and non-recurring cost ( tooling ).
Note: Very Low Parts Count Low Parts Count Moderate Parts Count High Parts Count



2/24/2008 ELF 145
Low Parts Count Manufacturing Processes for
Complex Airframes
Low Parts Count Manufacturing Processes for
Complex Airframes
4 Vacuum Assisted RTM
4 Filament Wind
4 Pultrusion ………………………………….
4 Metal Casting
Mold Cavity
Riser
Pour Cup Vent
Parting Line
Resin Pump
3D Fiber Orientation
2D Fiber Orientation ( 0-±45-90 deg )
Helical wind versus
radial wind
2/24/2008 ELF 146
Tactical Missile Airframe Material Alternatives
Tactical Missile Airframe Material Alternatives
Superior Above Average Average Below Average

Note:
Tension
( σ
TU
/ ρ )
Aluminum 2219
Steel PH 15-7Mo
Titanium 6Al-4V
S994 Glass /
Epoxy and S994
Glass / Polyimide
Glass or
Graphite Reinforce
Molding
Graphite / Epoxy
and Graphite
Polyimide
Material Type
Buckling
Stability
( σ
Buckling
/ ρ )
Max
Short – Life
Temp
Thermal
Stress
Joining Cost Weight
Metallic
Increasing
Cost
Composite
Increasing
Cost


– –
– –


2/24/2008 ELF 147
Strength – Elasticity of Airframe Material Alternatives
Strength – Elasticity of Airframe Material Alternatives
Aluminum Alloy ( 2219-T81 )
400
300
200
100
0
σ
t
, Tensile Stress,
10
3
psi
0 1 2 3 4 5
ε, Strain, 10
-2
in / in
Titanium Alloy ( Ti-6Al-4V )
Very High Strength Stainless Steel
( PH 15-7 Mo, CH 900 )
Glass Fiber
w / o Matrix
Kevlar Fiber
w / o Matrix
Graphite Fiber
w / o Matrix
( 400 – 800 Kpsi )
E, Young’s modulus of elasticity, psi
P, Load, lb
ε, Strain, in / in
A, Area, in
2
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:
– Ductile,
– Yield before failure
– Allow adjacent structure
to absorb load
– Resist crack formation
– Resist impact loads
– More forgiving failure
σ
t
= P / A = E ε
High Strength Stainless Steel
( PH 15-7 Mo, TH 1050 )
2/24/2008 ELF 148
Structural Efficiency at High Temperature of
Short Duration Airframe Material Alternatives
Structural Efficiency at High Temperature of
Short Duration Airframe Material Alternatives
200 400 600 800 1,000 0
Short Duration Temperature, ° F
8.0
10.0
12.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0
σ
T
U
/

ρ
,

U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

T
e
n
s
i
l
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

/

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

1
0
5
I
n
.
Graphite / Epoxy
( ρ = 0.065 lb / in
3
)
0-±45-90 Laminate
Graphite / Polyimide ( ρ = 0.057 lb / in
3
), 0-±45-90 Laminate
Ti-6Al-4V Annealed Titanium ( ρ = 0.160 lb / in
3
)
PH15-7 Mo Stainless Steel ( ρ = 0.277 lb / in
3
). Note:
Thin wall steel susceptible to buckling.
Graphite
Glass
2219-T81
Aluminum
( ρ = 0.101 lb / in
3
)
Chopped Epoxy
Composites,
Random Orientation
( ρ = 0.094 lb / in
3
)
Ti
3
Al ( ρ = 0.15 lb / in
3
)
2/24/2008 ELF 149
Hypersonic Missiles without External Insulation
Require High Temperature Structure
Hypersonic Missiles without External Insulation
Require High Temperature Structure
M, Mach Number
T
r
,

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,


°
F






2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1 0 2 3 4 5 6
r

=

1
r

=

0
.
8
r

=

0
.
9
T
r
= T
0
( 1 + 0.2 r M
2
)
Note:
• γ = 1.4
• T
r
= Recovery Temperature, R
• T
0
= Free stream temperature, R
• T
max
= Max temperature capability
• No external insulation assumed
• r is recovery factor
• h = 40k ft ( T
Free Stream
= 390 R )
• Stagnation r = 1
• Turbulent boundary layer r = 0.9
• Laminar boundary layer r = 0.8
• Short-duration flight ( less than
30 m ), but with thermal soak
( T
max
)
Graphite Polyimide
( T
max
)
Al Alloy
( T
max
)
Steel
( T
max
)
Nickel Alloys
( e.g., Inconel, Rene,
Hastelloy, Haynes )
( T
max
)
Ti Alloy

( T
max
)
Graphite Epoxy
( T
max
)
Titanium Aluminide
≈ 2,500 °F )
( T
max
)
Single Crystal Nickel Aluminides
≈ 3,000 °F
( T
max
)
Ceramic Matrix Composite
≈ 3,500 °F
2/24/2008 ELF 150
Structure / Insulation Trades for Short Duration Flight
Structure / Insulation Trades for Short Duration Flight
Example Structure / Insulation Concepts Mach T
max
k c ρ α
Increasing
Hot Metal Structure ( e.g., Al ) without
Insulation 600 0.027 0.22 0.101 0.000722
Hot Metal Structure ( e.g., Al ) 600 0.027 0.22 0.101 0.000722
Cold Metal Structure ( e.g., Al ) 600 0.027 0.22 0.101 0.000722
Internal Insulation ( e.g., Min-K ) 2000 0.0000051 0.24 0.012 0.00000106
Note:
• Tactical missiles use passive thermal protection ( no active cooling )
• Small thickness allows more propellant / fuel for diameter constrained missiles ( e.g., VLS launcher )
• Weight and cost are application specific
• T
max
= max temp capability, ° F; k = thermal conductivity, BTU / s / ft
2
/ ° F / ft; c = specific heat or thermal
capacity, BTU / lbm / ° F; ρ = density, lbm / in
3
; α = thermal diffusivity = k / ( ρ c ), ft
2
/ s
Self-insulating Composite Structure
( e.g., Graphite Polyimide ) 1100 0.000109 0.27 0.057 0.00000410
Ext Insulation ( e.g., Micro-Quartz Paint ) 1200 0.0000131 0.28 0.012 0.00000226
Internal Insulation ( e.g., Min-K ) 2000 0.0000051 0.24 0.012 0.00000106
2/24/2008 ELF 151
External Insulation Has High Payoff for Short
Duration Flight
External Insulation Has High Payoff for Short
Duration Flight
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
E
x
a
m
p
l
e

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

°
F
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Mach
Number
Time After Launch ~ s
Example Airframe Temperature with No External
Insulator – Steel Airframe Selected.
Mach
Note: Short Range Air-to-Air Missile
Launch ~ 0.9 Mach at 10k ft Altitude
Atmosphere ~ Hot Day ( 1% Risk ) Mil-HDBK-310
Example Airframe Temperature with 0.012 in Insulator –
Aluminum Airframe Acceptable for Short Duration.
2/24/2008 ELF 152
Bulk Ceramics
• Melt
• ρ ~ 0.20 lb / in
3
• Zirconium Ceramic,
Hafnium Ceramic
Graphites
• Burn
• ρ ~ 0.08 lb / in
3
• Carbon / Carbon
T
max
, Max
Temperature
Capability,
R
4,000
3,000
2,000
0
0 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 / ft
2
Porous Ceramics
• Melt
• Resin Impregnated
• ρ ~ 0.12 lb / in
3
• Carbon-Silicon
Carbide
Medium Density Phenolic
Composites
• Char
• ρ ~ 0.06 lb / in
3
• Nylon Phenolic, Silica
Phenolic, Glass
Phenolic, Carbon
Phenolic, Graphite
Phenolic
Low Density
Composites
• Char
• ρ ~ 0.03 lb / in
3
• Micro-Quartz
Paint, Glass-
Cork-Epoxy,
Silicone Rubber
Plastics
• Sublime
• Depolymerizing
• ρ ~ 0.06 lb / in
3
• Teflon
Phenolic Composites Are Good Insulators for
High Temperature Structure and Propulsion
Phenolic Composites Are Good Insulators for
High Temperature Structure and Propulsion
2/24/2008 ELF 153
A “ Thermally Thin” Surface ( e.g., Metal
Airframe ) Has Uniform Internal Temperature
A “ Thermally Thin” Surface ( e.g., Metal
Airframe ) Has Uniform Internal Temperature
1
10
100
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
M, Mach Number
d
T

/

d
t
,

I
n
i
t
i
a
l

S
k
i
n

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

R
a
t
e

f
o
r

R
o
c
k
e
t

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
,

D
e
g

F

/

s
e
c
h = sea level h = 20K ft h = 50K ft h = 80K ft
( dT / dt )
t = 0
= ( T
r
- T
initial
) h / ( c ρ z )
T = T
r
– ( T
r
– T
initial
) e
– h t / ( c ρ z )
h = k N
NU
/ x
Thermally thin ⇒h ( z / k )
surface
< 0.1
Note: No external insulation; thermally thin structure ( uniform internal temperature ); “Perfect” insulation behind airframe; 1-D
heat transfer; Turbulent boundary layer; Radiation neglected; dT / dt = Temperature rate, R / s; T
r
= Recovery ( max )
temperature, R; h = Convection heat transfer coefficient, BTU / s / ft
2
/ R; c = Specific heat, BTU / lb / R; ρ = Density, lb / ft
3
; z =
Thickness, ft; k = Conductivity, BTU / s / ft
2
/ R / ft; Re = Reynolds number; N
NU
= Nusselt number
Example for Rocket Baseline Airframe:
Aluminum skin w/o external insulation
c = 0.215 BTU / lb / R, ρ = 0.10 lb / in
3
= 172.8 lb / ft
3
,
z = 0.16 in = 0.0133 ft, k = 0.027 BTU / s / ft
2
/ R / ft
Assume Mach 2 sustain flight, 20k ft altitude ( T
0
=
447 R , k = 3.31 x 10
-6
BTU / s / ft
2
/ R / ft ), Turbulent
boundary layer, x = 1.6 ft
Re
x
= ρ
0
M a
0
x / μ
0
= 12.56 x 10
6
N
NU
= 0.0271 Re
0.8
= 12947
h = k N
NU
/ x = 0.0268 BTU / s / ft
2
/ R
Test: h ( z / k )
surface
= 0.0132 < 0.1 ⇒thermally thin
Calculate T
r
= T
0
[ 1 + 0.2 r M
2
] = 447 [ 1 + 0.2 ( 0.9 )
( 2 )
2
] = 769 R
At t = 0, Assume T
initial
= 460 R, or 0° F
( dT / dt )
t = 0
= ( 769 - 460 ) ( 0.0268 ) / [( 0.215 )
(172.8 ) ( 0.01333 )] = 17°F / s
At a sustain time t = 10 s, T = 769 - ( 769 – 460 ) e

0.0268 ( 10 ) / [ 0.215 ( 172.8 ) ( 0.0133 )]
= 589 R, or 129° F
Reference: Jerger, J.J., Systems Preliminary Design Principles of Guided Missile Design,
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1960
x = 1.6 ft
2/24/2008 ELF 154
A “ Thermally Thick” Surface ( e.g., Radome ) Has
a Large Internal Temperature Gradient
A “ Thermally Thick” Surface ( e.g., Radome ) Has
a Large Internal Temperature Gradient
0
0.5
1
0.1 1 10 100
[ T ( z, t ) - T
initial
] / [ T
r
– T
initial
] = erfc { z / [ 2 ( α t )
1/2
]} – e
( h z / k ) + h
2
α t / k
2
erfc { z / [ 2 ( α t )
1/2
] + h ( α t )
1/2
/ k }
[ T ( 0, t ) - T
initial
] / [ T
r
– T
initial
] = 1 - e
h
2
α t / k
2
erfc [ h ( α t )
1/2
/ k ]
Applicable for thermally thick surface: z / [ 2 ( α t )
1/2
] > 1
Note: T ( z,t ) ∼ ( T )
initial
; 1-D heat transfer; Radiation neglected; Turbulent boundary layer; T
r
= Recovery temperature, R; h =
Heat transfer coefficient, BTU / ft
2
/ s / R; k = Thermal conductivity of material, BTU / s / ft
2
/ R / ft; α = Diffusivity of material,
ft
2
/ s; z
max
= Thickness of material, ft; erfc = Complementary error function
Example: Rocket Baseline Radome
z = 0.25 in = 0.0208 ft, k = 5.96 x 10
-4
BTU / s / ft / R,
α = 1.499 x 10
-5
ft
2
/ s
Mach 2, 20k ft alt ( T
0
= 447 R ), Turbulent boundary layer,
x = 19.2 in = 1.6 ft, t = 10 s, T
r
= 769 R, T
initial
= 460 R
⇒h = 0.0268 BTU / s / ft ⇒( h / k )( α t )
1/2
= 0.491
Test: z / [ 2 ( α t )
1/2
] = 0.0208 / { 2 [ 1.499x10
-5
( 10 )]
1/2
} =
0.849 < 1 ⇒not quite thermally thick
Inner wall ⇒h z / k = 0.935
[ T ( 0.0208, 10 ) - T
initial
] / [ T
r
– T
initial
] = 0.0608
T ( 0.0208, 10 ) = 479 R ( Note: T
inner
≈ T
initial
)
Surface ⇒h z / k = 0
[ T ( 0, 10 ) - T
initial
] / [ T
r
– T
initial
] = 0.372
T ( 0, 10 ) = 575 R
Reference: Jerger, J.J., Systems Preliminary Design Principles of Guided Missile Design,
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1960
( h / k )( α t )
1/2
h

z

/

k

=

1
0
0
h

z

/

k

1
0
h

z

/

k

=

1
h

z

/

k

=

0
.
1
[

T

(

z
,

t

)

-
(

T

)
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
]

/

[
(

T
)
r

(

T

)
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
]
X = 1.6 ft
h

z

/

k

=

0
2/24/2008 ELF 155
Internal Insulation Temperature Can Be Predicted
Assuming Constant Flux Conduction
Internal Insulation Temperature Can Be Predicted
Assuming Constant Flux Conduction
0
0.5
1
0.1 1 10 100
[ T ( z, t ) – T
initial
] / [ T ( 0, t ) – T
initial
] = e
- z
2
/ ( 4 α t )
– ( π / α t )
1 / 2
( z / 2 ) erfc { z / [ 2 ( α t )
1/2
]}
Applicable for thermally thick surface: z / [ 2 ( α t )
1/2
] > 1
Note: 1-D conduction heat transfer, Radiation neglected, Constant heat flux input, T ( z,t ) = Inner temperature of insulation
at time t, T
initial
= Initial temperature, T ( 0, t ) = Outer temperature of insulation at time t, α = Diffusivity of insulation material,
ft
2
/ s; z
max
= Thickness of insulation material, ft; erfc = Complementary error function
Example for Rocket Baseline Airframe Insulation:
0.10 in Min-K Internal Insulation behind 0.16 in aluminum
Skin
Assume M = 2, 20k ft alt, x = 1.6 ft, T
initial
= 460 R, t = 10 s,
z
Min-K
= 0.10 in = 0.00833 ft, α
Min-K
= 0.00000106 ft
2
/ s, k =
5.96 x 10
-4
BTU / s / ft, h = 0.0268 BTU / s / ft
Test: z / [ 2 ( α t )
1/2
] = 0.00833 / {2 [ 0.00000106 ( 10 )]
1/2
} =
1.279 > 1 ⇒thermally thick
( α t )
1/2
/ z = [ 0.00000106 ( 10 ) ]
1/2
/ 0.00833 = 0.3907
[ T
Min-K
( 0.0217, 10 ) – 460 ] / [ T
Min-K
( 0, 10 ) – 460 ] = 0.0359
Assume ( T
inner
)
aluminum
= ( T
outer
)
Min-K
From prior example, ( T
inner
)
aluminum
= 569 R at = 10 s
Then, ( T
outer
)
Min-K
= 569 R at t = 10 s
Compute, ( T
inner
)
Min-K
= 460 + ( 569 – 460 ) 0.0338 = 460 + 4
= 464 R
Reference: Carslaw, H. S. and Jaeger, J. C., Conduction of Heat in Solids, Clarendon Press, 1989
X = 1.6 ft
( α t )
1/2
/ z
[

T

(

z
,

t

)


T
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
]

/

[

T

(

0
,

t

)


T
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
]
Aluminum
Min-K
0.16 in
0.10 in
z
2/24/2008 ELF 156
A Sharp Nose Tip / Leading Edge Has High
Aerodynamic Heating
A Sharp Nose Tip / Leading Edge Has High
Aerodynamic Heating
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
M, Mach Number
h
r
,

S
t
a
g
n
a
t
i
o
n

H
e
a
t

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

C
o
e
f
f

f
o
r

R
o
c
k
e
t

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

a
t

h

=

2
0
k

f
t
,

B
T
U

/

f
t
2

/

s

/

R
1% Bluntness 2% Bluntness
5% Bluntness 10% Bluntness
h
r
= N
NU
r
k
r
/ d
NoseTip
N
NU
r
= 1.321 Re
dNoseTip
0.5
P
r
0.4
Note: 1-D conduction heat transfer; Laminar boundary layer; Stagnation heating; Radiation neglected; h
r
= Convection
heat transfer coefficient for stagnation recovery, BTU / s / ft
2
/ R; N
NU
r
= Nusselt number for stagnation recovery; k
r
=
Air thermal conductivity at stagnation recovery ( total ) temperature, BTU / s / ft / R; d
NoseTip
= Nose tip diameter, ft;
Re
dNoseTip
= Reynolds number based on nose tip diameter, P
r
= Prandtl number
Example for Rocket Baseline Nose Tip:
Assume M = 2, 20k ft alt, stagnation ( T
r
= 805
R ) for a sharp nose tip ( e.g., 1% blunt )
d
NoseTip
/ d
Ref
= 0.01 ⇒d
NoseTip
= 0.01 ( 8
in ) = 0.08 in = 0.00557 ft
Re
dNoseTip
= ρ
0
V
0
d
NoseTip
/ μ
r
= 3.39 x 10
4
N
NU
r
= 223
h
r
= 0.1745 BTU / ft
2
/ s / R
Outer surface temperature after 10 s heating
in sustain flight ( M = const, T
r
= const ):
[ T ( 0, t ) - T
initial
] / [ T
r
– T
initial
] = 1 – e
h
2
αt / k
2
erfc { h ( α t )
1/2
/ k }
[ T ( 0, 10 ) - 460 ] / [ 805 – 460 ] = 1 – e
[( 0.1745 )
2
( 1.499 x 10
-5
) ( 10 ) / ( 5.96 x 10
-4
)
2
]
erfc { ( 0.1745 ) [
1.499 x 10
-5
( 10 )]
1/2
/ ( 5.96 x 10
-4
)]} = 0.845
T ( 0, 10 ) = 460 + 345 ( 0.845 ) = 752 R
Reference: Allen, J. and Eggers, A. J., “A Study of the Motion and Aerodynamic Heating of Ballistic
Missiles Entering the Earth’s Atmosphere at High Supersonic Speeds”, NACA Report 1381, April 1953.
2/24/2008 ELF 157
Tactical Missile Radiation Heat Loss Is Usually
Small Compared to Convective Heat Input
Tactical Missile Radiation Heat Loss Is Usually
Small Compared to Convective Heat Input
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cruise Mach Number
Radiation Heat
Flux at
Equilibrium
Temperature,
BTU / ft2 / s
Emissivity = 0.1 Emissivity = 1
Q
Rad
= 4.76 x 10
-13
ε T
4
Q
Rad
in BTU / ft
2
/ s, T in R
Example: Ramjet Baseline
Assume:
•Titanium skin with emissivity ε =
0.3
•Long duration ( equilibrium )
heating at Mach 4
•h = 80k ft, T
0
= 398 R
•Turbulent boundary layer ( r =
0.9 ) ⇒T = T
r
= T
0
( 1 + 0.2 r M
2
) =
1513 R
Calculate:
Q
Rad
= 4.76 x 10
-13
( 0.3 ) ( 1513 )
4
= 0.748 BTU / ft
2
/ s
2/24/2008 ELF 158
Design Concerns for Localized Aerodynamic
Heating and Thermal Stress
Design Concerns for Localized Aerodynamic
Heating and Thermal Stress
Body Joints
ºHot missile shell
ºCold frames or bulkheads
ºCauses premature buckling
IR Domes / RF Radomes
ºLarge temp gradients due to low thermal conduction
ºThermal stress at attachment
ºLow tensile strength
ºDome fails in tension
Leading Edges
ºHot stagnation temperature on leading edge
ºSmall radius prevents use of external insulation
ºCold heat sink material as chord increases in thickness
leads to leading edge warp
ºShock wave interaction with adjacent body structure
Flare / Wedge Corner Flow
ºShock wave – boundary layer
interaction
ºSeparated Flow
ºHigh heating at reattachment
Note: σ
TS
= Thermal stress from restraint in compression or tension = α E ΔT
α = coefficient of thermal expansion, E = modulus of elasticity, ΔT = T
2
– T
1
= temperature difference.
Example: Thermal Stress for Rocket Baseline Pyroceram Dome, α = 3 x 10
-6
, E = 13.3 x 10
6
psi
Assume M = 2, h = 20k ft alt, t = 10 s. Based on prior figure, ΔT = T
OuterWall
– T
InnerWall
= 102 R
Then σ
TS
= 3 x 10
-6
( 13.3 x 10
6
) ( 102 ) = 4,070 psi
2/24/2008 ELF 159
Examples of Aerodynamic Hot Spots
Examples of Aerodynamic Hot Spots
Nose Tip
Leading Edge
Flare
2/24/2008 ELF 160
Tactical Missile Body Structure Weight Is about
22% of the Launch Weight
Tactical Missile Body Structure Weight Is about
22% of the Launch Weight
10
100
1000
100 1000 10000
WL, Launch Weight, lb
W
B
S
,
B
o
d
y

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

W
e
i
g
h
t
,

l
b
Hellfire ( 0.22 )
Sidewinder ( 0.23 )
Sparrow ( 0.18 )
Phoenix ( 0.19 )
Harpoon ( 0.29 )
SM 2 ( 0.20 )
SRAM ( 0.21 )
ASALM ( 0.13 )
SETE ( 0.267 )
Tomahawk ( 0.24 )
TALOS ( 0.28 )
W
BS
/ W
L
≈ 0.22
Example for 500 lb missile
W
L
= 500 lb
W
BS
= 0.22 ( 500 ) = 110 lb
Note: W
BS
includes all load carrying body structure. If motor case, engine, or warhead case carry external
loads then they are included in W
BS
. W
BS
does not include tail, wing, or other surface weight.
2/24/2008 ELF 161
Body Structure Thickness Is Based on
Considering Many Design Conditions
Body Structure Thickness Is Based on
Considering Many Design Conditions
4 Structure Design Conditions That May Drive Airframe Thickness
4 Manufacturing
4 Transportation
4 Carriage
4 Launch
4 Fly-out
4 Maneuvering
4 Contributors to Required Thickness for Cylindrical Body Structure
4 Minimum Gage for Manufacturing: t = 0.7 d [( p
ext
/ E ) l / d ]
0.4
. t ≈ 0.06 in if p
ext
≈ 10 psi
4 Localized Buckling in Bending: t = 2.9 r σ / E
4 Localized Buckling in Axial Compression: t = 4.0 r σ / E
4 Thrust Force: t = T / ( 2 π σ r )
4 Bending Moment: t = M / ( π σ r
2
)
4 Internal Pressure: t = p r / σ
4 High Risk ( 1 ), Moderate Risk ( 2 ), and Low Risk ( 3 ) Estimates of Required Thickness
1. t = FOS x Max ( t
MinGage
, t
Buckling,Bending
, t
Buckling,AxialCompression
, t
AxialLoad
, t
Bending
, t
InternalPressure
)
2. t = FOS x ( t
2
MinGage
+ t
2
Buckling,Bending
+ t
2
Buckling,AxialCompression
+ t
2
AxialLoad
+ t
2
Bending
+ t
2
InternalPressure
)
1/2
3. t = FOS x ( t
MinGage
+ t
Buckling,Bending
+ t
Buckling,AxialCompression
+ t
AxialLoad
+ t
Bending
+ t
InternalPressure
)
2/24/2008 ELF 162
Localized Buckling May Be A Concern for
Thin Wall Structure
Localized Buckling May Be A Concern for
Thin Wall Structure
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1
t / r, thickness / radius
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

B
u
c
k
l
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
s
s
Bending
Axial Compression
σ
Buckling,Bending
/ E≈ 0.35 ( t / r )
σ
Buckling,AaxialCcompression
/ E≈ 0.25 ( t / r )
Note: Thin wall cylinder with local buckling
σ
Buckling
/ E = Nondimensional buckling stress
σ
BucklingBending
= Buckling stress in bending
σ
BucklingAxialCompression
= Buckling stress in axial
compression
E = Young’s modulus of elasticity
t = Airframe thickness
r = Airframe radius
Min thickness for fab and handling ≈ 0.06 in
Example for Rocket Baseline in Bending:
4130 steel motor case, E = 29.5 x 10
6
psi
σ
yield
= 170,000 psi
t = 0.074 in, r = 4 in
t / r = 0.0185
σ
Buckling,Bending
/ E ≈ 0.35 ( 0.0185 ) = 0.006475
σ
buckling,Bending
≈ 191,000 psi
σ
buckling,Bending
~ σ
yield
r
t
Note: Actual buckling stress can vary +/- 50%, depending upon typical
imperfections in geometry and the loading.
2/24/2008 ELF 163
Process for Captive and Free Flight Loads
Calculation
Process for Captive and Free Flight Loads
Calculation
Free Flight
Maneuver Per
Design Requirements
Weight load
of bulkhead
section
Air Load
Obtained
By Wind
Tunnel
Air Load
Captive Flight
Max Aircraft Maneuver
Per MIL-A-8591
Weight load
of bulkhead
section
Air Load
Note: MIL-A-8591 Procedure A assumes max air
loads combine with max g forces regardless of
angle of attack.
Carriage Load
Example of α
max
Calculated by MIL-A-8591 Using
Procedure A for F-18 Aircraft Carriage:
α
max
= 1.5 n
z,max
W
max
/ ( C
L
α
q S
Ref
)
aircraft
α
max
= 1.5 ( 5 ) ( 49200 ) / [ 0.05 ( 1481 ) ( 400 )] =
12.5 deg
2/24/2008 ELF 164
Maximum Bending Moment Depends Upon Load
Distribution
Maximum Bending Moment Depends Upon Load
Distribution
Example for Rocket Baseline:
Cc = 4, ejection load
Cl = 144 in
⇒ C
CN = 10,000 lb ( 20 g )
⇒ +M
B
= 360,000 in-lb
Max Bending
Moment M
B
M
B
= N l / c
C = 8 for uniform loading
C = 7.8 for linear loading
C = 6 for linear loading to center
C = 4 for load at center ( e.g., ejection load )
6
4 40,000
30,000
20,000
4 1 3
2 5
100
200
1,000,000
2,000,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
100
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Total
Load
N
Coefficient C Length l
8
7.8
100,000
50,000
10,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500
400
300
200
100
w = load per unit length
0
l = length
w
0 l
w
0 l
l
0
N = Normal Force
l / 2
10
C = 1 for load at end ( e.g., control force )
N = Normal Force
l 0
l
1
2/24/2008 ELF 165
Bending Moment May Drive Body Structure
Weight
Bending Moment May Drive Body Structure
Weight
Example for Rocket Baseline:
• Body has circular cross section
• 2219-T81 aluminum skin ( σ
ult
= 65,000 psi )
• r = 4 in
• Ejection load = 10,000 lb ( 20 g )
• M
B
= 360,000 in ⋅ lb
• FOS = 1.5
• t = 360,000 ( 1.5 ) / [ π ( 4 )
2
( 65,000 )] = 0.16 in
t = M
B
( FOS ) / [ π r
2
σ
Max
]
A = 2 π r t
I
z
= I
Y
= π r
3
t
r
t
t
M
B
Note / Assumptions:
Thin cylinder
Circular cross section
Solid skin
Longitudinal strength
Axial load stress and thermal
stress assumed small compared
to bending moment stress
σ = M
B
r / I
Z
= M
B
r / (π r
3
t )
= M
B
/ (π r
2
t )
2/24/2008 ELF 166
Tactical Missile Propellant Weight Is about 72%
of Rocket Motor Weight
Tactical Missile Propellant Weight Is about 72%
of Rocket Motor Weight
10
100
1000
10000
10 100 1000 10000
WM, Total Motor Weight, lb
W
P
,

P
r
o
p
e
l
l
a
n
t

W
e
i
g
h
t
,

l
b Hellfire ( 0.69 )
Sidewinder ( 0.61 )
Sparrow ( 0.64 )
Phoenix ( 0.83 )
ASALM ( 0.86 )
SM-2 ( 0.76 )
SRAM ( 0.71 )
TALOS ( 0.66 )
W
P
/ W
M
≈ 0.72
Example for Rocket Baseline
W
M
= 209 lb
W
P
= 0.72 ( 209 ) = 150 lb
Note: W
M
includes propellant, motor case, nozzle, and insulation.
Increased propellant fraction if:
4 High volumetric loading
4 Composite case
4 Low chamber pressure
4 Low flight loads
4 Short burn time
2/24/2008 ELF 167
Motor Case Weight Is Usually Driven By Stress
from Internal Pressure
Motor Case Weight Is Usually Driven By Stress
from Internal Pressure
4Assume motor case is axisymmetric, with a front ellipsoid dome
and an aft cylinder body
4With metals – the material also reacts body bending
4In composite motor designs, extra ( longitudinal ) fibers must usually be
added to accommodate body bending
Motor Case
Cylinder
Hoop
Stress
Motor Dome
Ellipsoid
Longitudinal
Stress
p
p
( σ
t
)
Longitudinal Stress
= [ 2 + ( a / b )
2
] p ( a b )
1/2
/ ( 6 t )
If a = b ( hemi dome of radius r ),
then ( σ
t
)
Longitudinal Stress
= p r / ( 2 t )
σ
t
t = -
0

π/2
p r sinθ dθ
( σ
t
)
Hoop Stress
= p r / t
Case Dome
Nozzle
Case Cylinder
2 a
b
2/24/2008 ELF 168
A Composite Motor Case Is Usually Lighter
Weight
A Composite Motor Case Is Usually Lighter
Weight
4Calculate Maximum Effective Operating Pressure ( Burst Pressure )
p
burst
= p
Boost, Room Temp
x e
π
k
Δ T
x ( Design Margin for Ignition Spikes, Welds, Other Design Uncertainty )
Assume Rocket Motor Baseline: diameter = 8 in., length = 55 in, ellipsoid dome a / b = 2, p
Boost,RoomTemp
=
1769 psi, π
k
= ( Δp / ΔT ) / p
c
= 0.14% / °F
Assume Hot day T = 160° F ⇒e
π
k
ΔT
= e
0.0014 ( 160 - 70 )
= 1.134. Uncertainty factor is 1.134, 1σ
Assume a 3σ uncertainty design margin is provided by, p
burst
≈ 1769 x ( 1.134 )
3
= 2,582 psi
4Assume Ultimate Factor of Safety FOS = 1.5
4Rocket Baseline Steel Case ( σ
t
)
ult
= 190,000 psi
t
Hoop
= ( FOS ) x p
burst
x r / σ
t
= 1.5 x 2582 x 4.0 / 190,000 = 0.082 in
t
Dome
= ( FOS ) x p
burst
x ( a b )
1/2
x [ 2 + ( a / b )
2
] / ( 6 σ
t
) = 1.5 x 2582 x [ 4 x 2 ]
1/2
x [ 2 + ( 2 )
2
] / [ 6 x 190,000 ]
= 0.058 in
Weight = W
Cylinder
+ W
Dome
= ρ π d t
Hoop
l + ρ ( 2 π a b ) t
Dome
= 30.8 + 0.8 = 31.6 lb for steel case
4Try Graphite Fiber at σ
t
= 450,000 psi Ultimate, Assume 60% Fiber / 40% Epoxy Composite
t
Hoop
= 1.5 x 2582 x 4.0 / [ 450,000 ( 0.60 )] = 0.057 in radial fibers for internal pressure load
t
Dome
= 0.041 in, for internal pressure load
Weight = 11.1 lb for composite case ( w/o insulation, attachment, aft dome, and body bending fiber )
Must also add about 0.015 in of either longitudinal fibers or helical wind to counteract body bending load
2/24/2008 ELF 169
A Low Aspect Ratio Delta Wing Allows Lighter
Weight Structure
A Low Aspect Ratio Delta Wing Allows Lighter
Weight Structure
0
1
2
3
0 1 2 3
A, Aspect Ratio

Taper Ratio = 0 Taper ratio = 0.5 Taper Ratio = 1
W
Surface
σ
max
1/2
/ [ ρ S N
max
1/2
] = [ A ( 1 + 2 λ )]
1/2
W
Surface
= ρ S t
mac
t
root
= [ FOS N
max
A ( 1 + 2 λ ) / σ
max,
]
1/2
Assumption: Uniform loading
Note:
Surface is 2 panels ( Cruciform wing has 4 panels )
W
Surface
= Surface weight sized by bending moment
ρ = Density
σ
max
= Maximum allowable ( ultimate ) stress
t
mac
= Thickness of mean aero chord c
mac
t
root
= Thickness of root chord c
root
N
max
= Maximum load
A = Aspect ratio
λ = Taper ratio
Example for Rocket Baseline Wing ( 2219-T81
Aluminum ): A = 2.82, λ = 0.175, c
r
= 19.4 in, σ
max
=
σ
ult
= 65k psi
Assume M = 2, h = 20k ft, α + δ = 22 deg
From prior example, N
max
= 7525 lb
Calculate t
root
= [ 1.5 ( 7525 ) ( 2.82 ) [ 1 + 2 ( 0.175 ) /
65000 ]
1/2
= 0.813 in
t
root
/ c
root
= 0.813 / 19.4 = 0.0419 = t
mac
/ c
mac
t
mac
= 0.0419 ( 13.3 ) = 0.557 in
W
wing
σ
max
1/2
/ [ ρ S N
max
1/2
] = [ A ( 1 + 2 λ )]
1/2
.= 1.95
W
wing
= 20.6 lb for 1 wing ( 2 panels )
W
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
σ
m
a
x
1
/
2
/

(

ρ
S

N
m
a
x
1
/
2
)
,

N
o
n
-
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

W
e
i
g
h
t

2/24/2008 ELF 170
Seeker
Dome
Material

Density
( g / cm
3
)
Dielectric
Constant
MWIR /
LWIR
Bandpass
Transverse
Strength
( 10
3
psi )
Thermal
Expansion
( 10
-6
/
ο

F )
Erosion,
Knoop ( kg
/ mm
2
)
Max Short-
Duration
Temp (
ο

F )
RF-IR Seeker
Zinc Sulfide
( ZnS )
4.05 8.4 18 4 350 700
Zinc Selenide
( ZnSe )
5.16 9.0 8 4 150 600
Sapphire /
Spinel
3.68 8.5 28 3 1650 1800
Quartz / Fused
Silica ( SiO2 )
2.20 3.7 8 0.3 600 2000
Silicon Nitride
( Si3N4 )
3.18 6.1 90 2 2200 2700
Diamond ( C ) 3.52 5.6 400 1 8800 3500
RF Seeker
Pyroceram 2.55 5.8 25 3 700 2200
Polyimide 1.54 3.2 17 40 70 400
IR Seeker
Mag. Fluoride
( MgF2 )
3.18 5.5 7 6 420 1000
Alon
( Al23O27N5 )
3.67 9.3 44 3 1900 1800
Germanium
( Ge )
5.33 16.2 15 4 780 200

Dome Material Is Driven by the Type of Seeker
and Flight Environment
Dome Material Is Driven by the Type of Seeker
and Flight Environment
Superior Above Average Average Below Average - Poor
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2/24/2008 ELF 171
Radome Weight May Be Driven by Optimum
Thickness Required for Efficient Transmission
Radome Weight May Be Driven by Optimum
Thickness Required for Efficient Transmission
0.1
1
1 10
Incidence Angle = 0 deg Incidence Angle = 40 deg
Incidence Angle = 80 deg
t
o
p
t
/

(

N

λ
0
)
,

N
o
n
-
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

O
p
t
i
m
u
m

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
ε, Dielectric Constant
W
OptTrans
= ρ S
wet
t
OptTrans
t
OptTrans
= 0.5 n λ
0
/ ( ε - sin
2
θ
i
)
1/2
Note:
W
OptTrans
= Weight at Optimum Transmission
ρ = Density
S
wet
= Surface wetted area
t
OptTrans
= Optimum thickness for 100% transmission
n = Integer ( 1, 2, …)
λ
0
= Wavelength in air
ε = Dielectric constant
θ
i
= Radar signal incidence angle = 90 deg - δ - θ
θ = Surface local angle
δ = Seeker look angle
Example for Rocket Baseline Pyroceram Radome:
ε = 5.8, ρ = 0.092 lb / in
3
, λ
0
= 1.1 in, n = 1, tangent
ogive, l = 19.2 in, d = 8 in, S
wet
= 326 in
2
δ = 0 deg ⇒( θ
I
)
avg
≈ 90 – 0 - 11.8 = 78.2 deg
t
OptYtans
= 0.5 ( 1 ) ( 1.1 ) / ( 5.8 – 0.96 )
1/2
= 0.25 in
W
OptTrans
= 0.092 ( 326 ) ( 0.25 ) = 7.5 lb
90 deg
δ
θ
i
l
d
θ
2/24/2008 ELF 172
Missile Electrical Power Supply Alternatives
Missile Electrical Power Supply Alternatives
Power Supply Measure of Merit
Voltage Stability
0.3 1.5 1.4 W
P
, Weight / Power
( kg / kW )
0.0125 0.0012 0.0007 W
E
, Weight /
Energy
( kg / kW-s )
Cost
Storage Life
Thermal Battery Lithium Battery Generator
Superior Above Average Average Below Average
W = W
E
E + W
P
P
Example for Thermal battery: If E = 900 kW–s, P = 3 kW ⇒W = W
E
E + W
P
P = 0.0125 ( 900 ) + 0.3 ( 3 ) = 12.2 kg
Note: Generator provides highest energy with light weight for long time of flight ( e.g., cruise missile ).
Lithium battery provides nearly constant voltage suitable for electronics. Relatively high energy with light weight.
Thermal battery provides highest power with light weight ( may be required for actuators ).
2/24/2008 ELF 173
Superior Above Average Average Below Average
Electromechanical Actuators Are Light Weight
and Reliable
Electromechanical Actuators Are Light Weight
and Reliable
Hydraulic Cold Gas Pneumatic EM Measure of Merit
Reliability
Cost
Up to 60 Up to 20 Up to 40 Bandwidth ( Hz )
Up to 1000 Up to 600 Up to 800 Rate ( deg / s )
0.0034 0.0050 0.0025 W
T
, Weight / Stall Torque ( lb /
in-lb )
Note:
•Actuation system weight based on four actuators.
•Cold gas pneumatic actuation weight includes actuators, gas bottle,
valves, regulator, and supply lines.
•Hydraulic actuation weight includes actuators, gas generator or gas
bottle, hydraulic reservoir, valves, and supply lines.
•Stall torque ≈ 1.5 maximum hinge moment of single panel.
W = W
T
T
S
Example weight for rocket baseline hydraulic actuation at Mach 2, 20k ft alt, α = 9 deg, with max control deflection of wing ( δ
= 13 deg ) ⇒Hinge moment of one panel = 11,500 in-lb. T
S
= 1.5 ( 11500 ) = 17,250 in-lb ⇒W = W
T
T
S
= 0.0034 ( 17250 ) = 59 lb
Schematic of Cold Gas Pneumatic Actuation
2/24/2008 ELF 174
Examples of Electromechanical Actuator
Packaging
Examples of Electromechanical Actuator
Packaging
Canard ( Stinger ) ……………
Tail ( AMRAAM ) …………………………………………………………………
Jet Vane / Tail ( Javelin ) ……
Movable Nozzle ( THAAD ) ……………………………………………………………
2/24/2008 ELF 175
Summary of Weight
Summary of Weight
4 Conceptual Design Weight Prediction Methods and Weight
Considerations
4 Missile system weight, cg, moment of inertia
4 Factors of safety
4 Aerodynamic heating
4 Structure
4 Dome
4 Propulsion
4 Insulation
4 Power supply
4 Actuator
4 Manufacturing Processes for Low Parts Count, Low Cost
4 Precision castings
4 Vacuum assisted RTM
4 Pultrusion / Extrusion
4 Filament winding
2/24/2008 ELF 176
Summary of Weight ( cont )
Summary of Weight ( cont )
4 Design Considerations
4 Airframe materials
4 Insulation materials
4 Seeker dome materials
4 Thermal stress
4 Aerodynamic heating
4 Technologies
4 MEMS
4 Composites
4 Titanium alloys
4 High density insulation
4 High energy and power density power supply
4 High torque density actuators
4 Discussion / Questions?
4 Classroom Exercise ( Appendix A )
2/24/2008 ELF 177
Weight Problems
Weight Problems
1. Propulsion system and structure weight are driven by f_____ o_ s_____
requirements.
2. For a ballistic range greater than about 200 nautical miles, a t__ s____ missile
is lighter weight.
3. Tactical missile weight is proportional to v_____.
4. Subsystem d______ for tactical missiles is about 0.05 lb / in
3
5. Modeling weight, balance, and moment-of-inertia is based on a build-up of
s_________.
6. Missile structure factor of safety for free flight is usually about 1.25 for
ultimate loads and about 1.10 for y____ loads.
7. Manufacturing processes that can allow low parts count include vacuum
assisted resin transfer molding of composites and c______ of metals.
8. Low cost airframe materials are usually based on aluminum and steel while
light weight airframe materials are usually based c________ materials.
9. Graphite fiber has high strength and high m______ o_ e_________.
2/24/2008 ELF 178
Weight Problems ( cont )
Weight Problems ( cont )
10. The recovery factors of stagnation, turbulent boundary layer, and laminar
boundary layer are 1.0, 0.9, and ___ respectively.
11. The most popular types of insulation for temperatures greater than 4,000 R
are charring insulators based on p_______ composites.
12. Tactical missiles experience transient heating, and with increasing time
the temperature approaches the r_______ temperature.
13. The inner wall temperature is nearly the same as the surface temperature
for a t________ t___ structure.
14. A thermally thick surface is a good i________.
15. A low conductivity structure is susceptible to thermal s_____.
16. The minimum gauge thickness is often set by the m____________ process.
17. A very thin wall structure is susceptible to localized b_______.
18. Ejection loads and flight control loads often result in large b______
moment.
19. An approach to increase the tactical missile propellant / motor weight
fraction over the typical value of 72% would be c________ motor case.
2/24/2008 ELF 179
Weight Problems ( cont )
Weight Problems ( cont )
20. The required rocket motor case thickness is often driven by the
combustion chamber p_______.
21. A low aspect ratio delta wing has reduced w_____.
22. For low speed missiles, a popular infrared dome material is z___ s______.
23. A thermal battery provides high p____.
24. The most popular type of actuator for tactical missiles is an
e________________ actuator.
2/24/2008 ELF 180
Outline
Outline
4 Introduction / Key Drivers in the Design Process
4 Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Propulsion Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Weight Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Flight Performance Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration
4 Sizing Examples
4 Development Process
4 Summary and Lessons Learned
4 References and Communication
4 Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises,
Example of Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms,
Conversion Factors, Syllabus )
2/24/2008 ELF 181
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Yes
Establish Baseline
Meet
Performance?
Measures of Merit and Constraints
No
No
Yes
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Alt Mission
Alt Baseline
Define Mission Requirements
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Weight
Trajectory
2/24/2008 ELF 182
Flight Envelope Should Have Large Max Range,
Small Min Range, and Large Off Boresight
Off Boresight Flyout Envelope / Range
•Max
•Min
Forward Flyout Envelope / Range
•Max
•Min
Examples of Max / Min Range Limitations:
4Fire Control System Range and Off Boresight
4Seeker Range, Gimbal Angle, and Tracking Rate
4Maneuver Capability
4Time of Flight
4Closing Velocity
2/24/2008 ELF 183
Conceptual Design Modeling Versus Preliminary
Design Modeling
Conceptual Design Modeling Versus Preliminary
Design Modeling
4Conceptual Design Modeling
41 DOF [ Axial force ( C
D
O
), thrust, weight ]
42 DOF [ Normal force ( C
N
), axial force, thrust, weight ]
43 DOF point mass [ 3 aero forces ( normal, axial, side ),
thrust, weight ]
43 DOF pitching [ 2 aero forces ( normal, axial ), 1 aero
moment ( pitching ), thrust, weight ]
44 DOF [ 2 aero forces ( normal, axial ), 2 aero moments
( pitching, rolling ), thrust, weight ]
4Preliminary Design Modeling
46 DOF [ 3 aero forces ( normal, axial, side ), 3 aero
moments ( pitching, rolling, yawing ), thrust, weight ]
C
D
O
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
m
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
l
C
l
C
N
C
m
C
N
C
m
C
n
C
Y
C
Y
2/24/2008 ELF 184
1-DOF Coast Equation May Have Good Accuracy
Near Zero Angle of Attack
1-DOF Coast Equation May Have Good Accuracy
Near Zero Angle of Attack
( V )
2-DOF
/ ( V )
1-DOF
,
Predicted Deceleration
Comparison for Rocket
Baseline

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
α
Trim
, Trim Angle of Attack, Deg
Note:
– ( V )
2-DOF
= Two-degrees-of-freedom deceleration
– ( V )
1-DOF
= One-degree-of-freedom deceleration
– Rocket baseline during coast
– Mach 2, h = 20,000 ft
– α
Trim
≈ 0.3 deg for 1-g flyout
.
.

2/24/2008 ELF 185
3-DOF Simplified Equations of Motion Show
Drivers for Configuration Sizing
3-DOF Simplified Equations of Motion Show
Drivers for Configuration Sizing
Configuration Sizing Implication
Ι
y
θ
..
≈ Ι
y
α
..
≈ q S
Ref
d C
m
α
α + q S
Ref
d C
m
δ
δ High Control Effectiveness ⇒C
m
δ
>
C
m
α
, I
y
small ( W small ), q large
( W / g
c
) V γ
.
≈ q S
Ref
C
N
α
α + q S
Ref
C
N
δ
δ - W cos γ Large / Fast Heading Change ⇒C
N
large, Wsmall, q large
( W / g
c
) V
.
≈ T - C
A
S
Ref
q - C
N
α
α
2
S
Ref
q - W sin γ High Speed / Long Range ⇒Total
Impulse large, C
A
small, q small
+ Normal Force
α << 1 rad
γ
θ
δ
W
+ Moment
V
+ Thrust
+ Axial Force
Note: Based on aerodynamic control
2/24/2008 ELF 186
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
WP / WBC, Propellant or Fuel Weight / Weight at Begin of Cruise
R
,

C
r
u
i
s
e

R
a
n
g
e
,

f
t
( V ISP )( L / D ) = 2,000,000 ft ( V ISP )( L / D ) = 10,000,000 ft
( V ISP )( L / D ) = 25,000,000 ft
For Long Range Cruise, Maximize V I
sp
, L / D,
and Weight Fraction of Fuel / Propellant
For Long Range Cruise, Maximize V I
sp
, L / D,
and Weight Fraction of Fuel / Propellant
Example: Ramjet Baseline at Mach 3 / 60k ft alt
R = 2901 ( 1040 ) ( 3.15 ) ln [ 1739 / ( 1739 - 476 )]
= ( 9,503,676 ) ln [ 1 / ( 1 - 0.2737 )] = 3,039,469 ft
= 500 nm
R = ( V I
sp
) ( L / D ) ln [ W
BC
/ ( W
BC
- W
P
)] , Breguet Range Equation
Note: R = cruise range, V = cruise velocity, I
SP
= specific impulse, L = lift, D = drag,
W
BC
= weight at begin of cruise, W
P
= weight of propellant or fuel
T
y
p
ic
a
l R
o
c
k
e
t w
ith
A
x
is
y
m
m
e
tric
A
irfra
m
e
T
y
p
ic
a
l R
a
m
je
t w
ith
A
x
is
y
m
m
e
tric
A
irfra
m
e
T
y
p
ic
a
l S
u
b
s
o
n
ic
T
u
rb
o
je
t w
ith
W
in
g
2/24/2008 ELF 187
Efficient Steady Flight Is Enhanced by High L / D
and Light Weight
Efficient Steady Flight Is Enhanced by High L / D
and Light Weight
Steady Level Flight Steady Climb Steady Descent ( Glide )
T = D
L = W
L
D T
W
γ
C
SIN γ
D
= ( D – T ) / W = V
D
/ V

V
D
= ( D – T ) V

/ W
R
D
= Δh / tan γ
D
= Δh ( L / D )
T

D
L
D
T
W
V

γ
C V
C
D

T
L
D
T
W
γ
D V
D
γ
D
• Small Angle of Attack
• Equilibrium Flight
• V
C
= Velocity of Climb
• V
D
= Velocity of Descent
• γ
C
= Flight Path Angle During Climb
• γ
D
= Flight Path Angle During Descent
• V

= Total Velocity
• Δh = Incremental Altitude
• R
C
= Horizontal Range in Steady Climb
• R
D
= Horizontal Range in Steady Dive ( Glide )
Note:
Reference: Chin, S.S., “Missile Configuration Design,”
McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1961
V

T = W / ( L / D )
SIN γ
c
= ( T – D ) / W = V
c
/ V

V
c
= ( T – D ) V

/ W
R
C
= Δh / tan γ
C
= Δh ( L / D )
2/24/2008 ELF 188
Flight Trajectory Lofting / Shaping Provides
Extended Range
Flight Trajectory Lofting / Shaping Provides
Extended Range
Altitude
Range
R
MAX
Apogee or Cruise
Glide
Climb
Rapid Pitch Up
Line-Of-Sight Trajectory
R
MAX
Lofted Trajectory Design Guidelines for Horizontal Launch:
– High thrust-to-weight ≈ 10 for safe separation
– Rapid pitch up minimizes time / propellant to reach efficient altitude
– Climb at α ≈ 0 deg with thrust-to-weight T / W ≈ 2 and q ≈ 700 psf to minimize drag /
propellant
– Apogee at q ≈ 700 psf, followed by either ( L / D )
MAX
cruise or ( L / D )
MAX
glide
2/24/2008 ELF 189
Small Turn Radius Using Aero Control Requires
High Angle of Attack and Low Altitude Flight
Small Turn Radius Using Aero Control Requires
High Angle of Attack and Low Altitude Flight
1000
10000
100000
1000000
0 5 10 15 20
Delta Alpha, Deg
R
T
,

E
x
a
m
p
l
e

I
n
s
t
a
n
t
a
n
e
o
u
s

T
u
r
n

R
a
d
i
u
s
,

f
t
h = sea level h = 20k ft h = 40k ft
h = 60k ft h = 80k ft
R
T
= V / γ
.
≈ 2 W / ( g
c
C
N
S
Ref
ρ )
Assumption: Horizontal Turn
Note for Example Figure:
W = Weight = 2,000 lb
a / b = 1 ( circular cross section ), No wings
C
N
= sin 2 α cos ( α / 2 ) + 2 ( l / d ) sin
2
α
l / d = Length / Diameter = 10
S
Ref
= 2 ft
2
C
D
O
= 0.2
( L / D )
Max
= 2.5
q
( L / D )
Max
≈ 700 psf
α
( L / D )
Max
= 15 deg
T
( L / D )
Max
= 740 lb
Example:
Δ α = 10 deg
C
N
= 0.94
h = 40k ft ( ρ = 0.000585 slug / ft
3
)
R
T
= 2 ( 2,000 ) / [( 32.2 ) ( 0.94 ) ( 2 ) (
0.000585 )] = 112,000 ft
Note: Require ( R
T
)
Missile
≤ ( R
T
)
Target
, for
small miss distance
2/24/2008 ELF 190
High Turn Rate Using Aero Control Requires
High Angle of Attack and High Velocity
High Turn Rate Using Aero Control Requires
High Angle of Attack and High Velocity
0
5
10
15
20
0 1000 2000 3000
Velocity, ft / s
E
x
a
m
p
l
e

G
a
m
m
a

D
o
t
,

T
u
r
n

R
a
t
e
,

d
e
g

/

s
Alpha = 15 deg Alpha = 30 deg
Alpha = 90 deg
γ
.
= g
c
C
N
ρ V S
Ref
/ ( 2 W ), rad / s
Assumption: Horizontal Turn
Example for Lifting Body at Altitude h = 20,000 ft:
Assume:
• W = Weight = 2,000 lb
• a / b = 1 ( circular cross section )
• No wings
• Negligible tail lift
• Neutral static stability
C
N
= sin 2 α cos ( α / 2 ) + 2 ( l / d ) sin
2
α
• S
Ref
= 2 ft
2
• l / d = Length / Diameter = 10
• α = 15 deg
• V = 2000 ft / s
Then:
• N = Normal Force = C
N
q S
Ref
C
N
= sin [ 2 ( 15 )] cos ( 15 / 2 ) + 2 ( 10 ) sin
2
( 15 ) =
0.50 + 1.34 = 1.835
q = Dynamic Pressure = 0.5 ρ V
2
= 0.5 ( 0.001267 ) (
2000 )
2
= 2534 psf
N = 1.835 ( 2534 ) ( 2 ) = 9,300 lb
N / W = 9300 / 2000 = 4.65 g
γ
.
= 32.2 ( 1.835 ) ( 0..001267 ) ( 2000 ) ( 2 ) / [ 2 ( 2000 )]
= 0.0749 rad / s = 4.29 deg / s
n

=

1
0
0

g
2/24/2008 ELF 191
For Long Range Coast, Maximize Initial Velocity
and Altitude and Minimize Drag Coefficient
For Long Range Coast, Maximize Initial Velocity
and Altitude and Minimize Drag Coefficient
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Example for Rocket Baseline:
•W = W
BO
= 367 lb, S
Ref
= 0.349 ft
2
, V
i
= 2,151 ft / s, γ = 0 deg, ( C
D
0
)
AVG
= 0.9, h = 20,000 ft ( ρ = 0.00127 slug / ft
3
), t = 10 s
•[( g
c
ρ S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
i
) / ( 2 W )] t = {[ 32.2 ( 0.00127 ) ( 0.349 ) ( 0.9 ) ( 2151 )] / [ 2 ( 367 ) ]} 10 = 0.376
•V / V
i
= 0.727 ⇒V = 0.727 x 2151 = 1564 ft / s, {[( g
c
ρ S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
)] / ( 2 W )} R = 0.319 ⇒R
coast
= 18,300 ft or 3.0 nm
[( g
c
ρ S
Ref
C
D
0
V
i
) / ( 2W )] t, Non-dimensional Coast Time
V / V
i
= { 1 – [( g
c
sin γ ) / V
i
] t } / { 1 + {[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
i
] / ( 2 W )} t }
{[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
] / ( 2 W )} R = ln { 1 – [ g
c
2
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
/ ( 2 W )] [ sin γ ] t
2
+ {[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
i
] / ( 2 W )} t }
Note: Based on 1 DOF coast
dV / dt = - g
c
C
D
0
S
Ref
q / W – g
c
sin γ
Assumptions:
• γ = constant
• α ≈ 0 deg
• D > W sin γ
V= velocity during coast
V
i
= initial velocity ( begin coast )
R = coast range
V
x
= V cos γ, V
y
= V sin γ
R
x
= R cos γ, R
y
= R sin γ
V / V
i
@ γ = 0 deg
{[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
(C
D
0
)
AVG
] / ( 2 W )} R
@ γ = 0 deg
2/24/2008 ELF 192
For Ballistic Range, Maximize Initial Velocity,
Optimize Launch Angle, and Minimize Drag
For Ballistic Range, Maximize Initial Velocity,
Optimize Launch Angle, and Minimize Drag
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Example for Rocket Baseline:
•W = 367 lb, S
Ref
= 0.349 ft
2
, V
i
= V
BO
= 2,151 ft / s, γ
i
= 0 deg, ( C
D
0
)
AVG
= 0.9, h
i
= 20,000 ft, ρ
AVG
= 0.00182 slug / ft
3
, t = 35 s
•[ g
c
ρ S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
i
/ ( 2 W )] t = { 32.2 ( 0.00182 ) ( 0.349 ) ( 0.9 ) ( 2151 ) / [ 2 ( 367 ) ]} 35 = 1.821
•V
x
/ V
i
= 0.354 ⇒V
x
= 762 ft / s, ( V
y
+ 32.2 t ) / V
i
= 0.354 ⇒V
y
= - 1127 ft / s, {[ g
c
ρ S
Ref
( C
D
0
)] / ( 2 W cos γ
i
)} R
x
= 1.037 ⇒
R
x
= 42,900 ft or 7.06 nm, {[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
] / ( 2 W sin γ
i
)} ( h – h
i
+ 16.1 t
2
) = 1.037 ⇒h = 0 ft
{[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
i
] / ( 2 W )} t, Non-dimensional Time
V
x
/ V
i
= cos γ
i
/ { 1 + {[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
i
] / ( 2 W )} t }
( V
y
+ g
c
t ) / V
i
= sin γ
i
/ { 1 + {[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
i
] / ( 2 W )} t }
Assumptions: Thrust = 0, α = 0 deg, D > W sin γ, flat earth
Nomenclature: V= velocity during ballistic flight, V
i
= initial
velocity, R
x
= horizontal range, h = altitude, h
i
= initial altitude,
V
x
= horizontal velocity, V
y
= vertical velocity
{[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
(C
D
0
)
AVG
] / ( 2 W cos γ
i
)} R
x
= ln { 1 + [ g
c
( ρ )
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
i
] / ( 2 W )} t }
{[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
(C
D
0
)
AVG
] / ( 2 W sin γ
i
)} ( h – h
i
+ g
c
t
2
/ 2 )
= ln { 1 + {[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
i
] / ( 2 W ) t }
2/24/2008 ELF 193
High Propellant Weight, High Thrust, and Low
Drag Provide High Burnout Velocity
High Propellant Weight, High Thrust, and Low
Drag Provide High Burnout Velocity
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Wp / Wi, Propellant Fraction
D
e
l
t
a

V

/

(

g

I
S
P

)
,

N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
DAVG / T = 0 DAVG / T = 0.5 DAVG / T = 1.0
ΔV / ( g
c
I
SP
) = - [ 1 – ( D
AVG
/ T ) – ( W
AVG
sin γ / T )] ln ( 1 - W
p
/ W
i
)
Example for Rocket Baseline:
Assume γ = 0 deg
Assume M
i
= 0.8, h = 20k ft
W
i
= W
L
= 500 lb
For boost, W
P
= 84.8 lb
W
P
/ W
L
= 0.1696
I
SP
= 250 s
T
B
= 5750 lb
Assume D = D
AVG
= 635 lb
D
AVG
/ T = 0.110
ΔV / [( 32.2 ) ( 250 )] = - ( 1 - 0.110 )
ln ( 1 - 0.1696 ) = 0.1654
ΔV = ( 0.1654 ) ( 32.2 ) ( 250 ) =
1331 ft / s
Note: 1 DOF Equation of Motion with α ≈ 0 deg, γ = constant, W
i
= initial weight, W
AVG
= average weight, W
P
=
propellant weight, I
SP
= specific impulse, T = thrust, M
i
= initial Mach number, h = altitude, D
AVG
= average drag,
ΔV = incremental velocity, g
c
= gravitation constant, V
x
= V cos γ, V
y
= V sin γ, R
x
= R cos γ, R
y
= R sin γ
Note: R = ( V
i
+ ΔV / 2 ) t
B
, where R = boost range, V
i
= initial velocity, t
B
= boost time
2/24/2008 ELF 194
High Missile Velocity and Lead Are Required to
Intercept High Speed Crossing Targets
High Missile Velocity and Lead Are Required to
Intercept High Speed Crossing Targets
V
M
/ V
T
4
3
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
L, Lead Angle, Deg
1
A = 90°
A = 45°
Note:
Proportional Guidance
V
M
= Missile Velocity
V
T
= Target Velocity
A = Target Aspect
L = Missile Lead Angle
≈Seeker Gimbal
V
M
V
T
L A
V
M
sin L = V
T
sin A, Proportional Guidance Trajectory
Example:
L = 30 deg
A = 45 deg
V
M
/ V
T
= sin ( 45° ) / sin ( 30° ) =
1.42
2/24/2008 ELF 195
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Yes
Establish Baseline
Meet
Performance?
Measures of Merit and Constraints
No
No
Yes
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Alt Mission
Alt Baseline
Define Mission Requirements
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Weight
Trajectory
2/24/2008 ELF 196
Summary of Flight Performance
Summary of Flight Performance
4 Flight Performance Activity in Missile Design
4 Compute range, velocity, time-to-target, off boresight
4 Compare with requirements
4 Discussed in This Chapter
4 Equations of motion
4 Flight performance drivers
4 Propulsion alternatives range comparison
4 Steady level flight required thrust
4 Steady climb and steady dive range prediction
4 Cruise prediction
4 Boost prediction
4 Coast prediction
4 Ballistic flight prediction
4 Turn radius and turn rate prediction
4 Target lead for proportional homing guidance
2/24/2008 ELF 197
Summary of Flight Performance ( cont )
Summary of Flight Performance ( cont )
4 Flight Performance Strongly Impacted by
4 Aerodynamics
4 Propulsion
4 Weight
4 Discussion / Questions?
4 Classroom Exercise ( Appendix A )
2/24/2008 ELF 198
Flight Performance Problems
Flight Performance Problems
1. Flight trajectory calculation requires input from aero, propulsion, and w_____.
2. Missile flight envelope can be characterized by the maximum effective range,
minimum effective range, and o__ b________.
3. Limitations to the missile effective range include the fire control system,
seeker, time of flight, closing velocity, and m_______ capability.
4. 1 DOF simulation requires modeling only the thrust, weight, and a____ f____.
5. A 3 DOF simulation that models 3 aero forces is called p____ m___ simulation.
6. A simulation that includes 3 aero forces ( normal, axial, side ), 3 aero moments
( pitch, roll, yaw ), thrust, and weight is called a _ DOF simulation.
7. The pitch angular acceleration θ
..
is approximately equal to the second time
derivative of the a____ o_ a_____.
8. Cruise range is a function of velocity, specific impulse, L / D, and f___ fraction.
9. If thrust is equal to drag and lift is equal to weight, the missile is in s_____
l____ flight.
10. Turn rate is a function of normal force, weight, and v_______.
2/24/2008 ELF 199
Flight Performance Problems ( cont )
Flight Performance Problems ( cont )
11. Coast range is a function of initial velocity, weight, drag, and the t___ of flight.
12. Incremental velocity due to boost is a function of I
SP
, drag, and p_________
weight fraction.
13. To intercept a high speed crossing target requires a high speed missile with a
high g_____ angle seeker.
14. An analytical model of a rocket in co-altitude, non-maneuvering flight can be
developed by patching together the flight phases of boost and c____.
15. An analytical model of a rocket in a short range, off-boresight intercept can be
developed by patching the flight phases of boost and t___.
16. An analytical model of a guided bomb in non-maneuvering flight can be
developed from the flight phase of a steady d___.
17. An analytical model of an unguided weapon can be developed from the
b________ flight phase.
18. An analytical model of a ramjet in co-altitude, non-maneuvering flight can be
developed by patching the flight phases of boost and c_____.
2/24/2008 ELF 200
Outline
Outline
4 Introduction / Key Drivers in the Design Process
4 Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Propulsion Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Weight Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Flight Performance Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration
4 Sizing Examples
4 Development Process
4 Summary and Lessons Learned
4 References and Communication
4 Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises,
Example of Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms,
Conversion Factors, Syllabus )
2/24/2008 ELF 201
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Missile Concept Synthesis Requires Evaluation
of Alternatives and Iteration
Yes
Establish Baseline
Meet
Performance?
No
No
Yes
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Alt Mission
Alt Baseline
Define Mission Requirements
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Weight
Trajectory
Measures of Merit and Constraints
2/24/2008 ELF 202
Measures of Merit and Launch Platform
Integration Should Be Harmonized
Measures of Merit and Launch Platform
Integration Should Be Harmonized
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
Carriage and
Launch
Observables
Other
Survivability
Considerations
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform
Integration /
Firepower
Balanced Design
2/24/2008 ELF 203
Tactical Missiles Must Be Robust
Tactical Missiles Must Be Robust
Robustness
4Tactical Missiles Must Have Robust Capability to
Handle
4Adverse Weather
4Clutter
4Local Climate
4Flight Environment Variation
4Uncertainty
4Countermeasures
4EMI / EMP
4This Section Provides Examples of Requirements for
Robustness
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
Carriage and
Launch
Observables
Other
Survivability
Considerations
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform
Integration /
Firepower
2/24/2008 ELF 204
Adverse Weather and Cloud Cover Are Pervasive
Adverse Weather and Cloud Cover Are Pervasive
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
85°N 65°N 45°N 25°N 5°N 0° 5°S 25°S 45°S 65°S 85°S
Cloud Cover
Over Ocean
Cloud
Cover
Over Land
Annual Average
Fraction of
Cloud Cover
Note: Annual Average Cloud Cover
Global Average = 61%
Global Average Over Land = 52%
Global Average Over Ocean = 65%
Latitude Zone
North Atlantic
Deserts ( Sahara,
Gobi, Mojave )
Descending
Air
Rising Air Rising Air
Argentina, Southern
Africa and Australia
Descending
Air
South Pole
Region
Reference: Schneider, Stephen H. Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather. Oxford University Press, 1996.
NOAA satellite image
of earth cloud cover
North Pole
Region
2/24/2008 ELF 205
Radar Seekers Are Robust in Adverse Weather
Radar Seekers Are Robust in Adverse Weather
3 cm 3 mm 0.3 mm 30 µm 3.0 µm
Increasing Wavelength
Increasing 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 at 0.1 g / m
3
and 100
m visibility
EO attenuation through
rain at 4 mm / h
Humidity at 7.5 g / m
3
Millimeter wave and
microwave attenuation
through cloud at 0.1
gm / m
3
or rain at 4 mm / h
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
A
T
T
E
N
U
A
T
I
O
N

(
d
B

/

k
m
)
100 1 THz 10 100 1000
INFRARED SUBMILLIMETER
10 GHz
MILLIMETER VISIBLE
H
2
O
O
2
, H
2
O
H
2
O
H
2
O
O
2
O
2
CO
2
CO
2
H
2
O
H
2
O, CO
2
20° C
1 ATM
4 EO sensors are ineffective
through cloud cover
4 Radar sensors have good to
superior performance
through cloud cover and rain
RADAR
X K
u
K K
a
Q V W Very Long Long Mid Short
H
2
O
O
3
2/24/2008 ELF 206
Radar Seekers Are Desirable for Robust
Operation within the Troposphere Cloud Cover
Radar Seekers Are Desirable for Robust
Operation within the Troposphere Cloud Cover
40
30
20
10
0
h,
Altitude,
10
3
ft
Note:
•IR seeker may be able to operate “Under the Weather” at elevations less than 2,000 ft using GPS / INS midcourse guidance
•IR attenuation through cloud cover greater than 100 dB per km. Cloud droplet size ( 0.1 to 50 μm ) causes resonance.
•mmW has ~ 2 dB / km attenuation through rain. Typical rain drop size ( ∼ 4 mm ) is comparable to mmW wavelength.
Fog
Cirrus ( 16 – 32k ft )
Cumulonimbus ( 2 – 36k ft )
Altocumulus ( 9 – 19k ft )
Cumulus ( 2 – 9k ft )
Stratus ( 1 – 7k ft )
Altostratus ( 8 – 18k ft )
2/24/2008 ELF 207
Note: Superior Good Below Average Poor
Sensor Adverse
Weather
Impact
ATR / ATA
in Clutter
Range Moving
Target
Volume
Search
Time
Hypersonic
Dome
Compat.
Diameter
Required
Weight and
Cost
Maturity
• SAR
• Active
Imaging
mmW

• Passive
Imaging
mmW

• Active
Imaging IR
(LADAR)

• Active Non-
image IR
(LADAR)

• Active Non-
image mmW

• Passive
Imaging IR

• Acoustic
• GPS / INS /
Data Link



-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
Precision Strike Missile Target Sensors Are
Complemented by GPS / INS / Data Link Sensors
-
-
- -
-
2/24/2008 ELF 208
Imaging Sensors Enhance Target Acquisition /
Discrimination
Imaging Sensors Enhance Target Acquisition /
Discrimination
Imaging LADAR Imaging Infrared SAR
Passive Imaging mmW Video of Imaging Infrared Video of SAR Physics
2/24/2008 ELF 209
Example of Mid Wave – Long Wave IR Seeker
Comparison
Example of Mid Wave – Long Wave IR Seeker
Comparison
4 Assume Exo-atmospheric Intercept with
4 Target diameter D
T
= 2 ft ( A
T
= 2919 cm
2
), temperature T
T
= 300 K, emissivity ε = 0.5
4 Diameter of seeker aperture d
o
= 5 in ( A
o
= 0.01267 m
2
)
4 Diameter of pixel detector d
p
= 40 μm
4 Spot resolution if diffraction limited = d
spot
= d
p
= 40 μm
4 Temperature of pixel detector T
d
= 77 K
4 Focal plane array size 256x256 FPA ( A
d
= 1.049 cm
2
)
4 Pixel detector bandwidth Δf
p
= 50 Hz ( t
integ
= 0.00318 s )
4 Required signal-to-nose ratio for detection ( S / N )
D
= 5
4 First Calculate MWIR Seeker Detection Range
4 R
D
= { ( I
T
)
Δλ
η
a
A
o
{ D* / [( Δf
p
)
1/2
( A
d
)
1/2
]} ( S / N )
D
-1
}
1/2
, m
4 Radiant intensity of target within seeker bandwidth ( I
T
)
Δλ
= ε L
λ
( λ
2
- λ
1
) A
T
, W sr
-1
4 Spectral radiance of target L
λ
= 3.74 x 10
4
/ { λ
5
{ e
[ 1.44 x 10
4
/ ( λ T
T
)]
– 1 }}, W cm
-2
sr
-2
μm
-1
4 Assume λ = 4 μm, λ
2
= 5 μm, λ
1
= 3 μm, then
4 L
λ
= 0.000224 W cm
-2
sr
-2
μm
-1
, ( I
T
)
Δλ
= 0.643 W sr
-1
4 Assume Hg
0.67
Cd
0.33
Te detector at λ = 4 μm and 77 K ⇒D* = 8 x 10
11
cm Hz
1/2
W
-1
4 R
D
= { ( 0.643 ) ( 1 ) ( 0.01267 ) {( 8 x 10
11
) / [( 50 )
1/2
( 1.049 )
1/2
]} ( 5 )
-1
}
1/2
= 13,480 m
2/24/2008 ELF 210
Example of Mid Wave – Long Wave IR Seeker
Comparison ( cont )
Example of Mid Wave – Long Wave IR Seeker
Comparison ( cont )
4 Next, Calculate LWIR Seeker Detection Range
4 R
D
= { ( I
T
)
Δλ
η
a
A
o
{ D* / [( Δf
p
)
1/2
( A
d
)
1/2
]} ( S / N )
D
-1
}
1/2
, m
4 ( I
T
)
Δλ
= ε L
λ
( λ
2
- λ
1
) A
T
, W sr
-1
4 L
λ
= 3.74 x 10
4
/ { λ
5
{ e
[ 1.44 x 10
4
/ ( λ T
T
)]
– 1 }}, W cm
-2
sr
-2
μm
-1
4 Assume λ = 10 μm, λ
2
= 13 μm, λ
1
= 7 μm, then
4 L
λ
= 0.00310 W cm
-2
sr
-2
μm
-1
, ( I
T
)
Δλ
= 26.7 W sr
-1
4 Assume Hg
0.80
Cd
0.20
Te detector at λ = 10 μm and 77 K ⇒D* = 5 x 10
10
cm
1/2
Hz
1/2
W
-1
4 R
D
= { ( 26.7 ) ( 1 ) ( 0.01267 ) {( 5 x 10
10
) / [( 50 )
1/2
( 1.049 )
1/2
]} ( 5 )
-1
}
1/2
= 21,600 m
4 MWIR Seeker Versus LWIR Seeker Selection Depends Upon Target Temperature
0
5
10
15
0 500 1000 1500 2000
TT, Target Temperature, K
W
a
v
e
l
e
n
g
t
h

f
o
r

M
a
x

S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

R
a
d
i
a
n
c
e
,

M
i
c
r
o
n
s
Subsonic Airframe
Mach 4 Airframe
Jet Engine
Rocket Plume
Flare
( λ )
( L
λ
)
max
= 2898 / T
T
, Wein’s Displacement Law, T
T
in K
M
W
I
R
L
W
I
R
Example: T
T
= 300 K
( λ )
( L
λ
)
max
= 2898 / T
T
= 2898 / 300 = 10.0 μm
2/24/2008 ELF 211
GPS / INS Provides Robust Seeker Lock-on in
Adverse Weather and Clutter
GPS / INS Provides Robust Seeker Lock-on in
Adverse Weather and Clutter

4
8
0

P
i
x
e
l
s
640 Pixels ( 300 m )
Target Image
175 m
44 m 88 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 ⇒n
M
req
= 1.76 g, σ = 0.9 m
Seeker Lock-on @ 850 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.47 m )
3 m GPS / INS error ⇒ n
M
req
= 0.15 g, σ < 0.1 m
Seeker Lock-on @ 500 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.27 m )
3 m GPS / INS error ⇒n
M
req
= 0.44 g, σ < 0.1 m
Seeker Lock-on @ 125 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.07 m )
3 m GPS / INS error ⇒n
M
req
= 7.04 g, σ = 2.2 m
2/24/2008 ELF 212
Data Link Update at Seeker Lock-on Reduces
Moving Target Error
Data Link Update at Seeker Lock-on Reduces
Moving Target Error
10
100
1000
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Target Latency at Seeker Lock-on, s
T
a
r
g
e
t

E
r
r
o
r

a
t

S
e
e
k
e
r

L
o
c
k
-
o
n
,

m
VT = 1 m / s
VT = 10 m / s
VT = 100 m / s
VT = 1000 m / s
Note: t
SeekerLock-on
= Seeker Lock-on time, t
Udate
= Data Link Update Time, V
T
= Target Velocity, TLE = Target Location
Error at Update = 10 m
Example:
TLE = 10 m
t
SeekerLock-on
= 100 s
t
Udate
= 90 s
V
T
= 10 m / s
t
Latency
= t
Seeker
- t
Udate
= 100 – 90 = 10 s
TE
SeekerLock-on
= [ TLE
2
+ ( V
T
t
Latency
)
2
]
1/2
= { 10
2
+ [ 10 ( 10 )]
2
]
1/2
= 100.5 m
TE
SeekerLock-on
= [ TLE
2
+ ( V
T
t
Latency
)
2
]
1/2
2/24/2008 ELF 213
Optimum Cruise Is a Function of Mach Number,
Altitude, and Planform Geometry
Optimum Cruise Is a Function of Mach Number,
Altitude, and Planform Geometry
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M, Mach number
h
,

A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
,

k
f
t
q = 200 psf
q = 500 psf
q = 1,000 psf
q = 2,000 psf
q = 5,000 psf
q = 10,000 psf
q = 20,000 psf
Note:
• U.S. 1976 Standard Atmosphere
• For Efficient Cruise, ( L / D )
Max
for Cruising Lifting Body Typically Occurs for 500 < q < 1,000 psf
• ( L / D )
Max
for Cruise Missile with Low Aspect Ratio Wing Typically Occurs for 200 < q < 500 psf
• q ≈ 200 psf lower limit for aero control
Note: q = 1 / 2 ( ρ V
2
)
Ramjet
Scramjet
Wingless Subsonic Turbojet
Subsonic Turbojet with Low Aspect Ratio Wing
2/24/2008 ELF 214
Engine Shutdown
Transient
Missile Guidance and Control Must Be Robust
for Changing Events and Flight Environment
Missile Guidance and Control Must Be Robust
for Changing Events and Flight Environment
Air Launch at Low
Mach ( high α ) /
Deploy
Compressed
Carriage Surfaces
Booster Ignition
Pitch-Up at High Alpha
Climb
Booster Shutdown
Transient at High Mach
Engine Start Transient
Pitch-Over at
High Alpha
Terminal at High
Dynamic Pressure
Example High Performance Missile Has
• Low-to-High Dynamic Pressure
• Negative-to-Positive Static Margin
• Thrust / Weight / cg Transients
• High Temperature
• High Thermal Load
• High Vibration
• High Acoustics
Dive
Precision Impact
at α ≈ 0 Deg
Level Out
Cruise
Vertical Launch in Cross Wind ( high α )
/ Deploy Compressed Carriage Surfaces
Pitch-Over at High Alpha
2/24/2008 ELF 215
Design Robustness Requires Consideration of
Flight Altitude
Design Robustness Requires Consideration of
Flight Altitude
0.01
0.1
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
h, Geometric Altitude, kft
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c

a
t

A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

/

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c

a
t

S
e
a

L
e
v
e
l
Temperature Ratio
Pressure Ratio
Density Ratio
Speed of Sound Ratio
Note: T
SL
= Temperature at sea level, p
SL
= pressure at sea level, ρ
SL
= density at sea level, c
SL
= speed
of sound at sea level, h = altitude in ft.
U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976
– T
SL
= 519 R
– p
SL
= 2116 lb / ft
2
– ρ
SL
= 0.00238 slug / ft
3
– c
SL
= 1116 ft / s
Troposphere Stratosphere
Troposphere ( h < 36,089 ft )
T / T
SL
= 1 – 6.875 x 10
-6
h, h in ft
p / p
SL
= ( T / T
SL
)
5.2561
ρ / ρ
SL
= ( T / T
SL
)
4.2561
Stratosphere ( h > 36089 ft )
T = constant = 390 R
p / p
SL
= 0.2234 e
- ( h – 36089 ) / 20807
ρ / ρ
SL
= 0.2971 e
- ( h – 36089 ) / 20807
2/24/2008 ELF 216
0
0.5
1
1.5
Temp Density Speed of
Sound
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

A
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
Ratio: Cold-to-Standard
Atmosphere
Ratio: Hot-to-Standard
Atmosphere
Ratio: Polar-to-Standard
Atmosphere
Ratio: Tropic-to-Standard
Atmosphere
Note:
• Based on properties at sea level
•U. S. 1976 Standard Atmosphere: Temperature = 519 R, Density = 0.002377 slug / ft
3
, Speed of sound = 1116 ft / s
( + 30 % )
( - 23% )
Design Robustness Requires Consideration of
Cold and Hot Atmospheres
Design Robustness Requires Consideration of
Cold and Hot Atmospheres
2/24/2008 ELF 217
Design Robustness Is Required to Handle Uncertainty
Design Robustness Is Required to Handle Uncertainty
0
0.5
1
-20 -10 0 10 20
Typical % Error from Forecast Value
E
x
a
m
p
l
e

N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

P
D
F
Narrow Uncertainty ( e.g.,
SDD Flight Performance )
Broad Uncertainty ( e.g.,
Conceptual Design Flight
Performance )
Skewed Uncertainty ( e.g.,
Cost, Weight, Miss
Distance )
Bimodal Uncertainty ( e.g.,
Multi-mode Seeker Target
Location )
Uniform Bias Uncertainty
( e.g., Seeker Aim Point
Bias )
Note for normal distribution: PDF = { 1 / [ σ ( 2 π )
1/2
]} e
{[( x - μ ) / σ ]
2
/ 2 }
2/24/2008 ELF 218
Counter-Countermeasures by Missile Enhance
Design Robustness
Counter-Countermeasures by Missile Enhance
Design Robustness
Examples of CM ( Threat )
4 EOCM
4 directed laser
4 flare
4 smoke
4 RFCM
4 active radar
4 jammer
4 chaff
4 Decoy
4 Low Observables
4 Speed
4 Altitude
4 Maneuverability
4 Lethal Defense
Examples of CCM ( Missile )
4 Imaging Seeker
4 Multi-spectral / Multi-
mode Seeker
4 Temporal Processing
4 Hardened GPS / INS
4 standoff acquisition
4 Integrated GPS / INS
4 directional antenna
4 pseudolite / differential
GPS
4 ATR / ATA
4 Speed
4 Altitude
4 Maneuverability
4 Low Observables
4 Saturation
2/24/2008 ELF 219
IIR ( I
2
R AGM-130 ) ………………………………………………
Two Color IIR ( Python 5 )
Acoustic - IIR ( BAT ) …………………………………………..
IIR – LADAR ( LOCAAS ) ………………………………………
ARH – mmW( AARGM )
ARH - IIR ( Armiger ) …………………………………………….
Examples of Countermeasure-Resistant Seekers
Examples of Countermeasure-Resistant Seekers
2/24/2008 ELF 220
TBM / TELs
Oil
Refineries
Naval
Armor
Transportation Choke
Points ( Bridges,
Railroad Yards, Truck
Parks )
Counter Air
Aircraft
C3II
Artillery
Air Defense ( SAMs,
AAA )
A Target Set Varies in Size and Hardness
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 ⇒KE / Blast Frag Warhead
•Large Size Target: Building ⇒Large Blast Frag Warhead
Lethality
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
Carriage and
Launch
Observables
Other
Survivability
Considerations
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform
Integration /
Firepower
Video Example of Precision Strike Targets
Example of Precision Strike Target Set
2/24/2008 ELF 221
76% of Baghdad Targets Struck First Night of
Desert Storm Were C
3
Time Critical Targets
76% of Baghdad Targets Struck First Night of
Desert Storm Were C
3
Time Critical Targets
Targets: 1. Directorate of Military Intelligence; 2, 5, 8,
13, 34. Telephone switching stations; 3. Ministry of
Defense national computer complex; 4. Electrical transfer
station; 6. Ministry of Defense headquarters; 7. Ashudad
highway bridge; 9. Railroad yard; 10. Muthena airfield ( military
section ); 11. Air Force headquarters; 12. Iraqi Intelligence
Service; 14. Secret Police complex; 15. Army storage depot;
16. Republican Guard headquarters; 17. New presidential
palace; 18. Electrical power station; 19. SRBM assembly
factory ( Scud ); 20. Baath Party headquarters; 21.
Government conference center; 22. Ministry of Industry and
Military Production; 23. Ministry of Propaganda; 24. TV
transmitter; 25, 31. Communications relay stations; 26.
Jumhuriya highway bridge; 27. Government Control Center
South; 28. Karada highway bridge ( 14th July Bridge ); 29.
Presidential palace command center; 30. Presidential
palace command bunker; 32. Secret Police headquarters;
33. Iraqi Intelligence Service regional headquarters; 35.
National Air Defense Operations Center; 36. Ad Dawrah oil
refinery; 37. Electrical power plant
Source: AIR FORCE Magazine, 1 April 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
2/24/2008 ELF 222
4Anti-Fixed Surface Target Missiles ( large size, wings, subsonic, blast frag warhead )
AGM-154 Storm Shadow / Scalp KEPD-350 BGM-109 AGM-142
4Anti-Radar Site Missiles ( ARH seeker, high speed or duration, blast frag warhead )
AGM-88 AS-11 / Kh-58 ARMAT Armiger ALARM
4Anti-Ship Missiles ( large size, KE / blast frag warhead, and high speed or low altitude )
MM40 AS-34 Kormoran AS-17 / Kh-31 BrahMos SS-N-22 / 3M80
4Anti-Armor Missiles ( small size, hit-to-kill, low cost, shape charge, EFP, or KE warhead )
Hellfire LOCAAS MGM140 AGM-65 LOSAT
4Anti-Buried Target Missiles ( large size, high fineness, KE / blast frag warhead )
CALCM GBU-28 GBU-31 Storm Shadow MGM-140
Type of Target Drives Precision Strike Missile
Size, Speed, Cost, Seeker, and Warhead
Type of Target Drives Precision Strike Missile
Size, Speed, Cost, Seeker, and Warhead
Permission of Missile Index.
2/24/2008 ELF 223
Examples of Light Weight Air Launched Multi-
Purpose Precision Strike Weapons
Examples of Light Weight Air Launched Multi-
Purpose Precision Strike Weapons
Weapon Fixed
Surface
Targets
(1)

Moving
Targets
(2)
Time
Critical
Targets
(3)
Buried
Targets
(4)
Adverse
Weather
(5)
Firepower
(6)
Example New Missile
AGM-65
Small Diameter Bomb
AGM-88
Hellfire / Brimstone /
Longbow

LOCAAS









Note:
Superior
Good
Average
Poor

(1) – Multi-mode warhead desired. GPS / INS provides precision ( 3 m ) accuracy.
(2) - Seeker or high bandwidth data link required for terminal homing.
(3) - High speed with duration required ⇒High payoff of high speed / loiter and powered submunition.
(4) - KE penetration warhead required ⇒High impact speed, low drag, high density, long length.
(5) - GPS / INS, SAR seeker, imaging mmW seeker, and data link have high payoff.
(6) - Light weight required. Light weight also provides low cost
2/24/2008 ELF 224
Blast Is Effective at Small Miss Distance
Blast Is Effective at Small Miss Distance
1
10
100
1000
0 2 4 6 8 10
z ( p0 )1/3
D
e
l
t
a

p

/

p
0
,

O
v
e
r
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

R
a
t
i
o

t
o

U
n
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Δ p / p
0
= 37.95 / ( z p
0
1/3
) + 154.9 / ( z p
0
1/3
)
2
+ 203.4 / ( z p
0
1/3
)
3
+ 403.9 / ( z p
0
1/3
)
4
z = r / c
1/3
Note:
Based on bare sphere of pentolite ( E
c
1/2
= 8,500 ft / s )
Δp = overpressure at distance r from explosion
p
0
= undisturbed atmospheric pressure, psi
z = scaling parameter = r / c
1/3
r = distance from center of explosion, ft
c = explosive weight, lb
Reference: US Army Ordnance Pamphlet ORDP-2—290-Warheads, 1980
Example for Rocket Baseline Warhead:
c = 38.8 lb
h = 20k feet, p
0
= 6.8 psi
r = 10 ft
z = 10 / ( 38.8 )
1/3
= 2.95
z p
0
1/3
= 5.58
Δp / p
0
= 13.36
Δp = 90 psi
2/24/2008 ELF 225
Guidance Accuracy Enhances Lethality
Guidance Accuracy Enhances Lethality
Rocket Baseline Warhead
Against Typical Aircraft Target
P
K
> 0.5 if σ < 5 ft ( Δ p > 330 psi,
fragments impact energy > 130k
ft-lb / ft
2
)
P
K
> 0.1 if σ < 25 ft ( Δp > 24 psi,
fragments impact energy > 5k ft-
lb / ft
2
)
Note: Rocket Baseline 77.7 lb warhead
C / M = 1, spherical blast, h = 20k ft.
Video of AIM-9X Flight Test Missile Impact on Target
( No Warhead )
2/24/2008 ELF 226
Warhead Blast and Fragments Are Effective at
Small Miss Distance
Warhead Blast and Fragments Are Effective at
Small Miss Distance
Hellfire 24 lb shaped charge warhead
fragments are from natural fragmenting case
2.4 m
witness
plate
Roland 9 kg explosively formed warhead
multi-projectiles are from preformed case
Video of Guided MLRS 180 lb blast fragmentation warhead
2/24/2008 ELF 227
Maximum Total Fragment Kinetic Energy
Requires High Charge-to-Metal Ratio
Maximum Total Fragment Kinetic Energy
Requires High Charge-to-Metal Ratio
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Mc / Mm, Charge-to-Metal Ratio
(

K
E

/

M
w
h

)

/

E
c
,

N
o
n
-
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

K
i
n
e
t
i
c

E
n
e
r
g
y
KE = ( 1 / 2 ) M
m
V
f
2
= E
c
M
c
/ ( 1 + 0.5 M
c
/ M
m
)
Note:
Based on Gurney Equation
Cylindrical Warhead
KE = Total Kinetic Energy
M
m
= Total Mass Metal Fragments
V
f
= Fragment Velocity
E
c
= Energy Per Unit Mass Charge
M
c
= Mass of Charge
M
wh
= Mass of Warhead = M
m
+ M
c
Reference: Carleone, Joseph (Editor), Tactical Missile Warheads (Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol 155), AIAA, 1993.
L
o
w
K
E
H
ig
h
K
E
Example:
Rocket Baseline Warhead
M
c
= 1.207 slug
M
m
= 1.207 slug
M
c
/ M
m
= 1
E
c
M
c
= 52,300,000 ( 1.207 ) =
63,100,000 ft-lb
KE = 63100000 / [1 + 0.5 ( 1 )]
= 42,100,000 ft-lb
2/24/2008 ELF 228
Multiple Impacts Are Effective Against Threat
Vulnerable Area Subsystems
Multiple Impacts Are Effective Against Threat
Vulnerable Area Subsystems
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
nhits, Number of Impacts on Target
P
k
,

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

K
i
l
Av / Atp = 0.1
Av / Atp = 0.5
Av / Atp = 0.9
P
K
= 1 - ( 1 - A
v
/ A
t
p
)
n
hits
Note:
• A
v
= Target vulnerable area
• A
t
p
= Target presented area
Example:
If A
v
/ A
p
= 0.1, n
hits
= 22 gives P
K
= 0.9
If A
v
/ A
p
= 0.9, n
hits
= 1 gives P
K
= 0.9
2/24/2008 ELF 229
Small Miss Distance Improves Number of
Warhead Fragment Hits
Small Miss Distance Improves Number of
Warhead Fragment Hits
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sigma, Miss Distance, ft
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

F
r
a
g
m
e
n
t

H
i
t
s
Wwh = 5 lb
Wwh = 50 lb
Wwh = 500 lb
Example for Rocket Baseline:
W
WH
= 77.7 lb
M
c
/ M
m
= 1, W
m
= 38.8 lb = 17,615 g
Average fragment weight = 3.2 g
n
fragments
= 17615 / 3.2 = 5505
A
P
= Target presented area = 20 ft
2
σ = Miss distance = 25 ft
n
hits
= 5505 { 20 / [( 4 π ) ( 25 )
2
]} = 14
Kinetic energy per square foot. = KE
/ ( 4 π σ
2
) = 42100000 / [ 4 π ( 25 )
2
] =
5,360 ft-lb / ft
2
Note:
• Spherical blast with uniformly distributed fragments
• n
hits
= n
fragments
[ A
P
/ ( 4 π σ
2
)]
• Warhead charge / metal weight = 1
• Average fragment weight = 50 grains ( 3.2 g )
• A
P
= Target presented area = 20 ft
2
n
hits
= n
fragments
[ A
P
/ ( 4 π σ
2
)]
2/24/2008 ELF 230
High Fragment Velocity Requires High Charge-to-
Metal Ratio
High Fragment Velocity Requires High Charge-to-
Metal Ratio
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
0 1 2 3
Mc / Mm, Charge-to-Metal Ratio
V
f
,

F
r
a
g
m
e
n
t

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

f
t

/

s
HMX Explosive
TNT Explosive
Note: Based on the Gurney equation for a
cylindrical warhead
HMX Explosive ( 2 E
C
)
1/2
= 10,230 ft / s
TNT Explosive ( 2 E
C
)
1/2
= 7,600 ft / s
V
f
= Fragment initial velocity, ft / s
E
c
= Energy per unit mass of charge, ft
2
/ s
2
M
c
= Mass of charge
M
m
= Total mass of all metal fragments
M
wh
= Mass of warhead = M
m
+ M
c
V
f
= ( 2 E
c
)
1/2
[ ( M
c
/ M
m
) / ( 1 + 0.5 M
c
/ M
m
)]
1/2
Example:
Baseline Rocket Warhead
HMX Explosive
M
C
/ M
m
= 1
V
f
= 8,353 ft / s
2/24/2008 ELF 231
Note: Typical air-to-air missile warhead
• Fragments initial velocity 5,000 ft / s
• Sea level
• Average fragment weight 3.2 g
• Fewer than 0.3% of the fragments weigh more than 9.7 g for nominal 3.2 g preformed warhead fragments
• Small miss distance gives less reduction in fragment velocity, enhancing penetration
20 10 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
S
t
e
e
l

P
e
r
f
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

b
y

F
r
a
g
m
e
n
t


(

i
n

)
50 Grains
( 3.2 g )
150 Grains ( 9.7 g )
.5
.375
.25
.125
Small Miss Distance Improves Fragment
Penetration
Small Miss Distance Improves Fragment
Penetration
Miss Distance ( ft )
2/24/2008 ELF 232
Hypersonic Hit-to-Kill Enhances Energy on Target
for Missiles with Small Warheads
Hypersonic Hit-to-Kill Enhances Energy on Target
for Missiles with Small Warheads
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Missile Closing Velocity, ft / s
E
T

/

E
C
,

T
o
t
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

o
n

T
a
r
g
e
t

/

W
a
r
h
e
a
d

C
h
a
r
g
e

E
n
e
r
g
y
Weight of
missile /
Weight of
charge = 20
Weight of
missile /
Weight of
charge = 10
Weight of
missile /
Weight of
charge = 5
Weight of
missile /
Weight of
charge = 2
Note: Warhead explosive charge energy based on HMX, ( 2 E
C
)
1/2
= 10,230 ft / s.
1 kg weight at Mach 3 closing velocity has kinetic energy of 391,000 J ⇒equivalent chemical energy of 0.4 lb TNT.
E
T
/ E
C
= [( 1 / 2 ) ( W
Missile
/ g
c
) V
2
+ E
C
( W
C
/ g
c
)] / [ E
C
( W
C
/ g
c
)]
Example for Rocket Baseline:
W
Missile
= 367 lb
W
C
= 38.8 lb
W
Missile
/ W
C
= 9.46
V = 2,000 ft / s
( 1 / 2 ) ( W
Missile
/ g
c
) V
2
= 22.8 x 10
6
ft-lb )
E
C
( W
C
/ g
c
) = 63.1 x 10
6
ft-lb
E
T
/ E
C
= 1.36
2/24/2008 ELF 233
Kinetic Energy Warhead Density, Length, and
Velocity Provide Enhanced Penetration
Kinetic Energy Warhead Density, Length, and
Velocity Provide Enhanced Penetration
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
V, Velocity, ft / s
P

/

d
,

T
a
r
g
e
t

P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

/

P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
o
r

D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

f
o
r

S
t
e
e
l

o
n

C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
l / d = 2 l / d = 5 l / d = 10
Note:
V > 1,000 ft / s
l / d > 2
Non-deforming ( high strength, sharp nose )
penetrator
l = Penetrator length
d = Penetrator diameter
V = Impact velocity
ρ
P
= Penetrator density
ρ
T
= Target density
σ
T
= Target ultimate stress
Example for 250 lb Steel Penetrator
º l / d = 10
º l = 48 in ( 4 ft )
º d = 4.8 in ( 0.4 ft )
º Concrete target
º ρ
P
= 0.283 lb / in
3
( 15.19 slug / ft
3
)
º ρ
T
= 0.075 lb / in
3
( 4.02 slug / ft
3
)
º V = 4,000 ft / s
º σ
T
= 5,000 psi ( 720,000 psf )
º P / d = [ 10 – 1 }( 15.19 / 4.02 )
1/2
+ 3.67 ( 15.19
/ 4.02 )
2/3
[ 4.02 ( 4000 )
2
/ 720000 ]
1/3
= 57.3
º P = ( 57.3 ) ( 0.4 ) = 22.9 ft
P / d = [( l / d ) – 1 ] ( ρ
P
/ ρ
T
)
1/2
+ 3.67 ( ρ
P
/ ρ
T
)
2/3
[( ρ
T
V
2
) / σ
T
]
1/3
Source: Christman, D.R., et al, “Analysis of High-Velocity Projectile Penetration,” Journal of Applied Physics, Vol 37, 1966
2/24/2008 ELF 234
Standard Missile 3 ( NTW ) PAC-3 THAAD
LOSAT LOSAT Video
Examples of Kinetic-Kill Missiles
Examples of Kinetic-Kill Missiles
2/24/2008 ELF 235
CEP Approximately Equal to 1σ Miss Distance
CEP Approximately Equal to 1σ Miss Distance
Median
Trajectory
Extreme Missile
Trajectory
Extreme Missile
Trajectory
Hypothetical Plane
Through Target
Missile Circular Error Probable ( 50%
of shots within circle )
Missile 1σ Miss Distance ( 68%
of shots within circle for a
normal distribution of error )
Target
Presented Target Area
For a normal distribution of error:
Probability < 1σ miss distance = 0.68
Probability < 2σ miss distance = 0.95
Probability < 3σ miss distance = 0.997
Source: Heaston, R.J. and Smoots, C.W., “Introduction to Precision Guided Munitions,” GACIAC HB-83-01, May 1983.
Miss Distance
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
Observables Survivability
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform
Integration /
Firepower
2/24/2008 ELF 236
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
(

L
O
S

)
1
>

(

L
O
S

)
0 ( LOS )
1
= ( LOS )
0
Missile Target
t
0
t
1
t
2
t
0
t
1
Seeker Line-of-Sight
Note: L = Missile Lead
A = Target Aspect
A
L
L
A
2/24/2008 ELF 237
A Maneuvering Target and Initial Heading Error
Cause Miss
A Maneuvering Target and Initial Heading Error
Cause Miss
Target
Missile
Collision
Point
+Z
γ
M
0
L
Maneuvering
Target
: τ
d
2
Z
dt
2
+
dZ
dt
+ N’
Z
t
o
– t
=
– N’
t
o
– t
cos A
cos L
1
2
a
T
t
2
Initial Heading
Error
: τ
d
2
Z
dt
2
+
dZ
dt
+ N’
Z
t
o
– t
=
– V
M
γ
M
0
A
Note: t
o
- t = 0 at intercept, causing discontinuity in above equations.
N’ = Effective navigation ratio = N [ V
M
/ ( V
M
- V
T
cos A )]
N = Navigation ratio = ( dγ / dt ) / ( dL / dt )
τ = Missile time constant, V
M
= Velocity of missile, γ
M
0
= Initial flight
path angle error of missile, t
o
= Total time of flight, a
T
= Acceleration
of target, V
T
= Velocity of target
Reference: Jerger, J.J., Systems Preliminary Design
Principles of Guided Missile Design, D. Van Nostrand
Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1960
2/24/2008 ELF 238
Missile Time Constant Causes Miss Distance
Missile Time Constant Causes Miss Distance
4 τ is a measure of missile ability to respond to
target condition changes
4 τ equals elapsed time from input of target
return until missile has
completed 63% or ( 1 – e
-1
) of corrective
maneuver ( t = τ )
4 τ also called “rise time”
4 Contributions to time constant τ
4 Control effectiveness ( τ
δ
)
4 Control dynamics ( e.g., actuator rate ) ( τ
δ
.
)
4 Dome error slope ( τ
Dome
)
4 Guidance and control filters ( τ
Filter
)
4 Other G&C dynamics ( gyro dynamics,
accelerometer, processor latency, etc )
4 Seeker errors ( resolution, latency, blind range,
tracking, noise, glint, amplitude )
4 Approach to estimate τ
4 τ = τ
δ
+ τ
δ
.
+ τ
Dome
Input
Output
t
i
Time
Time t
i
63%
τ
Acceleration Achieved
Acceleration Commanded
= 1 – e
- t / τ
Example for Rocket Baseline:
M = 2, h = 20k ft, coast
τ = τ
δ
+ τ
δ
.
+ τ
Dome
= 0.096 + 0.070 + 0.043 = 0.209 s
2/24/2008 ELF 239
Time Constant τ
δ
for Control Effectiveness Is
Driven by Static Margin
Time Constant τ
δ
for Control Effectiveness Is
Driven by Static Margin
4 Assumptions for τ
δ
4 Control surface deflection limited
4 Near neutral stability
4 Equation of motion is
4 α
..
= [ ρ V
2
S d C
m
δ
/ ( 2 I
y
) ] δ
Max
4 Integrate to solve for α
Max
4 α
Max
= [ ρ V
2
S d C
m
δ
/ ( 8 I
y
) ] δ
Max
τ
δ
2
4 τ
δ
is given by
4 τ
δ
= [ 8 I
y
( α
Max
/ δ
Max
) / ( ρ V
2
S
Ref
d C
m
δ
)]
1/2
4 Contributors to small τ
δ
4 Low fineness ( small I
y
/ ( S
Ref
d ))
4 High dynamic pressure ( low altitude / high
speed )
4 Large C
m
δ
α
Max
, δ
Max
– δ
Max
α
Max
τ
δ
/ 2
τ
δ
Example for Rocket Baseline:
W = 367 lb, d = 0.667 ft, S
Ref
= 0.349 ft
2
, I
y
= 94.0 slug-ft
2
,
M = 2, h = 20k ft ( ρ = 0.001267 slug / ft
3
),
α
Max
= 9.4 deg, δ
Max
= 12.6 deg, C
m
δ
= 51.6 per rad,
τ
δ
= { 8 ( 94.0 ) ( 9.4 / 12.6 ) / [ 0.001267 ( 2074 )
2
( 0.349 )
( 0.667 ) ( 51.6 ) ]}
1/2
= 0.096 s
2/24/2008 ELF 240
Time Constant τ
δ
.
for Flight Control System Is
Driven by Actuator Rate Dynamics
Time Constant τ
δ
.
for Flight Control System Is
Driven by Actuator Rate Dynamics
4 Assumptions for τ
δ
.
4 Control surface rate limited ( δ
.
= δ
.
Max
)
4 Near neutral stability
4 Equation of motion for δ
.
= +/- δ
.
Max
4 α
...
= [ ρ V
2
S d C
m
δ
/ ( 2 I
y
) ] δ
.
Max
4 Equation of motion for “perfect” response
δ
.
= ∞, δ = δ
Max
4 α
..
= [ ρ V
2
S d C
m
δ
/ ( 2 I
y
) ] δ
Max
4 τ
δ
.
is difference between actual response
to α
Max
and “perfect” ( τ
δ
) response
4 Then
4 τ
δ
.
= 2 δ
Max
/ δ
.
Max
α
Max,
δ
Max
α
Max
α
Max
- δ
Max
δ
.
1
Note:
Response for control rate limit
Response for no control rate limit
Example for Rocket Baseline
• δ
.
Max
= 360 deg / s, δ
Max
= 12.6 deg
• τ
δ
.
= 2 ( 12.6 / 360 ) = 0. 070 s
τ
δ
.
τ
δ
2/24/2008 ELF 241
4 | R | = 0.05 ( l
N
/ d – 0.5 ) [ 1 + 15 ( Δ f / f ) ] / ( d / λ )
4 τ
Dome
= N’ ( V
C
/ V
M
) | R | ( α / γ
.
)
4 α / γ
.
= α ( W / g
c
) V
M
/ { q S
Ref
[ C
N
α
+ C
N
δ
/ ( α / δ )]}
4 Substituting gives τ
Dome
= N’ W V
C
| R | / { g
c
q S
Ref
[ C
N
α
+ C
N
δ
/ ( α / δ )]}
Time Constant τ
Dome
for Radome Is Driven by
Dome Error Slope
Time Constant τ
Dome
for Radome Is Driven by
Dome Error Slope
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
|
R
|

@

d
/

λ
=

1
0
,

R
a
d
o
m
e

E
r
r
o
r

S
l
o
p
e
,
D
e
g

/

D
e
g
0 1 2 3
l
N
/ d, Nose Fineness
Tangent
Ogive
Dome
Faceted or
Window
Dome
Multi-lens
Dome
Δ f / f = 0.05
Δ f / f = 0.02
Δ f / f = 0
Example for Rocket Baseline at M = 2, h = 20k ft, q =
2725 psf
Assume V
T
= 1,000 ft / s, giving V
C
= 3,074 ft / s
Assume N’ = 4, f = 10 GHz or λ = 1.18 in, Δ f / f = 0.02
Configuration data are l
N
/ d = 2.4, d = 8 in, S
Ref
= 0.349
ft
2
, W = 367 lb, C
N
α
= 40 per rad, C
N
δ
= 15.5 per rad, α / δ
= 0.75
Compute | R | = 0.05 ( 2.4 – 0.5 ) [ 1 + 15 ( 0.02 )] / ( 8 /
1.18 ) = 0.0182 deg / deg
τ
Dome
= 4 ( 367 ) ( 3074 ) ( 0.0182 ) / [ 32.2 ( 2725 ) ( 0.349 )
( 40 + 15.5 / 0.75 )] = 0.043 s
2/24/2008 ELF 242
High Initial Acceleration Is Required to Eliminate
a Heading Error
High Initial Acceleration Is Required to Eliminate
a Heading Error
a
M
t
0
/ ( V
M
γ
M
) = N’ ( 1 – t / t
0
)
N’ – 2
a
M
t
0
/ ( V
M
γ
M
),
Non-dimensional
Acceleration
2
0
0 0.2 0.4
0.6
0.8
t / t
0
, Non-dimensional Time
6
4
1.0
N’ = 2
2.5
3
4
6
Note: Proportional Guidance
τ = 0
t
0
= Total Time to Correct
Heading Error
a
M
= Acceleration of Missile
V
M
= Velocity of Missile
γ
M
= Initial Heading Error of
Missile
N’ = Effective Navigation Ratio
Example: Exoatmospheric Head-on Intercept, N’ = 4
Midcourse lateral error at t = 0 ( seeker lock-on ) =
200 m, 1 σ
R
lock-on
= 20000 m ⇒ γ
M
= 200 / 20000 = 0.0100 rad
V
M
= 5000 m / s, V
T
= 5000 ⇒t
0
= R
lock-on
/ ( V
M
+ V
T
) =
20000 / ( 5000 + 5000 ) = 2.00 s
a
M
t
0
/ ( V
M
γ
M
) = 4
a
M
= 4 ( 5000 ) ( 0.0100 ) / 2.00 ) = 100 m / s
2
n
M
= 100 / 9.81 = 10.2 g
2/24/2008 ELF 243
Missile Minimum Range May Be Driven By 4 to 8
Time Constants to Correct Initial Heading Error
Missile Minimum Range May Be Driven By 4 to 8
Time Constants to Correct Initial Heading Error
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8
t
O
/ τ
0.3
0.2
10
N’ = 3
N’ = 4
N’ = 6
Note: Proportional Guidance
( σ
HE
)
Max
shown in figure is the envelope of adjoint solution
( σ
HE
)
Max
= Max miss distance ( 1 σ ) from heading error, ft
V
M
= Velocity of missile, ft / s
γ
M
= Initial heading error, rad
t
0
= Total time to correct heading error, s
τ = Missile time constant, s
N’ = Effective navigation ratio
References:
•Donatelli, G.A., et al, “Methodology for Predicting Miss Distance for Air Launched Missiles,” AIAA-82-0364, January 1982
•Bennett, R.R., et al, “Analytical Determination of Miss Distances for Linear Homing Navigation,” Hughes Memo 260, March 1952
Example: Ground Target, N’ = 4, τ = 0.2, GPS /
INS error = 3 m, R
lock-on
= 125 m, γ
M
= 3 / 125 =
0.024 rad, V
M
= 300 m / s, t
0
= 125 / 300 = 0.42 s
t
0
/ τ = 0.42 / 0.2 = 2.1, (σ
HE
)
Max
/ ( V
M
γ
M
t
o
) = 0.12
( σ
HE
)
Max
= 0.12 ( 300 ) ( 0.024 ) ( 0.42 ) = 2.2 m
| ( σ
HE
)
Max
/ ( V
M
γ
M
t
o
) |
σ
HE
= V
M
γ
M
t
0
e
-( t
0
/ τ )
j = 1

N’ – 1
{( N’ - 2 )! [ - ( t
0
/ τ )]
j
/ [( j – 1 )! ( N’ – j – 1 )! j! ]}
If N’ = 3, σ
HE
= V
M
γ
M
t
0
e
-( t
0
/ τ )
[ ( t
0
/ τ ) - ( t
0
/ τ )
2
/ 2 ]
If N’ = 4, σ
HE
= V
M
γ
M
t
0
e
-( t
0
/ τ )
[( t
0
/ τ ) - ( t
0
/ τ )
2
+ ( t
0
/ τ )
3
/ 6 ]
If N’ = 5, σ
HE
= V
M
γ
M
t
0
e
-( t
0
/ τ )
[( t
0
/ τ ) – ( 3 / 2 ) ( t
0
/ τ )
2
+ ( t
0
/ τ )
3
/ 2 – ( t
0
/ τ )
4
/ 24 ]
If N’ = 6, σ
HE
= V
M
γ
M
t
0
e
-( t
0
/ τ )
[( t
0
/ τ ) - 2 ( t
0
/ τ )
2
+ ( t
0
/ τ )
3
- ( t
0
/ τ )
4
/ 6 + ( t
0
/ τ )
5
/ 120 ]
2/24/2008 ELF 244
Required Maneuverability Is about 3x the Target
Maneuverability for an Ideal ( τ = 0 ) Missile
Required Maneuverability Is about 3x the Target
Maneuverability for an Ideal ( τ = 0 ) Missile
4
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
t / t
0
, Non-Dimensional Time
Assumptions:
τ = 0
V
M
> V
T
6
3
4
6
N’ = 2.5
N’ = 2 ∞

Where
t = Elapsed Time
t
0
= Time to Target
N’ = Effective Navigation Ratio
Missile-to-Target
Acceleration
Ratio
n
M
n
T
,
n
M
/ n
T
= [ N’ / ( N’ – 2 )] [ 1 – ( 1 – t / t
0
)
N’ – 2
]
Example:
τ = 0, N’ = 3, t / t
0
= 1
⇒n
M
/ n
T
= 3
2/24/2008 ELF 245
Target Maneuvers Require 6 to 10 Time
Constants to Settle Out Miss Distance
Target Maneuvers Require 6 to 10 Time
Constants to Settle Out Miss Distance
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8
t
O
/ τ
0.3
0.2
10
( σ
MAN
)
Max
g
c
n
T
τ
2
N’ = 3
N’ = 4
N’ = 6
Note: Proportional Guidance
( σ
MAN
)
Max
is the envelope of adjoint solution
( σ
MAN
)
Max
= Max miss ( 1 σ ) from target accel, ft
n
T
= Target acceleration, g
g
c
= Gravitation constant, 32.2
τ = Missile time constant, s
N’ = Effective navigation ratio
τ
0
= Time of flight, s
References:
•Donatelli, G.A., et al, “Methodology for Predicting Miss Distance for Air Launched Missiles,” AIAA-82-0364, January 1982
•Bennett, R.R., et al, “Analytical Determination of Miss Distances for Linear Homing Navigation,” Hughes Memo 260, March 1952
σ
MAN
= g
c
n
T
τ
2
e
-( t
0
/ τ )
j = 2

N’ – 1
{( N’ - 3 )! [ - ( t
0
/ τ )]
j
/ [( j – 2 )!
( N’ – j – 1 )! j! ]}
If N’ = 3, σ
MAN
= g
c
n
T
τ
2
e
-( t
0
/ τ )
[ ( t
0
/ τ )
2
/ 2 ]
If N’ = 4, σ
MAN
= g
c
n
T
τ
2
e
-( t
0
/ τ )
[ ( t
0
/ τ )
2
/ 2 - ( t
0
/ τ )
3
/ 6 ]
If N’ = 5, σ
MAN
= g
c
n
T
τ
2
e
-( t
0
/ τ )
[ ( t
0
/ τ )
2
/ 2 - ( t
0
/ τ )
3
/ 3 + ( t
0
/
τ )
4
/ 24 ]
If N’ = 6, σ
MAN
= g
c
n
T
τ
2
e
-( t
0
/ τ )
[ ( t
0
/ τ )
2
/ 2 - ( t
0
/ τ )
3
/ 2 + ( t
0
/
τ )
4
/ 8 - ( t
0
/ τ )
5
/ 120 ]
2/24/2008 ELF 246
An Aero Control Missile Has Reduced Miss
Distance at Low Altitude / High Dynamic Pressure
An Aero Control Missile Has Reduced Miss
Distance at Low Altitude / High Dynamic Pressure
0.1
1
10
100
0 2 4 6 8 10
Target Maneuverability, g
R
o
c
k
e
t

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

M
i
s
s

D
u
e

t
o

M
a
n
e
u
v
e
r
i
n
g

T
a
r
g
e
t
,

f
t
h = SL
h = 20k ft
h = 40k ft
h = 60k ft
h = 80k ft
( σ
Man
)
Max
= 0.13 g
c
n
T
τ
2
@ N’ = 4, t
0
/ τ = 2
Note: Proportional guidance
Target maneuver initiated for max miss ( t
0
/ τ = 2 )
( σ
Man
)
Max
in figure = Envelope of adjoint miss
distance
τ = Missile time constant, s
N’ = Effective navigation ratio = 4
n
T
= Target acceleration, g
g
c
= Gravitation constant = 32.2
Example for Rocket Baseline at Mach 2, coasting
Assume:
• n
T
= 5g, V
T
= 1,000 ft / s, head-on intercept
•h = 20k ft ⇒ τ = 0.209 s
( σ
Man
)
Max
= 0.13 ( 32.2 )( 5 )( 0.209 )
2
= 0.9 ft
•h = 80k ft ⇒ τ = 1.17 s
( σ
Man
)
Max
= 0.13 ( 32.2 )( 5 )( 1.17 )
2
= 28.7 ft
2/24/2008 ELF 247
Glint Miss Distance Driven by Seeker Resolution,
Missile Time Constant, and Navigation Ratio
Glint Miss Distance Driven by Seeker Resolution,
Missile Time Constant, and Navigation Ratio
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Tau, Missile Time Constant, s
S
i
g
m
a

/

(

b
T

)
R
e
s
,

N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

M
i
s
s

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

G
l
i
n
t

@

2

H
z

B
a
n
d
w
i
d
t
h
N' = 3 N' = 4 N' = 6
σ
Glint
= K
N

( W / τ )
1/2
K
N

= 0.5 ( 2 K
N
’ = 4
)
N’ / 4
K
N
’ = 4
= 1.206
W = ( b
T
)
Res
2
/ ( 3 π
2
B )
Note:
Proportional guidance
Adjoint miss distance
σ
Glint
= Miss distance due to glint noise, ft
W = Glint noise spectral density, ft
2
/ Hz
τ = Missile time constant, s
N’ = Effective navigation ratio
( b
T
)
Res
= Target span resolution at seeker blind range, ft
B = Noise bandwidth, Hz ( 1 < B < 5 Hz )
Example: Rocket Baseline at Mach 2, h
= 20k ft altitude ⇒ τ = 0.209 s
Assume:
•N’ = 4
•B = 2 Hz
•( b
T
)
Res
= b
t
= 40 ft ( radar seeker beam
width resolution of target wing span )
Calculate:
W = ( 40 )
2
/ [ 3 π
2
( 2 )] = 27.0 ft
2
/ Hz
σ
Glint
/ ( b
T
)
Res
= K
N

( W / τ )
1/2
/ ( b
t
)
Res
= 1.206 ( 27.0 / 0.209 )
1/2
/ 40 = 0.343
σ
Glint
= 0.343 ( 40 ) = 13.7 ft
Reference:
Bennett, R.R., et al, “Analytical Determination of Miss Distances for Linear Homing Navigation,” Hughes Memo 260, March 1952
2/24/2008 ELF 248
Minimizing Miss Distance with Glint Requires
Optimum Time Constant and Navigation Ratio
Minimizing Miss Distance with Glint Requires
Optimum Time Constant and Navigation Ratio
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Tau, Missile Time Constant, s
R
o
c
k
e
t

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
i
s
s

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

f
t
N' = 3 N' = 4 N' = 6
σ = [( σ
MAN
)
Max
2
+ ( σ
Glint
)
2
]
1/2
Note:
Proportional guidance
Adjoint miss distance
( σ
MAN
)
Max
= Max miss distance from
target maneuver, ft
σ
Glint
= Miss distance from glint noise, ft
τ = Missile time constant, s
N’ = Effective navigation ratio
Example for Rocket Baseline at Mach 2,
h = 20k ft altitude ⇒ τ = 0.209 s
Assume:
N’ = 4
•B = 2 Hz
•( b
T
)
Res
= 40 ft
•n
T
= 5g, V
T
= 1,000 ft / s, Head-on
From prior figures:
( σ
MAN
)
Max
= 0.9 ft, σ
Glint
= 13.7 ft
Calculate:
σ = [( σ
MAN
)
Max
2
+ ( σ
Glint
)
2
]
1/2
= 13.7 ft
Reference:
Bennett, R.R., et al, “Analytical Determination of Miss Distances for Linear Homing Navigation,” Hughes Memo 260, March 1952
2/24/2008 ELF 249
Missile Carriage RCS and Launch Plume Are
Considerations in Launch Platform Observables
Missile Carriage RCS and Launch Plume Are
Considerations in Launch Platform Observables
4 Missile Carriage Alternatives
4 Internal Carriage: Lowest Carriage RCS
4 Conformal Carriage: Low Carriage RCS
4 Conventional External Pylon or External Rail Carriage: High Carriage RCS
4 Plume Alternatives
4 Min Smoke: Lowest Launch Observables ( H
2
O Contrail )
4 Reduced Smoke: Reduced Launch Observables ( e.g., HCl Contrail from AP
Oxidizer )
4 High Smoke: High Launch Observables ( e.g., Al
2
O
3
Smoke from Al Fuel )
Carriage and
Launch Observables
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
Observables Survivability
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform
Integration /
Firepower
2/24/2008 ELF 250
Center Weapon Bay Best for Ejection Launchers
F-22 Bay Loadout: 3 AIM-120C, 1 GBU-32 F-117 Bay Loadout: 1 GBU-27, 1 GBU-10 B-1 Bay Loadout: 8 AGM-69
Video Side Weapon Bay Best for Rail Launchers
AMRAAM Loading in F-22 Bay F-22 Side Bay: 1 AIM-9 Each Side Bay RAH-66 Side Bay: 1 AGM-114, 2 FIM-
92, 4 Hydra 70 Each Side Bay
Examples of Weapon Bay Internal Carriage and
Load-out
Examples of Weapon Bay Internal Carriage and
Load-out
2/24/2008 ELF 251
Minimum Smoke Propellant Has Low Observables
Minimum Smoke Propellant Has Low Observables
High Smoke Example: AIM-7
Particles ( e.g., metal fuel ) at all
atmosphere temperature.
Reduced Smoke Example: AIM-120
Contrail ( HCl from AP oxidizer ) at T < -10° F
atmospheric temperature.
Minimum Smoke Example: Javelin
Contrail (H
2
O ) at T < -35º F
atmospheric temperature.
High Smoke Motor
Reduced Smoke Motor
Minimum Smoke Motor
2/24/2008 ELF 252
High Altitude Flight and Low RCS Enhance
Survivability
High Altitude Flight and Low RCS Enhance
Survivability
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
0 20 40 60 80 100
h, Geometric Altitude, kft
P
t
,

R
a
d
a
r

T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
e
d

P
o
w
e
r
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

W
RCS = 0.1 m2 RCS = 0.01 m2 RCS = 0.001 m2
Note:
4 Range Slant Angle = 20 deg, G
t
= Transmitter Gain = 40 dB, G
r
= Receiver Gain = 40 dB, λ = Wavelength = 0.03
m, P
r
= Receiver Sensitivity = 10
-14
W, σ = radar cross section ( RCS )
4 Based on Radar Range Equation with ( S / N )
Detect
= 1 and Unobstructed Line-of-Sight
Example for P
t
= 50,000 W:
Not detected if:
4h > 25k ft for σ = 0.001 m
2
4h > 77k ft for σ = 0.1 m
2
P
t
= ( 4 π )
3
P
r
R
4
/ ( G
t
G
r
σ λ
2
)
Other Survivability
Considerations
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
Observables Survivability
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform
Integration /
Firepower
2/24/2008 ELF 253
Mission Planning and High Speed Enhance
Survivability
Mission Planning and High Speed Enhance
Survivability
0
1
2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
yoffset / Rmax, Non-dimensional Offset Distance from
Threat
t
e
x
p

(

V

/

R
m
a
x

)
,

N
o
n
-
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

T
h
r
e
a
t

E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e

T
i
m
e

treact ( V / Rmax ) = 0 treact ( V / Rmax ) = 1.0
t
exp
= 2 ( R
max
/ V ) cos [ sin
-1
( y
offset
/ R
max
)] – t
react
Note: Based on assumption of constant altitude, constant heading flyby of
threat SAM site with an unobstructed line-of-sight. t
exp
= exposure time to
SAM threat, R
max
= max detection range by SAM threat, V = flyby velocity,
y
offset
= flyby offset, t
react
= SAM site reaction time from detection to launch
Example:
y
offset
= 7 nm, R
max
= 10 nm = 60750 ft,
y
offset
/ R
max
= 0.7, t
react
= 15 s
If V = 1000 ft / s, t
react
( V / R
max
) = 0.247
•t
exp
( V / R
max
) = 2 cos [ sin
-1
( 7 / 10 )] –
15 ( 1000 / 60746 ) = 1.428 – 0.247 = 1.181
•t
exp
= 1.181 ( 60746 / 1000 ) = 71.7 s
If V = 4000 ft / s, t
react
( V / R
max
) = 0.988
•t
exp
( V / R
max
) = 0.440
•t
exp
= 0.440 ( 60746 / 4000 ) = 6.7 s
R
m
a
x
t
react
V
t
exp
V
Flyby
SAM
Site
y
offset
2/24/2008 ELF 254
Low Altitude Flight and Terrain Obstacles
Provide Masking from Threat
Low Altitude Flight and Terrain Obstacles
Provide Masking from Threat
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 10 20 30 40
Rlos, Line-of-Sight Range to Surface Threat, nm
h
m
a
s
k
,

A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

t
h
a
t

M
a
s
k
s

L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
S
i
g
h
t

E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e

t
o

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

T
h
r
e
a
t
,

f
t
Rlos ( hobstacle / Robstacle ) = 100 ft
Rlos ( hobstacle / Robstacle ) = 200 ft
Rlos ( hobstacle / Robstacle ) = 500 ft
Rlos ( hobstacle / Robstacle ) = 1000 ft
h
mask
= ( h
mask
)
obstacle
+ ( h
mask
)
earth
= h
obstacle
( R
los
/ R
obstacle
) + ( R
los
/ 7113 )
2
Example:
h
obstacle
= 200 ft
R
obstaacle
= 5.0 nm = 30395 ft
R
los
= 10.0 nm = 60790 ft
R
los
( h
obstacle
/ R
obstaacle
) = 60790 ( 200 /
30395 ) = 400 ft
h
mask
= 200 ( 60790 / 30395 ) + ( 60790 /
7113 )
2
= 400 + 73 = 473 ft above terrain
h
mask
= altitude that allows obstacle and earth
curvature to mask exposure to surface threat LOS, ft
h
obstacle
= height of obstacle above terrain, ft
R
los
= line-of-sight range to surface threat, ft
R
obstacle
= range from surface threat to obstacle, ft
Height of low hill or tall tree ≈ 100 ft
Height of moderate hill ≈ 200 ft
Height of high hill ≈ 500 ft
Height of low mountain ≈ 1000 ft
2/24/2008 ELF 255
Insensitive Munitions Improve Launch Platform
Survivability
Insensitive Munitions Improve Launch Platform
Survivability
4 Critical Subsystems
4 Rocket motor or fuel tank
4 Warhead
4 Severity Concerns Ranking of Power Output - Type
1. Detonation ( ~ 0.000002 s rise time )
2. Partial detonation ( ~ 0.0001 s rise time )
3. Explosion ( ~ 0.001 s rise time )
4. Deflagration or propulsion rise time ( ~ 0.1 s rise time )
5. Burning ( > 1 s )
4 Design and test considerations ( MIL STD 2105C )
4 Fragment / bullet impact or blast
4 Sympathetic detonation
4 Fast / slow cook-off fire
4 Drop
4 Temperature
4 Vibration
4 Carrier landing ( 18 ft / s sink rate )
2/24/2008 ELF 256
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
Observables Survivability
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform
Integration /
Firepower
High System Reliability Is Provided by High
Subsystem Reliability and Low Parts Count
High System Reliability Is Provided by High
Subsystem Reliability and Low Parts Count
Typical Event /
Subsystem
R
system
≈ 0.94 = R
Arm
X R
Launch
X R
Struct
X R
Auto
X
R
Act
X R
Seeker
X R
In Guid
X R
PS
X R
Prop
X R
Fuze
X R
W/H
Arm ( 0.995 – 0.999 )
Launch ( 0.990 – 0.995 )
Structure ( 0.997 – 0.999 )
Autopilot ( 0.993 – 0.995 )
Actuators ( 0.990 – 0.995 )
Seeker ( 0.985 – 0.990 )
Inertial Guidance ( 0.995 – 0.999 )
Power Supply ( 0.995 – 0.999 )
Propulsion ( 0.995 – 0.999 )
Fuze ( 0.987 – 0.995 )
Warhead ( 0.995 – 0.999 )
0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00
Typical Reliability
Reliability
Typical System Reliability
2/24/2008 ELF 257
Sensors, Electronics and Propulsion Drive
Missile Production Cost
Sensors, Electronics and Propulsion Drive
Missile Production Cost
Very High
( > 25% Production Cost )

High
( > 10% )
Moderate
( > 5% )
Relatively Low
( < 5% )
Dome Seeker Guidance and
Control
Propulsion
•Rocket
•Airbreather
Wings
Stabilizers
Warhead
and Fuzing
Aerothermal
Insulation
Flight
Control
Power
Supply
Structure
•Rocket
•Airbreather


– – –

Note:
System assembly and test ~ 10% production cost
Propulsion and structure parts count / cost of airbreathing missiles are higher than that of rockets
Cost
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
Observables Survivability
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform
Integration /
Firepower
Data
Link
2/24/2008 ELF 258
Sensors and Electronics Occupy a Large Portion
of a High Performance / High Cost Missile.
Sensors and Electronics Occupy a Large Portion
of a High Performance / High Cost Missile.
Example: Derby / R-Darter Missile
Source: http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/air_missiles/derby/Derby.html
2/24/2008 ELF 259
Cost Considerations
Cost Considerations
4 Life Cycle
4 System Development and Demonstration ( SDD )
4 Production
4 Logistics
4 Culture / processes
4 Relative Emphasis of Cost, Performance, Reliability, Organization Structure
4 Relaxed Mil STDs
4 IPPD
4 Profit
4 Competition
2/24/2008 ELF 260
SDD Cost Is Driven by Schedule Duration and
Risk
SDD Cost Is Driven by Schedule Duration and
Risk
10
100
1000
10000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
tSDD, SDD Schedule Duration in Years
C
S
D
D
,

S
D
D

C
o
s
t

i
n

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
AGM-142 TOW 2 SLAM-ER MLRS LB Hellfire JASSM Hellfire II
SLAM JDAM AGM-130 Harpoon ATACMS Tomahawk ESSM
AIM-120A JSOW HARM Javelin BAT PAC-3 Patriot
Note: SDD 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
– SDD cost based on 1999 US$
C
SDD
= $20,000,000 t
SDD
1.90
, ( t
SDD in years
)
Example:
5 year ( medium risk ) SDD program
C
SDD
= $20,000,000 t
SDD
1.90
= ( 20,000,000 ) ( 5 )
1.90
= $426,000,000
Low
Risk
SDD
High
Risk
SDD
Moderate
Risk
SDD
2/24/2008 ELF 261
Light Weight Missiles Have Low Unit Production
Cost
Light Weight Missiles Have Low Unit Production
Cost
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
10 100 1000 10000
Javelin
Longbow Hellfire
AMRAAM
MLRS
HARM
JSOW
Tomahawk
Example:
2,000 unit buy of 100 lb missile:
C
1000th
≈ $6,100 W
L
0.758
= 6100 ( 100 )
0.758
=
$200,000
Cost of 2,000 missiles = 2000 ( $200000 ) =
$400,000,000
Note:
-- Source of data: Nicholas, T. and Rossi, R., “U.S. Missile Data Book, 1999,” Data Search Associates, 1999
– Unit production cost based on 1999 US$
C
1000th
≈ $6,100 W
L
0.758
, ( W
L
in lb )
C
1
0
0
0
t
h
,

C
o
s
t

o
f

M
i
s
s
i
l
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

1
0
0
0
,

U
.
S
.
$
W
L
, Launch Weight, lb
2/24/2008 ELF 262
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+06
x, Number of Units Produced
C
x

/

C
1
s
t
,

C
o
s
t

o
f

U
n
i
t

x

/

C
o
s
t

o
f

F
i
r
s
t

U
n
i
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 =
$13.0M, Y1 = 1980 )
C
x
= C
1st
L
log
2
x
, C
2x
= L C
x
, where C in U.S. 99$
Source of data: Nicholas, T. and Rossi, R., “U.S. Missile Data Book,
1999,” Data Search Associates, 1999
Labor intensive learning curve: L < 0.8
Machine intensive learning curve: L > 0.8 )
Contributors to the learning curve include:
• More efficient labor
• Reduced scrap
• Improved processes
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
2/24/2008 ELF 263
Low Parts Count Reduces Missile Unit
Production Cost
Low Parts Count Reduces Missile Unit
Production Cost
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Parts Fasteners Circuit Cards Connectors Assembly /
Test Hours
Unit
Production
Cost ( US$ )
P
a
r
t
s

C
o
u
n
t
,

H
o
u
r
s
,

o
r

C
o
s
t

(

U
S
$

)
Current Tomahawk Tactical Tomahawk
Note: Tactical Tomahawk has superior flexibility ( e.g., shorter mission planning, in-flight retargeting, BDI / BDA,
modular payload ) at lower parts count / cost and higher reliability. Enabling technologies for low parts count include:
casting, pultrusion / extrusion, centralized electronics, and COTS.
2/24/2008 ELF 264
Copperhead Seeker and Electronics Production Patriot Control Section Production
Video of Hellfire Seeker and Electronics Production
Tactical Missile Culture Is Driven by Rate
Production of Sensors and Electronics
Tactical Missile Culture Is Driven by Rate
Production of Sensors and Electronics
2/24/2008 ELF 265
Peacetime Logistics Activity
•Contractor Post-production Engineering
•Training Manuals / Tech Data Package
•Simulation and Software Maintenance
•Configuration Management
•Engineering Support
•System Analysis
•Launch Platform Integration
•Requirements Documents
•Coordinate Suppliers
•Storage Alternatives
•Wooden Round ( Protected )
•Open Round ( Humidity, Temp, Corrosion, Shock )
•Reliability Maintenance
•Surveillance
•Testing
•Maintenance Alternatives
•First level ( depot )
•Two level ( depot, field )
•Disposal
Logistics Cost Considerations
Logistics Cost Considerations
Wartime Logistics Activity
•Deployment Alternatives
•Airlift
•Sealift
•Combat Logistics
•Launch Platform Integration
•Mission Planning
•Field Tests
•Reliability Data
•Maintainability Data
•Effectiveness Data
•Safety Data
2/24/2008 ELF 266
Simple: Stinger More Sophisticated: Hawk and SLAMRAAM Complex: PAC-3
Very Complex: THAAD Video of Logistics Alternatives
Logistics Cost Lower for Simple Missile Systems
Logistics Cost Lower for Simple Missile Systems
2/24/2008 ELF 267
Logistics Is Simpler for Light Weight Missiles
Logistics Is Simpler for Light Weight Missiles
0
2
4
6
10 100 1000 10000
Missile Weight, lb
S
u
p
p
o
r
t

P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Support personnel for installation with 50 lb lift limit per person
Support personnel for installation with 100 lb lift limit per person
Machine lift for installation
Predator ( 21 lb ) Sidewinder ( 190 lb ) Sparrow ( 500 lb ) Laser Guided Bomb ( 2,500 lb )
Video of Simple Logistics for a
Light weight Missile
2/24/2008 ELF 268
Small MEMS Sensors Can Provide Health
Monitoring, Reducing Cost and Weight
Small MEMS Sensors Can Provide Health
Monitoring, Reducing Cost and Weight
4Micro-machined Electro-Mechanical Systems ( MEMS )
4Small size / low cost semiconductor manufacturing process
42,000 to 5,000 sensors on a 5 in silicon wafer
4Wireless ( RF ) Data Collection and Health Monitoring
4Distributed Sensors Over Missile
4Stress / strain
4Vibration
4Acoustics
4Temperature
4Pressure
4Reduced Logistics Cost and Improved Reliability
4Health monitoring
4Reduced Weight and Production Cost
4More Efficient Design
2/24/2008 ELF 269
Missile Carriage Size, Shape, and Weight Are
Driven by Launch Platform Compatibility
Missile Carriage Size, Shape, and Weight Are
Driven by Launch Platform Compatibility
Surface Ships
CLS
~24” x 24”
263”
263”
~168”
3400 lb
3400 lb
~500 lb to
3000 lb
~

2
2

~

2
2

Fighters /
Bombers /
UCAVs
Rail /
Ejection
VLS
Submarines
Launch Platform Integration / Firepower
Robustness
Lethality
Miss Distance
Observables Survivability
Reliability
Cost
Launch Platform
Integration /
Firepower
22”
Ground
Vehicles
158” 3700 lb
Helos
Launch
Pods
Rail
US Launch Platform Launcher Carriage Span / Shape Length Weight
∼13” x 13” 70” 120 lb
~

2
8

~

2
8

2/24/2008 ELF 270
Light Weight Missiles Enhance Firepower
Light Weight Missiles Enhance Firepower
E, carry 1
C, carry 3
C, carry 1
E, carry 2
C, carry 2
E, carry 3
E, carry 1
C, carry 1
E, carry 2
C, carry 2
5,000 lb
4,000 lb
3,000 lb
2,000 lb
1,000 lb
M
a
x

S
t
r
i
k
e

W
e
a
p
o
n
W
e
i
g
h
t
C
l
e
a
n
+

C
L

T
a
n
k
+

2

I
n
b
d

T
a
n
k
s
+

C
L

T
k

+

2

A
I
M
-
9
+

C
L

T
k

+

2

A
G
M
-
8
8
+

2

I
n
b
d

T
k

+

2

A
I
M
-
9
Configuration for Day Operation
with Bring-Back Load
C
l
e
a
n
+

C
L

T
a
n
k
+

2

I
n
b
d

T
a
n
k
s
+

C
L

T
k

+

2

A
I
M
-
9
+

C
L

T
k

+

2

A
G
M
-
8
8
+

2

I
n
b
d

T
k

+

2

A
I
M
-
9
Configuration for Night Operation
with Bring-Back Load
F-18 C / E
Inboard Asymmetric
Bring-Back Load Limit
Outboard Asymmetric
Bring-Back Load Limit
2/24/2008 ELF 271
Launch Envelope Limitations in Missile / Launch
Platform Physical Integration
Launch Envelope Limitations in Missile / Launch
Platform Physical Integration
4Off Boresight
4Seeker field of regard ⇒potential obscuring from launch platform
4Minimum Range
4Launcher rail clearance and aeroelasticity ⇒miss at min range
4Helo rotor downwash ⇒miss at min range
4Safety
4Launcher retention ⇒potential inadvertent release, potential hang-fire
4Launch platform local flow field α, β ⇒potential unsafe separation
4Launch platform maneuvering ⇒potential unsafe separation
4Handling qualities with stores ⇒potential unsafe handling qualities
4Launch platform bay / canister acoustics ⇒missile factor of safety
4Launch platform bay / canister vibration ⇒missile factor of safety
2/24/2008 ELF 272
Store Separation Wind Tunnel Tests Are
Required for Missile / Aircraft Compatibility
Store Separation Wind Tunnel Tests Are
Required for Missile / Aircraft Compatibility
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
Example Stores with Flow Field Interaction: Kh-41 + AA-10
2/24/2008 ELF 273
Examples of Rail Launched and Ejection
Launched Missiles
Examples of Rail Launched and Ejection
Launched Missiles
Example Rail Launcher: Hellfire / Brimstone Example Ejection Launcher: AGM-86 ALCM
Video of Hellfire / Brimstone Carriage / Launch Video of AGM-86 Carriage / Launch
2/24/2008 ELF 274
Examples of Safe Store Separation
Examples of Safe Store Separation
AMRAAM Rail Launch from F-16 Video of Rapid Drop ( 16 Bombs ) from B-2
Laser Guided Bombs Drop from F-117
2/24/2008 ELF 275
Examples of Store Compatibility Problems
Examples of Store Compatibility Problems
Unsafe Separation Hang-Fire Store Aeroelastic Instability
2/24/2008 ELF 276
MIL-STD-8591 Aircraft Store Suspension and
Ejection Launcher Requirements
MIL-STD-8591 Aircraft Store Suspension and
Ejection Launcher Requirements


Store Weight / Parameter

30 Inch Suspension

14 Inch Suspension

♦ Weight Up to 100 lb

Not Applicable

Yes
• Lug height ( in )
0.75
• Min ejector area ( in x in )

4.0 x 26.0
♦ Weight 101 to 1,450 lb
Yes Yes
• Lug height ( in )
1.35 1.00
• Min lug well ( in )
0.515 0.515
• Min ejector area ( in x in )
4. 0 x 36.0 4.0 x 26.0
♦ Weight Over 1,451 lb
Yes Not Applicable
• Lug height ( in )
1.35
• Min lug well ( in )
1.080
• Min ejector area ( in x in )
4.0 x 36.0

Ejection Stroke
2/24/2008 ELF 277
Rail Launcher Forward Hanger Aft Hanger
LAU-7 Sidewinder Launcher 2.260 2.260
LAU 117 Maverick Launcher 1.14 7.23
MIL-STD-8591 Aircraft Store Rail Launcher
Examples
MIL-STD-8591 Aircraft Store Rail Launcher
Examples
Note: Dimensions in inches.
• LAU 7 rail launched store weight and diameter limits are ≤ 300 lb, ≤ 7 in
•LAU 117 rail launched store weight and diameter limits are ≤ 600 lb, ≤ 10 in
2/24/2008 ELF 278
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: Loadout
of 2 AMRAAM per F-22 Semi-
Bay
Compressed Carriage
AMRAAM: Loadout of 3
AMRAAM 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-97
2/24/2008 ELF 279
Example of Aircraft Carriage and Fire Control
Interfaces
Example of Aircraft Carriage and Fire Control
Interfaces
Wing
Wing Deploy
Safety Pin
Folding
Suspension
Lug
Fire Control /
Avionics
Umbilical
Connector
Flight Control
Access Cover
Electrical
Safety Pin
Folding
Suspension
Lug
Example: ADM-141 TALD ( Tactical Air-Launched Decoy )
Carriage and Fire Control Interfaces
2/24/2008 ELF 280
Example of Ship Weapon Carriage and Launcher,
Mk41 VLS
Example of Ship Weapon Carriage and Launcher,
Mk41 VLS
8 Modules / Magazine Module Gas Management
Tomahawk Launch 8 Canister Cells / Module Standard Missile Launch
Canister Cell Hatch
Cell
Before
Firing
Cell
After
Firing
Ship Deck
Exhaust Hatch
Missile Cover
Plenum
2/24/2008 ELF 281
Robustness Is Required for Carriage, Shipping,
and Storage Environment
Robustness Is Required for Carriage, Shipping,
and Storage Environment
Environmental Parameter Typical Requirement Video: Ground / Sea Environment
4Surface Temperature -60° F* to 160° F
4Surface Humidity 5% to 100%
4Rain Rate 120 mm / h**
4Surface Wind 100 km / h steady***
150 km / h gusts****
4Salt fog 3 g / mm
2
deposited per year
4Vibration 10 g rms at 1,000 Hz: MIL STD 810, 648, 1670A
4Shock Drop height 0.5 m, half sine wave 100 g / 10 ms: MIL STD 810, 1670A
4Acoustic 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 of worst location.
** Highest recorded rain rate = 436 mm / h. 0.5% probability greater than 120 mm / h during worst month of worst location.
*** Highest recorded steady wind = 342 km / h. 1% probability greater than 100 km / h during worst month of worst location.
**** Highest recorded gust = 378 km / h. 1% probability greater than 150 km / h during worst month of worst location.
2/24/2008 ELF 282
Summary of Measures of Merit and Launch
Platform Integration
Summary of Measures of Merit and Launch
Platform Integration
4 Measures of Merit
4 Robustness
4 Warhead lethality
4 Miss distance
4 Carriage and launch observables
4 Other survivability considerations
4 Reliability
4 Cost
4 Launch Platform Integration
4 Firepower, weight, fitment
4 Store separation
4 Launch platform handling qualities, aeroelasticity
4 Hang-fire
4 Vibration
4 Standard launchers
4 Carriage and storage environment
4 Discussion / Questions?
4 Classroom Exercise ( Appendix A )
2/24/2008 ELF 283
Measures of Merit and Launch Platform
Integration Problems
Measures of Merit and Launch Platform
Integration Problems
1. IR signal attenuation is greater than 100 dB per km through a c____.
2. GPS / INS enhances seeker lock-on in adverse weather and ground c______.
3. A data link can enhance missile seeker lock-on against a m_____ target.
4. An example of a missile counter-counter measure to flares is an i______
i_____ seeker.
5. Compared to a mid-wave IR seeker, a long wave IR seeker receives more
energy from a c___ target.
6. High fineness kinetic energy penetrators are required to defeat b_____
targets.
7. For the same lethality with a blast fragmentation warhead, a small decrease in
miss distance allows a large decrease in the required weight of the w______.
8. For a blast / frag warhead, a charge-to-metal ratio of about one is required to
achieve a high total fragment k______ e_____.
9. A blast fragmentation warhead tradeoff is the number of fragments versus the
individual fragment w_____.
2/24/2008 ELF 284
Measures of Merit and Launch Platform
Integration Problems ( cont )
Measures of Merit and Launch Platform
Integration Problems ( cont )
10. Kinetic energy penetration is a function of the penetrator diameter, length,
density, and v_______.
11. In proportional homing guidance, the objective is to make the line-of-sight
angle rate equal to z___.
12. Aeromechanics contributors to missile time constant are flight control
effectiveness, flight control system dynamics, and dome e____ s____.
13. Miss distance due to heading error is a function of missile navigation ratio,
velocity, time to correct the heading error, and the missile t___ c_______.
14. A missile must have about t_____ times the maneuverability of the target.
15. Minimizing the miss distance due to radar glint requires a high resolution
seeker, an optimum missile time constant and an optimum n_________ r____.
16. Weapons on low observable launch platforms use i_______ carriage.
17. Weapons on low observable launch platforms use m______ smoke propellant.
18. For an insensitive munition, burning is preferable to detonation because it
releases less p____.
2/24/2008 ELF 285
Measures of Merit and Launch Platform
Integration Problems ( cont )
Measures of Merit and Launch Platform
Integration Problems ( cont )
19. Missile system reliability is enhanced by subsystem reliability and low p____
count.
20. High cost subsystems of missiles are sensors, electronics, and p_________.
21. Missile SDD cost is driven by the program duration and r___.
22. Missile unit production cost is driven by the number of units produced,
learning curve, and w_____.
23. First level maintenance is conducted at a d____.
24. A standard launch system for U.S. Navy ships is the V_______ L_____ S_____.
25. Most light weight missiles use rail launchers while most heavy weight missiles
use e_______ launchers.
26. Higher firepower is provided by c_________ carriage.
27. The typical environmental requirement from MIL-HDBK-310 is the _% world-
wide climatic extreme.
2/24/2008 ELF 286
Outline
Outline
4 Introduction / Key Drivers in the Design Process
4 Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Propulsion Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Weight Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Flight Performance Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration
4 Sizing Examples
4 Development Process
4 Summary and Lessons Learned
4 References and Communication
4 Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises,
Example of Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms,
Conversion Factors, Syllabus )
2/24/2008 ELF 287
Sizing Examples
Sizing Examples
4 Rocket Baseline Missile
4 Standoff range requirement
4 Wing sizing requirement
4 Multi-parameter harmonization
4 Lofted range comparison
4 Ramjet Baseline Missile
4 Range robustness
4 Propulsion and fuel alternatives
4 Velocity control
4 Computer Aided Conceptual Design Sizing Tools
4 Soda Straw Rocket Design, Build, and Fly
2/24/2008 ELF 288
Air-to-Air Engagement Analysis Process and
Assumptions
Air-to-Air Engagement Analysis Process and
Assumptions
4 F-pole range provides kill of head-on threat outside of
threat weapon launch range
4 Aircraft contrast for typical engagement
4 C = 0.18
4 Typical visual detection range by target ( Required F-pole
range )
4 R
D
= 3.3 nm
4 Typical altitude and speed of launch aircraft, target aircraft,
and missile
4 h = 20k ft altitude
4 V
L
= Mach 0.8 = 820 ft / s
4 V
T
= Mach 0.8 = 820 ft / s
4 V
M
= 2 V
T
= 1,640 ft / s
2/24/2008 ELF 289
Assumed Air-to-Air Engagement Scenario for
Head-on Intercept
Assumed Air-to-Air Engagement Scenario for
Head-on Intercept
t = 0 s (Launch Missile)
R
L
= Launch Range = 10.0 nm
Red Aircraft
( 820 ft / s )
Blue Aircraft
( 820 ft / s )
t = t
f
= 24.4 s ( Missile Impacts Target )
R
F-pole
= 3.3 nm
Red Aircraft
Destroyed
Blue Aircraft
( 820 ft / s )
Blue Missile
( 1640 ft / s )
R
L
= V
M
t
f
+ V
T
t
f
R
F-Pole
= V
M
t
f
- V
L
t
f
R
F
= Missile Flight Range = 6.7 nm
2/24/2008 ELF 290
0
2
4
6
8
0.01 0.1 1
C, Contrast
R
,

V
i
s
i
b
l
e

R
a
n
g
e

f
o
r

5
0

f
t
2

T
a
r
g
e
t
,

n
m
Visual Detection Range,
nm
Visual Recognition
Range, nm
Target Contrast and Size Drive Visual Detection
and Recognition Range
Target Contrast and Size Drive Visual Detection
and Recognition Range
Note:
R
D
= Visual detection range for
probability of detection P
D
= 0.5
C = Contrast
C
T
= Visual threshold contrast = 0.02
A
t
p
= Target presented area = 50 ft
2
R
R
= Visual recognition range
θ
F
= Pilot visual fovial angle = 0.8 deg
Clear weather
Pilot search glimpse time = 1 / 3 s
Example:
If C = 0.18
R
D
= 3.3 nm
R
R
= 1.0 nm
R
D
= 1.15 [ A
t
p
( C – C
T
)]
1/2
, R
D
in nm, A
t
p
in ft
2
R
R
= 0.29 R
D
C = 0.01 C = 0.02 C = 0.05 C = 0.1 C = 0.2 C = 0.5 C = 1.0
2/24/2008 ELF 291
High Missile Velocity Improves Standoff Range
High Missile Velocity Improves Standoff Range
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Target Velocity / Missile Velocity
F
-
P
o
l
e

R
a
n
g
e

/

L
a
u
n
c
h

R
a
n
g
e
VL / VM = 0
VL / VM = 0.2
VL / VM = 0.5
VL / VM = 1.0
Example:
• V
L
= V
T
• V
M
= 2 V
T
• Then V
T
/ V
M
= V
L
/ V
M
= 0.5
• R
F-Pole
/ R
L
= 0.33
• R
F-Pole
= R
D
= 3.3 nm
• R
L
= 3.3 / 0.33 = 10.0 nm
R
F-Pole
/ R
L
= 1 – ( V
T
+ V
L
) / ( V
M
+ V
T
)
Note: Head-on intercept
R
F-Pole
= Standoff range at intercept
R
L
= Launch range
V
M
= Missile average velocity
V
T
= Target velocity
V
L
= Launch velocity
2/24/2008 ELF 292
Missile Flight Range Requirement Is Greatest for
a Tail Chase Intercept
Missile Flight Range Requirement Is Greatest for
a Tail Chase Intercept
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 1 2 3 4 5
VM / VT, Missile Velocity / Target Velocity
R
F

/

R
L
,

M
i
s
s
i
l
e

F
l
i
g
h
t

R
a
n
g
e

/

L
a
u
n
c
h

R
a
n
g
e
( RF / RL ) Head-on
( RF / RL ) Tail Chase
Examples:
•Head-on Intercept
• V
M
= 1,640 ft / s, V
T
= 820 ft / s
• V
M
/ V
T
= 1640 / 820 = 2
• R
F
/ R
L
= 2 / ( 2 + 1 ) = 0.667
• R
L
= 10.0 nm
• R
F
= 0.667 ( 10.0 ) = 6.67 nm
•Tail Intercept at same conditions
• R
F
/ R
L
= 2 / ( 2 – 1 ) = 2.0
• R
F
= 2.0 ( 10.0 ) = 20.0 nm
( R
F
/ R
L
)
Head-on
= ( V
M
/ V
T
) / [(V
M
/ V
T
) + 1 ]
( R
F
/ R
L
)
TailChase
= ( V
M
/ V
T
) / [(V
M
/ V
T
) - 1 ]
2/24/2008 ELF 293
Drawing of Rocket Baseline Missile Configuration
Drawing of Rocket Baseline Missile Configuration
STA 60.8
19.4
3.4
18.5
STA 125.4
LE
mac
at STA 67.0
BL 10.2
Λ = 45°
40.2
STA 0 19.2 46.1 62.6 84.5 138.6
Note: Dimensions in inches
Source: Bithell, R.A. and Stoner, R.C., “Rapid Approach for Missile Synthesis, Vol. 1, Rocket Synthesis
Handbook,” AFWAL-TR-81-3022, Vol. 1, March 1982.
Nose Forebody Payload
Bay
Midbody Aftbody Tailcone
Rocket Motor
Λ = 57°
12.0
LE
mac
at
STA 131.6
BL 8.0
16.1
8.0 d
cg
BO
cg
Launch
143.9
2/24/2008 ELF 294
Mass Properties of Rocket Baseline Missile
Mass Properties of Rocket Baseline Missile
1 Nose ( Radome ) 4.1 12.0
3 Forebody structure 12.4 30.5
Guidance 46.6 32.6
2 Payload Bay Structure 7.6 54.3
Warhead 77.7 54.3
4 Midbody Structure 10.2 73.5
Control Actuation System 61.0 75.5
5 Aftbody Structure 0.0 –
Rocket Motor Case 47.3 107.5
Insulation ( EDPM – Silica ) 23.0 117.2
6 Tailcone Structure 6.5 141.2
Nozzle 5.8 141.2
Fixed Surfaces 26.2 137.8
Movable Surfaces 38.6 75.5
Burnout Total 367.0 76.2
Propellant 133.0 107.8
Launch Total 500.0 84.6
Component Weight, lb. C.G. STA, in.
2/24/2008 ELF 295
Rocket Baseline Missile Definition
Rocket Baseline Missile Definition
Body
Dome Material Pyroceram
Airframe Material Aluminum 2219-T81
Length, in 143.9
Diameter, in 8.0
Airframe thickness, in 0.16
Fineness ratio 17.99
Volume, ft
3
3.82
Wetted area, ft
2
24.06
Nozzle exit area, ft
2
0.078
Boattail fineness ratio 0.38
Nose fineness ratio 2.40
Nose bluntness 0.0
Boattail angle, deg 7.5
Movable surfaces ( forward )
Material Aluminum 2219-T81
Planform area, ft
2
( 2 panels exposed ) 2.55
Wetted area, ft
2
( 4 panels ) 10.20
Aspect ratio ( 2 panels exposed ) 2.82
Taper ratio 0.175
Root chord, in 19.4
Tip chord, in 3.4
Span, in ( 2 panels exposed ) 32.2
Leading edge sweep, deg 45.0
2/24/2008 ELF 296
Rocket Baseline Missile Definition ( cont )
Rocket Baseline Missile Definition ( cont )
Movable surfaces ( continued )
Mean aerodynamic chord, in 13.3
Thickness ratio 0.044
Section type Modified double wedge
Section leading edge total angle, deg 10.01
x
mac
, in 67.0
y
mac
, in ( from root chord ) 6.2
Actuator rate limit, deg / s 360.0
Fixed surfaces ( aft )
Material Aluminum 2219-T81
Modulus of elasticity, 10
6
psi 10.5
Planform area, ft
2
( 2 panels exposed ) 1.54
Wetted area, ft
2
( 4 panels ) 6.17
Aspect ratio ( 2 panels exposed ) 2.59
Taper ratio 0.0
Root chord, in 18.5
Tip chord, in 0.0
Span, in ( 2 panels exposed ) 24.0
Leading edge sweep, deg 57.0
Mean aerodynamic chord, in 12.3
Thickness ratio 0.027
Section type Modified double wedge
Section leading edge total angle, deg 6.17
x
mac
, in 131.6
y
mac
, in ( from root chord ) 4.0
2/24/2008 ELF 297
Rocket Baseline Missile Definition ( cont )
Rocket Baseline Missile Definition ( cont )
References values
Reference area, ft
2
0.349
Reference length, ft 0.667
Pitch / Yaw Moment of inertia at launch, slug-ft
2
117.0
Pitch / Yaw Moment of inertia at burnout, slug-ft
2
94.0
Rocket Motor Performance ( altitude = 20k ft, temp = 70° F )
Burning time, sec ( boost / sustain ) 3.69 / 10.86
Maximum pressure, psi 2042
Average pressure, psi ( boost / sustain ) 1769 / 301
Average thrust, lbf ( boost / sustain ) 5750 / 1018
Total impulse, lbf-s ( boost / sustain ) 21217 / 11055
Specific impulse, lbf-s / lbm ( boost / sustain ) 250 / 230.4
Propellant
Weight, lbm ( boost / sustain ) 84.8 / 48.2
Flame temperature @ 1,000 psi, °F 5282 / 5228
Propellant density, lbm / in
3
0.065
Characteristic velocity, ft / s 5200
Burn rate @ 1000 psi, in / s 0.5
Burn rate pressure exponent 0.3
2/24/2008 ELF 298
Rocket Baseline Missile Definition ( cont )
Rocket Baseline Missile Definition ( cont )
Propellant ( continued )
Burn rate sensitivity with temperature, % / °F 0.10
Pressure sensitivity with temperature, % / °F 0.14
Rocket Motor Case
Yield / ultimate strength, psi 170,000 / 190,000
Material 4130 Steel
Modulus of elasticity, psi 29.5 x 10
6
psi
Length, in 59.4
Outside diameter, in 8.00
Thickness, in (minimum) 0.074
Burst pressure, psi 3140
Volumetric efficiency 0.76
Grain configuration Three slots + web
Dome ellipse ratio 2.0
Nozzle
Housing material 4130 Steel
Exit geometry Contoured ( equiv. 15° )
Throat area, in
2
1.81
Expansion ratio 6.2
Length, in 4.9
Exit diameter, in 3.78
2/24/2008 ELF 299
Rocket Baseline Missile Has Boost-Sustain
Thrust - Time History
Rocket Baseline Missile Has Boost-Sustain
Thrust - Time History
Time – seconds
0 4 8 12 16
0
2
4
6
8
Thrust – 1,000 lb
Note: Altitude = 20k ft, Temperature = 70° F
Total impulse drives velocity change
Boost Total Impulse = ∫Tdt = 5750 ( 3.69 ) = 21217 lb-s
Sustain Total Impulse = ∫Tdt = 1018 ( 10.86 ) = 11055 lb-s
2/24/2008 ELF 300
Rocket Baseline Missile Aerodynamic
Characteristics
Rocket Baseline Missile Aerodynamic
Characteristics
4
0
0 4 8 12 16
α, Angle of Attack – Deg
12
8
20
N
o
r
m
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

~

C
N
P
i
t
c
h
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t


C
m
20
16
24
-16.0
-8.0
-12.0
0
-4.0
1.2
0.6
M
1.5
2.0
2.35
2.87
3.95
4.60
2.35
2.0
M = 1.2 and 1.5
4.60
0.6
3.95
S
Ref
= 0.349 ft
2
, l
Ref
= d = 0.667 ft, CG at STA 75.7, δ = 0 deg
2/24/2008 ELF 301
Rocket Baseline Missile Aerodynamic
Characteristics ( cont )
Rocket Baseline Missile Aerodynamic
Characteristics ( cont )
0.4
0
0 1 2 3 4
M, Mach Number
1.2
0.8
5
C
A

a
t

α
=

0

d
e
g
0.1
0
Power Off
Power On
0.2
0.3
C
N
δ
a
t

α
=

0

d
e
g
,
P
e
r

D
e
g
0.4
0
1.2
0.8
.002
0
.004
.006
K
2
K
1
C
A
= C
Aα = 0
+ K
1
δ
2
+ K
2
α δ
C
m
δ
a
t

α
=

0

d
e
g
,
P
e
r

D
e
g
K
1
,

K
2
~

P
e
r

D
e
g
2
0 1 2 3 4
M, Mach Number
5
2/24/2008 ELF 302
High Altitude Launch Enhances Rocket Baseline
Range
High Altitude Launch Enhances Rocket Baseline
Range
Range ~ nm
0 5 10 15 20
0
10
20
30
40
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

~

1
0
3
f
t
Burnout
25
Boost /
Sustain
Termination
Mach = 1.5
Coast
V
max
= 2147 ft / s
V
max
= 1916 ft / s
V
max
= 2524 ft / s
M
L
= 0.7
C
D
AVG
= 0.65
Constant Altitude Flight
2/24/2008 ELF 303
Low Altitude Launch and High Alpha Maneuvers
Enhance Rocket Baseline Turn Performance
Low Altitude Launch and High Alpha Maneuvers
Enhance Rocket Baseline Turn Performance
C
r
o
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

1
,
0
0
0

f
t
.
25
20
15
10
5
0
-10 -5 0 5 10
Down Range 1,000 ft.
Termination at M = 1.0
Marks at 2 s intervals
Alt.
10k ft
10k ft
40k ft
40k ft
α
15°
10°
15°
10°
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Note: Off boresight envelope that is shown does not include the rocket baseline seeker field-of-regard limit ( 30 deg ).
2/24/2008 ELF 304
Paredo Shows Range of Rocket Baseline Driven
by I
SP
, Propellant Weight, Drag, and Static Margin
Paredo Shows Range of Rocket Baseline Driven
by I
SP
, Propellant Weight, Drag, and Static Margin
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Isp Prop.
Weight
CD0 Drag-
Due-to-
Lift
Static
Margin
Thrust Inert
Weight
Parameter
Nondimensional
Range
Sensitivity to
Parameter
Note: Rocket baseline:
h
L
= 20k ft, M
L
= 0.7, M
EC
= 1.5
R
@ ML = 0.7, hL = 20k ft
= 9.5 nm
Example: 10% increase in propellant
weight ⇒8.8% increase in flight range
2/24/2008 ELF 305
Boost - Sustain Trajectory Assumptions
Boost - Sustain Trajectory Assumptions
4 Assumptions
4 1 degree of freedom
4 Constant altitude
4 Simplified equation for axial acceleration based on thrust,
drag, and weight
4 n
X
= ( T – D ) / W
4 Missile weight varies with burn rate and time
4 W = W
L
– W
P
t / t
B
4 Drag is approximated by
4 D = C
D
O
q S
2/24/2008 ELF 306
-5
0
5
10
15
0 5 10 15 20 25
t, Time, s
n
x
,

A
x
i
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Example of Rocket Baseline Axial Acceleration
Example of Rocket Baseline Axial Acceleration
Note:
t
f
= 24.4 s
M
L
= 0.8
h
L
= 20,000 ft
T
B
= 5750 lb
t
B
= 3.69 s
T
S
= 1018 lb
t
S
= 10.86 s
D = 99 lb at Mach 0.8
D = 1020 lb at Mach 2.1
W
L
= 500 lb
W
P
= 133 lb
n
X
= ( T - D ) / W
Boost
Sustain
Coast
2/24/2008 ELF 307
0
1000
2000
3000
0 5 10 15 20 25
t, Time, s
V
,

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

f
t

/

s
Example of Rocket Baseline Missile Velocity vs
Time
Example of Rocket Baseline Missile Velocity vs
Time
Boost
Sustain
Coast
ΔV / ( g
c
I
SP
) = - ( 1 - D
AVG
/ T ) ln ( 1 - W
p
/ W
i
), During Boost-Sustain
V / V
BO
= 1 / { 1 + t / { 2 W
BO
/ [ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
BO
]}}, During Coast
Note:
M
L
= 0.8
h
L
= 20k feet
2/24/2008 ELF 308
Range and Time-to-Target of Rocket Baseline
Missile Meet Requirements
Range and Time-to-Target of Rocket Baseline
Missile Meet Requirements
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 5 10 15 20 25
t, Time, s
R
,

F
l
i
g
h
t

R
a
n
g
e
,

n
m
Boost
Sustain
Coast
(R
F
)
Req
= 6.7 nm @ t =24.4 s
R = Δ R
boost
+ Δ R
sustain
+ Δ R
coast
Note:
M
L
= 0.8
h
L
= 20k ft
2/24/2008 ELF 309
Sizing Examples
Sizing Examples
4 Rocket Baseline Missile
4 Standoff range requirement
4 Wing sizing requirement
4 Multi-parameter harmonization
4 Lofted range comparison
4 Ramjet Baseline Missile
4 Range robustness
4 Propulsion and fuel alternatives
4 Velocity control
4 Computer Aided Conceptual Design Sizing Tools
4 Soda Straw Rocket Design, Build, and Fly
2/24/2008 ELF 310
Example of Wing Sizing to Satisfy Required
Maneuver Acceleration
Example of Wing Sizing to Satisfy Required
Maneuver Acceleration
4Size Wing for the Assumptions
4 ( n
Z
)
Required
= 30 g to counter 9 g maneuvering target )
4( n
Z
) = Δ ( n
Z
)
Wing
+ Δ ( n
Z
)
Body
+ Δ ( n
Z
)
Tail
4 Rocket Baseline @
4Mach 2
420,000 ft altitude
4367 lb weight ( burnout )
4From Prior Example, Compute
α
Wing
= α’
Max
= ( α + δ )
Max
= 22 deg for rocket baseline
α = 0.75δ, α
Body
= α
Tail
= 9.4 deg
Δ ( n
Z
)
Body
= q S
Ref
( C
N
)
Body
/ W = 2725 ( 0.349 ) ( 1.28 ) / 367 = 3.3 g ( from body )
Δ ( n
Z
)
Tail
= q S
Tail
[( C
N
)
Tail
( S
Ref
/ S
Tail
)] / W = 2725 ( 1.54 ) ( 0.425 ) / 367 = 4.9 g ( from tail )
Δ ( n
Z
)
Wing
= ( n
Z
)
Required
- Δ ( n
Z
)
Body
- Δ ( n
Z
)
Tail
= 30 – 3.3 – 4.9 = 21.8 g
( S
W
)
Required
= Δ ( n
Z
)
Wing
W / { q [( C
N
)
Wing
(S
Ref
/ S
Wing
)]} = 21.8 ( 367 ) / {( 2725 ) ( 1.08 )} = 2.72 ft
2
Note: ( S
W
)
RocketBaseline
= 2.55 ft
2
Video of Intercept of Maneuvering Target
2/24/2008 ELF 311
Wing Sizing to Satisfy Required Turn Rate
Wing Sizing to Satisfy Required Turn Rate
4 Assume
4 ( γ
.
)
Required
> 18 deg / s to counter 18 deg / s maneuvering aircraft
4 Rocket Baseline @
4 Mach 2
4 20,000 ft altitude
4 367 lb weight ( burnout )
4 γ
i
= 0 deg
4 Compute
γ
.
= g
c
n / V = [ q S
Ref
C
N
α
α + q S
Ref
C
N
δ
δ - W cos ( γ ) ] / [( W / g
c
) V ]
α / δ = 0.75
α’ = α + δ = 22 deg ⇒ δ = 12.6 deg, α = 9.4 deg
γ
.
= [ 2725 ( 0.349 )( 0.60 )( 9.4 ) +2725 ( 0.349 )( 0.19 )( 12.6 ) – 367 ( 1 )] / ( 367 / 32.2 )( 2074 ) = 0.31
rad / s or 18 deg / s
Note: ( S
W
)
RocketBaseline
⇒18 deg / s Turn Rate
2/24/2008 ELF 312
Wing Sizing to Satisfy Required Turn Radius
Wing Sizing to Satisfy Required Turn Radius
4 Assume Maneuvering Aircraft Target with
4 γ
.
= 18 deg / s = 0.314 rad / s
4 V = 1000 ft / s
4 ( R
T
)
Target
= V / γ
.
= 1000 / 0.314 = 3183 ft
4 Assume Rocket Baseline @
4 Mach 2
4 20,000 ft altitude
4 367 lb weight ( burnout )
4 Compute
4 γ
.
= 18 deg / s ( prior figure )
4 ( R
T
)
RocketBaselinet
= V / γ
.
= 2074 / 0.314 = 6602 ft
4 Note: ( R
T
)
RocketBaselinet
> ( R
T
)
Target
⇒Rocket Baseline Can Be Counter-
measured by Target in a Tight Turn
4 Counter-Countermeasure Alternatives
4 Larger Wing
4 Higher Angle of Attack
4 Longer Burn Motor with TVC
2/24/2008 ELF 313
Sizing Examples
Sizing Examples
4 Rocket Baseline Missile
4 Standoff range requirement
4 Wing sizing requirement
4 Multi-parameter harmonization
4 Lofted range comparison
4 Ramjet Baseline Missile
4 Range robustness
4 Propulsion and fuel alternatives
4 Velocity control
4 Computer Aided Conceptual Design Sizing Tools
4 Soda Straw Rocket Design, Build, and Fly
2/24/2008 ELF 314
Combined Weight / Miss Distance Drivers: Nozzle
Expansion and Motor Volumetric Efficiency
Combined Weight / Miss Distance Drivers: Nozzle
Expansion and Motor Volumetric Efficiency
Fixed surface number of panels 4 3 +0.054 +0.100
Movable surface number of panels 4 2 +0.071 +0.106
Design static margin at launch 0.40 0.30 +0.095 +0.167
Wing movable surface sweep ( deg ) 45.0 49.5 -0.205 +0.015
Tail fixed surface sweep ( deg ) 57.0 60.0 +0.027 +0.039
Wing movable surface thickness ratio 0.044 0.034 +0.041 +0.005
Nose fineness ratio 2.4 2.6 -0.016 -0.745
Rocket chamber sustain pressure ( psi ) 301 330 -0.076 -0.045
Boattail fineness ratio ( length / diameter ) 0.38 0.342 +0.096 +0.140
Nozzle expansion ratio 6.2 6.82 -0.114 -0.181
Motor volumetric efficiency 0.76 0.84 -0.136 -0.453
Propellant density ( lb / in
3
) 0.065 0.084 -0.062 +0.012
Boost thrust ( lb ) 5,750 6,325 +0.014 -0.018
Sustain thrust ( lb ) 1,018 1,119 +0.088 +0.246
Characteristic velocity ( ft / s ) 5,200 5,720 -0.063 -0.077
Wing location ( percent total length ) 47.5 42.75 +0.181 -0.036
Parameter Baseline W* σ*
Sensitivity
Variation
Note: Strong impact with synergy
Strong impact
Moderate impact with synergy
Moderate impact
Baseline: Weight = 500 lb, Miss distance = 62.3 ft
W* = weight sensitivity for parameter variation = ΔW / W
σ* = miss distance sensitivity for parameter variation = Δ σ / σ
2/24/2008 ELF 315
A Harmonized Missile Can Have Smaller Miss
Distance and Lighter Weight
A Harmonized Missile Can Have Smaller Miss
Distance and Lighter Weight
Judicious changes
Boost thrust ( lb ) 5,750 3,382 3,382 3,382
Wing location ( percent missile length to 1/4 mac ) 47.5 47 44 46
Wing taper ratio 0.18 0.2 0.2 0.2
Nose fineness ratio 2.4 3.2 2.55 2.6
Nose blunting ratio 0.0 0.05 0.05 0.05
Nozzle expansion ratio 6.2 15 15 15
Sustain chamber pressure ( psi ) 301 1,000 1,000 1,000
Boattail fineness ratio 0.38 0.21 0.21 0.21
Tail leading edge sweep ( deg ) 57 50 50 50
Technology limited changes
No. wing panels 4 2 2 2
No. tail panels 4 3 3 3
Wing thickness ratio 0.044 0.030 0.030 0.030
Wing leading edge sweep ( deg ) 45 55 55 55
Static margin at launch ( diam ) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Propellant density ( lb / in
3
) 0.065 0.084 0.084 0.084
Motor volumetric efficiency 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.84
Measures of Merit
Total weight ( lb ) 500 385.9 395.0 390.1
Miss distance ( ft ) 62.3 63.1 16.2 16.6
Time to target ( s ) 21.6 23.8 23.6 23.8
Length ( in ) 144 112.7 114.7 114.9
Mach No. at burnout 2.20 2.08 2.09 2.07
Weight of propellant ( lb ) 133 78.3 85.4 85.9
Wing area ( in
2
) 368.6 175.5 150.7 173.8
Tail area ( in
2
) 221.8 109.1 134.5 112.0
Parameter Baseline Value Weight Miss Distance Harmonized
Missile Configured for
Minimum:
*Note: Value of driving parameter
2/24/2008 ELF 316
Baseline Missile vs Harmonized Missile
Baseline Missile vs Harmonized Missile
144”
57°
45°
Propellant Density
( lb / in
3
);
0.065
0.084
50°
55°
115”
Nose
Fineness;
2.4
2.6
Surfaces; {
4 wings / 4 tails
2 wings / 3 tails
Weight ( lb ); 500
390
2/24/2008 ELF 317
Sizing Examples
Sizing Examples
4 Rocket Baseline Missile
4 Standoff range requirement
4 Wing sizing requirement
4 Multi-parameter harmonization
4 Lofted range comparison
4 Ramjet Baseline Missile
4 Range robustness
4 Propulsion and fuel alternatives
4 Velocity control
4 Computer Aided Conceptual Design Sizing Tools
4 Soda Straw Rocket Design, Build, and Fly
2/24/2008 ELF 318
Lofted Glide Trajectory Provides Extended Range
Lofted Glide Trajectory Provides Extended Range
4 Using Rocket Baseline, Compare
4 Lofted Launch-Coast-Glide Trajectory
4 Lofted Launch-Ballistic Trajectory
4 Constant Altitude Trajectory
4 Assume for Lofted Launch-Coast-Glide Trajectory:
4 γ
i
= 45 deg
4 γ = 45 deg during boost and sustain
4 γ = 45 deg coast
4 Switch to ( L / D )
max
glide at optimum altitude
4 ( L / D )
maxg
glide trajectory after apogee
4 h
i
= h
f
= 0 ft
4 Velocity, Horizontal Range, and Altitude During Initial Boost @ γ = 45 deg
ΔV = - g
c
I
SP
[ 1 – ( D
AVG
/ T ) - ( W
AVG
sin γ ) / T ] ln ( 1 - W
p
/ W
i
) = -32.2 ( 250 ) [ 1 - ( 419 /
5750 ) – 458 ( 0.707 ) / 5750 ] ln ( 1 - 84.8 / 500 ) = 1,303 ft / s
ΔR = ( V
i
+ ΔV / 2 ) t
B
= ( 0 + 1303 / 2 ) 3.69 = 2,404 ft
ΔR
x
= ΔR cos γ
i
= 2404 ( 0.707 ) = 1,700 ft
ΔR
y
= ΔR sin γ
i
= 2404 ( 0.707 ) = 1,700 ft
h = h
i
+ ΔR
y
= 0 + 1700 = 1,700 ft
2/24/2008 ELF 319
Lofted Glide Trajectory Provides Extended
Range ( cont )
Lofted Glide Trajectory Provides Extended
Range ( cont )
4 Velocity, Horizontal Range, and Altitude During Sustain @ γ = 45 deg
ΔV = - g
c
I
SP
[ 1 – ( D
AVG
/ T ) – ( W
AVG
sin γ ) / T ] ln ( 1 - W
p
/ W
i
) = -32.2 ( 230.4 ) [ 1 – ( 650 /
1018 ) – 391 ( 0.707 ) / 1018 ] ln ( 1 - 48.2 / 415.2 ) = 81 ft / sec
V
BO
= 1303 + 81 = 1,384 ft / s
ΔR = ( V
i
+ ΔV / 2 ) t
B
= ( 1303 + 81 / 2 ) 10.86 = 14,590 ft
ΔR
x
= ΔR cos γ
i
= 14590 ( 0.707 ) = 10,315 ft
ΔR
y
= ΔR sin γ
i
= 14,590 ( 0.707 ) = 10,315 ft
h = h
i
+ ΔR
y
= 1700 + 10315 = 12,015 ft
4 Velocity, Horizontal Range, and Altitude During Coast @ γ = 45 deg to h
@( L / D )max
V
coast
= V
i
{ 1 – [( g
c
sin γ ) / V
i
] t } / { 1 + {[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
i
] / ( 2 W )} t } = 1384 { 1 –
[( 32.2 ( 0.707 )) / 1384 ] 21 } / { 1 + {[ 32.2 ( 0.001338 ) ( 0.349 ) ( 0.7 ) ( 1384 )] / ( 2 ( 367 ))}
21 } = 674 ft / s
R
coast
= { 2 W / [ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
)]} ln { 1 – [ g
c
2
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
/ ( 2 W )] [ sin γ ] t
2
+
{[ g
c
ρ
AVG
S
Ref
( C
D
0
)
AVG
V
i
] / ( 2 W )} t } = { 2 ( 367 ) / [ 32.2 ( 0.001338 ) ( 0.349 ) ( 0.7 )] ln
{ 1 – [ (32.2)
2
( 0.001338 ) ( 0.349 ) ( 0.7 ) / (( 2 ( 367 ))] [ 0.707 ] ( 21 )
2
+ {[ 32.2 ( 0.001338 )
( 0.349 ) ( 0.7 ) ( 1384 )] / ( 2 ( 367 ))} 21 } = 17148 ft
( R
x
)
coast
= ( R
y
)
coast
= R
coast
sinγ = 17148 ( 0.707 ) = 12124 ft
2/24/2008 ELF 320
Lofted Glide Trajectory Provides Extended Range
( cont )
Lofted Glide Trajectory Provides Extended Range
( cont )
4 Flight Conditions At End-of-Coast Are:
4 t = 35 s
4 V = 674 ft / s
4 h = 24,189 ft
4 q = 251 psf
4 M = 0.66
4 ( L / D )
max
= 5.22
4 α
( L / D )
max
= 5.5 deg
4 Initiate α = α
( L / D )
max
= 5.5 deg at h = 24,189 ft
4 Incremental Horizontal Range During ( L / D )
max
Glide Is
4 ΔR
x
= ( L / D ) Δh = 5.22 ( 24189 ) = 126,267 ft
4 Total Horizontal Range for Elevated Launch-Coast-Glide Trajectory Is
4 R
x
= ΣΔR
x
= ΔR
x,Boost
+ ΔR
x,Sustain
+ ΔR
x,Coast
+ ΔR
x,Glide
= 1700 + 10315 + 12124 + 126267 =
150406 ft = 24.8 nm
2/24/2008 ELF 321
Lofted Glide Trajectory Provides Extended
Range ( cont )
Lofted Glide Trajectory Provides Extended
Range ( cont )
0
10
20
30
0 10 20 30
R, Range, nm
h
,

A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
,

k

f
t
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
®
z
²
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
G
l
i
d
e

@

(

L

/

D

)
m
a
x
z „ Ä
Co-altitude
Note: Rocket Baseline
z End of boost
„ End of sustain
ÈLofted ballistic apogee, t = 35 s, V = 667 ft / s, h = 21,590 ft
ÊLofted coast apogee, t = 35 s, V = 674 ft / s, h = 24,189 ft
®Lofted ballistic impact, t = 68 s, γ = - 71 deg, V = 1368 ft / s
²Lofted glide impact, t = 298 s, γ = - 10.8 deg, V = 459 ft / s
Ä Co-altitude flight impact, t = 115 s, V = 500 ft / s
È
Ø
„
C
o
a
s
t

@

γ
=

4
5

d
e
g
2/24/2008 ELF 322
Sizing Examples
Sizing Examples
4 Rocket Baseline Missile
4 Standoff range requirement
4 Wing sizing requirement
4 Multi-parameter harmonization
4 Lofted range comparison
4 Ramjet Baseline Missile
4 Range robustness
4 Propulsion and fuel alternatives
4 Velocity control
4 Computer Aided Conceptual Design Sizing Tools
4 Soda Straw Rocket Design, Build, and Fly
2/24/2008 ELF 323
Ramjet Baseline Is a Chin Inlet Integral Rocket
Ramjet ( IRR )
Ramjet Baseline Is a Chin Inlet Integral Rocket
Ramjet ( IRR )
Source: Bithell, R.A. and Stoner, R.C. “Rapid Approach for Missile Synthesis”, Vol. II, Air-breathing
Synthesis Handbook, AFWAL TR 81-3022, Vol. II, March 1982.
Sta 0.
Guidance
Warhead
Ramjet Fuel
Boost Propellant
Booster, and
Ramjet Engine
Boost Nozzle
Tail Cone Aft-body Mid-body Payload Bay Forebody
23.5 43.5 76.5 126.0
159.0 171.0
Sta 150.3
11.6
11.5
16.5
37°
Note: Dimensions are in inches
Chin
Inlet
Transport Air Duct
20.375 dia
Nose
2/24/2008 ELF 324
Component Weight, lb CG Sta, in
Nose 15.9 15.7
Forebody Structure 42.4 33.5
Guidance 129.0 33.5
Payload Bay Structure 64.5 60.0
Warhead 510.0 60.0
Midbody Structure 95.2 101.2
Inlet 103.0 80.0
Electrical 30.0 112.0
Hydraulic System for Control Actuation 20.0 121.0
Fuel Distribution 5.0 121.0
Aftbody Structure 44.5 142.5
Engine 33.5 142.5
Tailcone Structure 31.6 165.0
Ramjet Nozzle 31.0 165.0
Flight Control Actuators 37.0 164.0
Fins ( 4 ) 70.0 157.2
End of Cruise 1,262.6 81.8
Ramjet Fuel ( 11900 in
3
) 476.0 87.0
Start of Cruise 1,738.6 83.2
Boost Nozzle ( Ejected ) 31.0 164.0
Frangible Port 11.5 126.0
End of Boost 1,781.1 84.9
Boost Propellant 449.0 142.5
Booster Ignition 2,230.1 96.5
Mass Properties of Ramjet Baseline Missile
Mass Properties of Ramjet Baseline Missile
2/24/2008 ELF 325
Ramjet Baseline Missile Definition
Ramjet Baseline Missile Definition
Inlet
Type Mixed compression
Material Titanium
Conical forebody half angle, deg 17.7
Ramp wedge angle, deg 8.36
Cowl angle, deg 8.24
Internal contraction ratio 12.2 Percent
Capture area, ft
2
0.79
Throat area, ft
2
0.29
Body
Dome Material Silicon nitride
Airframe Material Titanium
Combustor Material Insulated Inconel
Length, in 171.0
Diameter, in 20.375
Fineness ratio 8.39
Volume, ft
3
28.33
Wetted area, ft
2
68.81
Base area, ft
2
( cruise ) 0.58
Boattail fineness ratio N/A
Nose half angle, deg 17.7
Nose length, in 23.5
2/24/2008 ELF 326
Ramjet Baseline Missile Definition ( cont )
Ramjet Baseline Missile Definition ( cont )
Tail ( Exposed )
Material Titanium
Planform area ( 2 panels ), ft
2
2.24
Wetted area ( 4 panels ), ft
2
8.96
Aspect ratio ( 2 panels exposed ) 1.64
Taper ratio 0.70
Root chord, in 16.5
Span, in. ( 2 panels exposed ) 23.0
Leading edge sweep, deg 37.0
Mean aerodynamic chord, in 14.2
Thickness ratio 0.04
Section type Modified double wedge
Section leading edge total angle, deg 9.1
x
mac
, in 150.3
y
mac
, in ( from root chord ) 5.4
Reference values
Reference area, ft
2
2.264
Reference length, ft 1.698
2/24/2008 ELF 327
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Subscripts
0 Free stream flow into inlet ( Example, Ramjet Baseline at Mach 4, α = 0 deg ⇒A
0
= 104 in
2
. Note: A
C
= 114 in
2
)
1 Inlet throat ( Ramjet Baseline A
1
= A
IT
= 41.9 in
2
)
2 Diffuser exit ( Ramjet Baseline A
2
= 77.3 in
2
)
3 Flame holder plane ( Ramjet Baseline A
3
= 287.1 in
2
)
4 Combustor exit ( Ramjet Baseline A
4
= 287.1 in
2
)
5 Nozzle throat ( Ramjet Baseline A
5
= 103.1 in
2
)
6 Nozzle exit ( Ramjet Baseline A
6
= 233.6 in
2
)
Ref Reference Area ( Ramjet Baseline Body Cross-sectional Area, S
Ref
= 326 in
2
)
A
c
= Inlet capture area
S
Ref
= Reference area
Engine Nomenclature and Flowpath Geometry for
Ramjet Baseline
Engine Nomenclature and Flowpath Geometry for
Ramjet Baseline
Ramjet Engine Station Identification
( C
D
0
)
Nose Corrected
= ( C
D
0
)
Nose Uncorrected
x ( 1 - A
c
/ S
REF
)
120°
A
c
= 114 in
2
20.375 in
S
Ref
2/24/2008 ELF 328
N
o
r
m
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

C
N
α, Angle of Attack ~ deg
0 4 8 12 16
Mach
1.2
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
.40
.30
.20
.10
0
A
x
i
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

C
A
0 4 8 12 16
Mach
1.2
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
S
Ref
= 2.264 ft
2
l
Ref
= d
Ref
= 1.698 ft
X
cg
@ Sta 82.5 in
δ = 0 deg
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
α, Angle of Attack ~ deg
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Ramjet Baseline
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Ramjet Baseline
Source: Reference 27, based on year 1974 computer program from Reference 32.
2/24/2008 ELF 329
+ .4
0
-.4
-.8
-1.2
-1.6
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Ramjet Baseline
( cont )
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Ramjet Baseline
( cont )
P
i
t
c
h
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

C
m
α, Angle of Attack ~ deg
0 4 8 12 16
Mach
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.2
S
Ref
= 2.264 ft
2
l
Ref
= d
Ref
= 1.698 ft
X
cg
@ Sta 82.5 in
δ = 0 deg
Source: Reference 27, based on year 1974 computer program from Reference 32.
2/24/2008 ELF 330
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Ramjet Baseline
( cont )
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Ramjet Baseline
( cont )
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
C
D
0
M, Mach Number
0 1 2 3 4
C
N
δ
~

p
e
r

d
e
g
0 1
2 3 4
C
m
δ
~

p
e
r

d
e
g
.10
.05
0
S
Ref
= 2.264 ft
2
l
Ref
= d
Ref
= 1.698 ft
X
cg
@ Sta 82.5 in
δ= 0 deg
α = 0 deg.
M, Mach Number
-.4
0
-.2
Source: Reference 27, based on year 1974 computer program from
Reference 32.
2/24/2008 ELF 331
100
1000
10000
100000
0 1 2 3 4
M, Mach Number
T
m
a
x
,

M
a
x

T
h
r
u
s
t
,

l
b
h = Sea Level
h = 20k ft
h = 40k ft
h = 60k ft
h = 80k ft
Thrust Modeling of Ramjet Baseline
Thrust Modeling of Ramjet Baseline
Note:
Standard atmosphere
T = T
max
ϕ
φ = 1 if stochiometric ( f / a = 0.0667 )
α = 0 deg
Example: M = 3.5, h = 60k ft, ϕ
= 1 ⇒Max Thrust = 1,750 lb
Figure based on Reference 27 prediction
2/24/2008 ELF 332
Specific Impulse Modeling of Ramjet Baseline
Specific Impulse Modeling of Ramjet Baseline










M, Mach Number
I
S
P
,

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

I
m
p
u
l
s
e
,

s
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4
Note:
Standard atmosphere
ϕ ≤ 1
I
SP
based on Reference 27 computer prediction.
Example: M = 3.5 ⇒I
SP
= 1,120 s
2/24/2008 ELF 333
Rocket Booster Acceleration / Performance of
Ramjet Baseline
Rocket Booster Acceleration / Performance of
Ramjet Baseline
30
20
10
0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
B
o
o
s
t

T
h
r
u
s
t

~

1
0
0
0

l
b
Time ~ s
5.0 6.0
( I
SP
)
Booster
= 250 s
3.0
2.5
2.0
B
u
r
n
o
u
t

M
a
c
h

N
u
m
b
e
r
h, Altitude 1,000 ft
2.0
1.0
0
Standard atmosphere
M
L
= 0.80
Constant altitude flyout
B
o
o
s
t

R
a
n
g
e

~

n
m
0 20 40 60
0 20 40 60 80
h, Altitude 1,000 ft
2/24/2008 ELF 334
Ramjet Baseline Has Best Performance at High
Altitude
Ramjet Baseline Has Best Performance at High
Altitude
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4
R
a
n
g
e

~

n
m
M, Mach Number
h = SL
20,000 ft
40,000 ft
60,000 ft
Example, Mach 3 / 60k ft flyout ⇒445 nm. Breguet Range Prediction is R = V I
SP
( L / D ) ln [ W
BC
/ ( W
BC
- W
f
)] = 2901 ( 1040 )
( 3.15 ) ln ( 1739 / ( 1739 - 476 )) = 3,039,469 ft or 500 nm. Predicted range is 10% greater than baseline missile data.
Note: M
L
= 0.8, Constant Altitude Fly-out
2/24/2008 ELF 335
From Paredo Sensitivity, Ramjet Baseline Range
Driven by I
SP
, Fuel Weight, Thrust, and C
D
0
From Paredo Sensitivity, Ramjet Baseline Range
Driven by I
SP
, Fuel Weight, Thrust, and C
D
0
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
ISP Fuel
Weight
Thrust CD0, Zero-
Lift Drag
Coefficient
CLA, Lift-
Curve-
Slope
Coefficient
Inert
Weight
Parameter
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

R
a
n
g
e

S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y

t
o

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Sea Level Flyout at Mach 2.3 20k ft Flyout at Mach 2.5
40k ft Flyout at Mach 2.8 60k ft Flyout at Mach 3.0
Example: At Mach 3.0 / 60k ft altitude
cruise, 10% increase in fuel weight
⇒9.6% increase in flight range
2/24/2008 ELF 336
Ramjet Baseline Flight Range Uncertainty Is +/- 7%, 1 σ
Ramjet Baseline Flight Range Uncertainty Is +/- 7%, 1 σ
Parameter Baseline Value at Mach 3.0 / 60k ft

Uncertainty in Parameter ΔR / R from Uncertainty
1. Specific Impulse 1040 s +/- 5%, 1σ +/- 5%, 1σ
2. Ramjet Fuel Weight 476 lb +/- 1%, 1σ +/- 0.9%, 1σ
3. Cruise Thrust ( φ = 0.39 ) 458 lb +/- 5%, 1σ +/- 2%, 1σ
4. Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient 0.17 +/- 5%, 1σ +/- 4%, 1σ
5. Lift Curve Slope Coefficient 0.13 / deg +/- 3%, 1σ +/- 1%, 1σ
6. inert Weight 1205 lb +/- 2%, 1σ +/- 0.8%, 1σ
4Level of Maturity Based on Flight Demo of Prototype, Subsystem Tests, and Integration
4Wind tunnel tests
4Direct connect, freejet, and booster firing propulsion tests
4Structure test
4Mock-up
4Hardware-in-loop simulation
4Flight Test
4Total Flight Range Uncertainty at Mach 3.0 / 60k ft Flyout
4ΔR / R = [ (ΔR / R )
1
2
+ (ΔR / R )
2
2
+ (ΔR / R )
3
2
+ (ΔR / R )
4
2
+ (ΔR / R )
5
2
+ (ΔR / R )
6
2
]
1/2
= +/- 6.9%, 1σ
4R = 445 nm +/- 31 nm, 1σ
2/24/2008 ELF 337
Sizing Examples
Sizing Examples
4 Rocket Baseline Missile
4 Standoff range requirement
4 Wing sizing requirement
4 Multi-parameter harmonization
4 Lofted range comparison
4 Ramjet Baseline Missile
4 Range robustness
4 Propulsion and fuel alternatives
4 Velocity control
4 Computer Aided Conceptual Design Sizing Tools
4 Soda Straw Rocket Design, Build, and Fly
2/24/2008 ELF 338
Slurry Fuel and Efficient Packaging Provide
Extended Range Ramjet
Slurry Fuel and Efficient Packaging Provide
Extended Range Ramjet
Propulsion / Configuration



Fuel Type / Volumetric
Performance (BTU / in3) /
Density (lb / in3)
Fuel Volume (in3) /
Fuel Weight (lb)
ISP (s) / Cruise
Range at Mach 3.5,
60k ft (nm)
Liquid Fuel Ramjet



RJ-5 / 581 / 0.040 11900 / 476 1120 / 390
Ducted Rocket ( Low Smoke )



Solid Hydrocarbon / 1132 /
0.075
7922 / 594 677 / 294
Ducted Rocket ( High
Performance )


Boron / 2040 / 0.082 7922 / 649 769 / 366
Solid Fuel Ramjet



Boron / 2040 / 0.082 7056 / 579 1170 / 496
Slurry Fuel Ramjet 40% JP-10, 60% boron
carbide / 1191 / 0.050
11900 / 595 1835 / 770

Note: Flow Path Available Fuel R
cruise
= V I
SP
( L / D ) ln [ W
BC
/ ( W
BC
- W
f
)]
2/24/2008 ELF 339
Sizing Examples
Sizing Examples
4 Rocket Baseline Missile
4 Standoff range requirement
4 Wing sizing requirement
4 Multi-parameter harmonization
4 Lofted range comparison
4 Ramjet Baseline Missile
4 Range robustness
4 Propulsion and fuel alternatives
4 Velocity control
4 Computer Aided Conceptual Design Sizing Tools
4 Soda Straw Rocket, Design, Build, and Fly
2/24/2008 ELF 340
Example of Ramjet Velocity Control Through Fuel
Control
Example of Ramjet Velocity Control Through Fuel
Control
0.1
1
10
0 1 2 3 4
Mi, Impact Mach Number at Sea Level
Ramjet Baseline
Equivalence Ratio
Ramjet Baseline Fuel
Flow Rate, lb / s
T
W
D
Note: Ramjet baseline, vertical impact at sea level, steady state velocity at impact, T = thrust, W = weight, D = drag,
W
BO
= burnout weight, C
D
0
= zero-lift drag coefficient, M
i
= impact Mach number, T
required
= required thrust for steady
state flight, w
f
.
= fuel flow rate, I
SP
= specific impulse, φ = equivalence ratio ( φ = 1 stochiometric )
Example for Ramjet Baseline:
M
i
= 4, h = sea level, T
0
= 519R
T + W - D = 0
W = W
BO
= 1263 lb
D = C
D
0
q S
Ref
= 3353 C
D
0
M
I
2
= 3353 ( 0.14 )
( 4 )
2
= 7511 lb
T
required
= D - W = 7511 - 1263 = 6248 lb
w
f
.
= T / I
SP
= 6248 / 1000 = 6.25 lb / s
φ = T
required
/ T
φ = 1
= 6248 / 25000 = 0.25
Note: Excess air provides cooling of
combustor
2/24/2008 ELF 341
Sizing Examples
Sizing Examples
4 Rocket Baseline Missile
4 Standoff range requirement
4 Wing sizing requirement
4 Multi-parameter harmonization
4 Lofted range comparison
4 Ramjet Baseline Missile
4 Range robustness
4 Propulsion and fuel alternatives
4 Surface impact velocity
4 Computer Aided Conceptual Design Sizing Tools
4 Soda Straw Rocket Design, Build, and Fly
2/24/2008 ELF 342
Computer Sizing Code Should Have Fast
Turnaround and Be Easy to Use
Computer Sizing Code Should Have Fast
Turnaround and Be Easy to Use
4 Objective of Conceptual Design
4 Search Broad Solution Space
4 Iterate to Design Convergence
4 Characteristics of Good Conceptual Design Sizing Code
4 Fast Turnaround Time
4 Easy to Use
4 Directly Connect Predictions of Aeromechanics and Physical
Parameters to Trajectory Code
4 Simple, Physics Based Methods
4 Includes Most Important, Driving Parameters
4 Provides Insight into Relationships of Design Parameters
4 Stable Computation
4 Imbedded Baseline Missile Data
4 Human Designer Makes the Creative Decisions
2/24/2008 ELF 343
Example of DOS-Based Conceptual Sizing
Computer Code – ADAM
Example of DOS-Based Conceptual Sizing
Computer Code – ADAM
4 Conceptual Sizing Computer Program
4 Advanced Design of Aerodynamic Missiles ( ADAM )
4 PC compatible
4 Written in DOS
4 Aerodynamic Module Based on NACA 1307 Calculates
4 Static and dynamic stability derivatives
4 Control effectiveness and trim conditions
4 3, 4, 5, and 6-DOF Simulation Modules
4 Proportional guidance
4 Input provided automatically by aerodynamic module
4 Configurations Benchmarked with Wind Tunnel Data
4 Greater than 50 Input Parameters Available
4 Defaults to benchmark configuration ( s )
2/24/2008 ELF 344
Example of Spreadsheet Based Conceptual
Sizing Computer Code - TMD Spreadsheet
Example of Spreadsheet Based Conceptual
Sizing Computer Code - TMD Spreadsheet
4 Conceptual Sizing Computer Code
4 Tactical Missile Design ( TMD ) Spreadsheet
4 PC compatible
4 Windows Excel spreadsheet
4 Based on Tactical Missile Design Short Course and Textbook
4 Aerodynamics
4 Propulsion
4 Weight
4 Flight trajectory
4 Measures of merit
2/24/2008 ELF 345
Example of Spreadsheet Based Conceptual
Sizing Computer Code, TMD Spreadsheet
Example of Spreadsheet Based Conceptual
Sizing Computer Code, TMD Spreadsheet
Define Mission Requirements [ Flight Performance ( R
Max
, R
Min
, V
AVG
) , MOM, Constraints ]
Establish Baseline ( Rocket , Ramjet )
Aerodynamics Input ( d, l, l
N
, A, c, t, x
cg
)
Aerodynamics Output [ C
D
0
, C
N
, x
ac
, C
m
δ
, L / D, S
T
]
Propulsion Input ( p
c
, ε, c*, A
b
, A
t
, A
0
, H
f
, ϕ, T
4
, Inlet Type )
Propulsion Output [ I
sp
, T
cruise
, p
t
2
/ p
t
0
, w
.
, T
boost
, T
sustain
, ΔV
Boost
]
Weight Input ( W
L
, W
P
, ρ, σ
max
)
Weight Output [ W
L
, W
P
, h, dT / dt, T, t, σ
buckling
, M
B
, σ, W
subsystems
, x
cg
, I
y
]
Trajectory Input ( h
i
, V
i
, Type ( cruise, boost, coast, ballistic, turn, glide )
Trajectory Output ( R, h, V, and γ versus time )
Meet
Performance?
Measures of Merit and Constraints
No [ p
Blast
, P
K
, n
Hit
,
V
fragments
, P
KE
,
KE
Warhead
, τ
Total
,
σ
HE
, σ
MAN
, R
detect
,
C
SDD
, C
1000th
, C
unit x
]
No [ R
Max
, R
Min
, V
AVG
]
Yes
Yes
Alt Mission
Alt Baseline
Resize / Alt Config /
Subsystems / Tech
2/24/2008 ELF 346
Example of TMD Spreadsheet Sizing Code
Verification: Air-to-Air Range Requirement
Example of TMD Spreadsheet Sizing Code
Verification: Air-to-Air Range Requirement
4 Example Launch Conditions
4 h
L
= 20k ft
4 M
L
= 0.8
4 Example Requirement
4 R
F
= 6.7 nm with t
f
< 24.4 s
4 Solutions for Rocket Baseline
4 ADAM: R
F
= 6.7 nm at t
f
= 18 s
4 TMD Spreadsheet: R
F
= 6.7 nm at t
f
= 19 s
4 3 DOF using wind tunnel aero data: R
F
= 6.7 nm at t
f
= 21 s
4 Differences in Flight Time to 6.7 nm Mostly Due to Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient.
For Example:
4 ADAM prediction at Mach 2.0: ( C
D
0
)
coast
= 0.53
4 TMD Spreadsheet prediction at Mach 2.0: ( C
D
0
)
coast
= 0.57
4 Wind tunnel aero data at Mach 2.0: ( C
D
0
)
coast
= 1.05
4 Wind Tunnel Data / Baseline Missile Data Correction Required to Reduce
Uncertainty in C
D
0
2/24/2008 ELF 347
Sizing Examples
Sizing Examples
4 Rocket Baseline Missile
4 Standoff range requirement
4 Wing sizing requirement
4 Multi-parameter harmonization
4 Lofted range comparison
4 Ramjet Baseline Missile
4 Range robustness
4 Propulsion and fuel alternatives
4 Surface impact velocity
4 Computer Aided Conceptual Design Sizing Tools
4 Soda Straw Rocket Design, Build, and Fly
2/24/2008 ELF 348
Example of Design, Build, and Fly Customer
Requirements
Example of Design, Build, and Fly Customer
Requirements
4 Objective – Design, Build, and Fly Soda Straw Rocket with:
4 Flight Range Greater Than 90 ft
4 Weight Less Than 2 g
4 Furnished Property
4 Launch System
4 Distance Measuring Wheel
4 Weight Scale
4 Micrometer Scale
4 Engineer’s Scale
4 Scissors
4 Furnished Material
4 1 “Giant” Soda Straw: 0.28 in Diameter by 7.75 in Length, Weight = 0.6 g
4 1 Strip Tabbing: ½ in by 6 in, Weight = 1.4 g
4 1 Ear Plug: 0.33 – 0.45 in Diameter by 0.90 in Length, Weight = 0.6 g
4 1 “Super Jumbo” Soda Straw: 0.25 in Diameter by 7.75 in Length
2/24/2008 ELF 349
Example of Design, Build, and Fly Customer
Requirements ( cont )
Example of Design, Build, and Fly Customer
Requirements ( cont )
4 Furnished Property Launch System with Specified Launch Conditions
4 Launch Tube Diameter: 0.25 in
4 Launch Tube Length ( e.g., 6 in )
4 Launch Pressure ( e.g., 30 psi )
4 Launch Elevation Angle ( e.g., 40 deg )
4 Predict Flight Trajectory Range and Compare with Test
2/24/2008 ELF 350
Soda Straw Rocket Launcher and Targeting
Soda Straw Rocket Launcher and Targeting
9. Rocket on Launcher
8. Launch Tube
7. Inclinometer
6b. Manual Valve
Launcher ( 0.1 s
average response )
6a. Solenoid Valve
Launcher ( 0.025 s
average response )
5. Launch Switch
4. Pressure Gauge
3. Air Hose
2. Pressure Tank
1. Pump
11. Rockets with Various Length, Tail Geometry, Nose Geometry, and Other Surfaces
10. Laser Pointer Targeting Device
2/24/2008 ELF 351
It Is Easy to Make a Soda Straw Rocket
It Is Easy to Make a Soda Straw Rocket
1. Cut Large Diameter “Giant” Soda Straw to Desired
Length
3. Slide Ear Plug Inside Soda Straw
5. Apply Adhesive Tabs to Soda Straw
4. Cut Adhesive Tabs to Desired Height and Width of Surfaces
7. Slide Giant Soda Straw Rocket Over Smaller
Diameter “Super Jumbo” Soda Straw Launch Tube
2. Twist and Squeeze Ear Plug to Fit Inside Soda
Straw
6. Wrap Front of Ear Plug and Straw with Tape
2/24/2008 ELF 352
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Configuration
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Configuration
l l
c c
= 6.0 in = 6.0 in
l = 7.0 in l = 7.0 in
Ear Plug Soda Straw Strip Tabbing
0.28 in
0.25 in
0.5 in
2/24/2008 ELF 353
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Weight and Balance
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Weight and Balance
Component Weight, g cg Station, in
Nose ( Plug ) 0.6 0.5
Body ( Soda Straw ) 0.5 3.5
Fins( Four ) 0.5 6.75
Total 1.6 3.39
2/24/2008 ELF 354
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Definition
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Definition
Body
Material Type HDPE Plastic
Material density, lb / in
3
0.043
Material strength, psi 4,600
Thickness, in 0.004
Length, in 7.0
Diameter, in 0.28
Fineness ratio 25.0
Nose fineness ratio 0.5
Fins
Material Plastic
Planform area, in
2
( 2 panels exposed ) 0.25
Wetted area, in
2
( 4 panels ) 1.00
Aspect ratio ( 2 panels exposed ) 1.00
Taper ratio 1.0
Chord, in 0.5
Span ( exposed ), in 0.5
Span ( total including body ), in 0.78
Leading edge sweep, deg 0
x
mac
, in 6.625
2/24/2008 ELF 355
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Definition ( cont )
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Definition ( cont )
Nose
Material Type Foam
Material density, lb / in
3
0.012
Average diameter 0.39 in
Length 0.90 in
Reference Values
Reference area, in
2
0.0616
Reference length, in 0.28
Thrust Performance
Inside cavity length, in 6.0
Typical Pressure, psi 30
Maximum thrust @ 30 psi pressure, lb 1.47
Time constant, s ( standard temperature ) 0.025
2/24/2008 ELF 356
4For body-tail geometry, static margin given by
4( x
AC
– x
CG
) / d = - {( C
N
α
)
B
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
B
] / d } + ( C
N
α
)
T
{[ x
CG
– ( x
AC
)
T
] / d }( S
T
/
S
Ref
)} / [( C
N
α
)
B
+ ( C
N
α
)
T
S
T
/ S
Ref
]
4For baseline soda straw configuration
4x
CG
= 3.39 in, d = 0.28 in, ( C
N
α
)
B
= 2 per rad, S
T
= 0.25 in
2
, S
Ref
= 0.0616 in
2
4( x
AC
)
B
= [( x
AC
)
B
/ l
N
] l
N
= 0.63 ( 0.14 ) = 0.09 in
4( C
N
α
)
T
= π A
T
/ 2 = π ( 1 ) / 2 = 1.57
4( x
AC
)
T
= 6.5 + 0.25 ( c
mac
)
T
= 6.63
4Substituting
4( x
AC
- x
CG
) / d = - { 2 ( 3.39 – 0.09 ) / 0.28 + [ 1.57 ( 3.39 – 6.63 ) / 0.28 ] [( 0.25 ) /
0.0616 ]} / [ 2 + 1.57 ( 0.25 ) / 0.0616 ] = 6.00 ( statically stable )
4x
AC
= 6.00 ( 0.28 ) + 3.39 = 5.07 in from nose
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Static Margin
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Static Margin
( ( x x
AC
)
T
l
( x
AC
)
B
x x
AC AC
x x
CG CG
d
2/24/2008 ELF 357
Soda Straw Rocket Has High Acceleration Boost
Performance
Soda Straw Rocket Has High Acceleration Boost
Performance
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2 4 6 8 10
s, Distance Traveled During Launch, Inches
V
,

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

f
p
s
pgauge = 15 psi pgauge = 30 psi
pgauge = 60 psi
T = ( p – p
0
) A = p
gauge
( 1 – e
– t / τ
) A
a ≈ 32.2 T / W, V = ∫ a dt, s = ∫ V dt
Thrust ( T ) from Pressurized Tube of Area A
T = ( p – p
0
) A = p
gauge
( 1 – e
– t / τ
) A
A = ( π / 4 ) ( 0.25 )
2
= 0.0491 in
2
, τ = Valve Rise Time
Example:
Assume p
gauge
= 30 psi, l
t
= 6 in, τ = 0.025 s ( Average
for Solenoid Valve ), s = l
c
= 6 in
Thrust Equation Is:
T = 30 ( 1 - e
– t / 0.025
) ( 0.0491 ) = 1.4726 ( 1 - e
– 40.00 t
)
Note: Actual Boost Thrust Lower ( Pressure Loss,
Boundary Layer, Launch Tube Leakage, Launch
Tube Friction )
Equations for Acceleration ( a ), Velocity ( V ), and
Distance ( s ) During Boost Are:
a ≈ 32.2 T / W = 32.2 ( 1.4726 ) ( 1 - e
– 40.00 t
) / 0.00352
= 13471.1 ( 1 - e
– 40.00 t
)
V = ∫ a dt = 13471.1 t + 336.78 e
– 40.00 t
– 336.78
s = ∫ V dt = 6735.57 t
2
– 8.419 e
– 40.00 t
– 336.78 t +
8.419
End of Boost Conditions Are:
s = l
c
= 6 in = 0.500 ft ⇒t = 0.0188 s
a = 7123 ft / s
2
= 221 g
V = 75.2 ft / s
q = ½ ρ V
2
= ½ ( 0.002378 ) ( 75.2 )
2
= 6.72 psf
M = V / c = 75.2 / 1116 = 0.0674
Note: Time Tics
Every 0.01 s
2/24/2008 ELF 358
Most of the Soda Straw Rocket Drag Coefficient
Is from Body Skin Friction
Most of the Soda Straw Rocket Drag Coefficient
Is from Body Skin Friction
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
ST / SRef, Tail Planform Area / Reference Area
C
D
0
,

Z
e
r
o
-
L
i
f
t

D
r
a
g

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
V = 40 fps V = 80 fps
Example: V = 75.2 fps, S
T
= 0.00174 ft
2
, S
Ref
=
0.000428 ft
2
⇒S
T
/ S
Ref
= 4.07
Compute:
C
D
0
= 0.053 ( 25.0 ){ 0.0674 / [( 6.72 ) ( 0. 583 )]}
0.2
+
0.12 + 2 { 0.0133 { 0.0674 / [( 6.72 ) ( 0.0417 )]}
0.2
}[ 2
( 4.07 )] = 0.58 + 0.12 + 0.16 = 0.86
Note:
• Above Drag Coefficient Not Exact
• Based on Assumption of Turbulent Boundary
Layer
• Soda Straw Rocket Small Size and Low Velocity ⇒
Laminar Boundary Layer ⇒Large Boundary Layer
Thickness on Aft Body at Tails
Compute Drag Force:
D
max
= C
D
q
max
S
Ref
= 0.86 ( 6.72 ) ( 0.000428 ) =
0.00247 lb
Compare Drag Force to Weight:
D
max
/ W = 0.00247 / 0.00352 = 0.70
Note: Drag Force Smaller Than Weight
C
D
0
= ( C
D
0
)
Body,Friction
+ ( C
D
0
)
Base,Coast
+ ( C
D
0
)
Tail,Friction
= 0.053 ( l / d ) [ M / ( q l )]
0.2
+ 0.12 + n
T
{ 0.0133 [ M / ( q c
mac
)]
0.2
} ( 2 S
T
/ S
Ref
)
2/24/2008 ELF 359
0
10
20
30
40
0 20 40 60 80 100
Rx, Horizontal Range, ft
h

-

h
i
,

H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

I
n
i
t
i
a
l

L
a
u
n
c
h
H
e
i
g
h
t
,

f
t
Gamma = 10 Deg Gamma = 30 Deg Gamma = 50 Deg
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Has a Ballistic Flight
Range Greater Than 90 Feet
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Has a Ballistic Flight
Range Greater Than 90 Feet
R
x
= { 2 W cos γ
i
/ [ g
c
ρ S
Ref
C
D
0
]} ln { 1 + t / { 2
W / [ g
c
ρ S
Ref
C
D
0
V
i
]}}
h = { 2 W sin γ
i
/ [ g
c
ρ S
Ref
C
D
0
]} ln { 1 + t / { 2
W / [ g
c
ρ S
Ref
C
D
0
V
i
]}} + h
i
- g
c
t
2
/ 2
Note: Time Tics
every 0.5 s
Example, Assume l
t
= 6 in, p
gauge
= 30 psi, γ
i
= 30 deg, τ = 0.025 sec, Soda Straw
Baseline, t = t
impact
= 1.8 s
4Horizontal Range At Impact = R
x
= { 2 (
0.00352 ) cos γ
i
/ [ 32.2 ( 0.002378 ) (
0.000428 ) ( 0.86 )]} ln { 1 + t / { 2 (
0.00352 ) / [ 32.2 ( 0.002378 ) (
0.000428 ) ( 0.86 ) ( 75.2 )]}}
= 249.8 cos γ
i
ln ( 1 + 0.301 t )
= 249.8 ( 0.866 ) ln [ 1 + 0.301 ( 1.8 )] =
93.7 ft
4Height At Impact = h = { 2 ( 0.00352 )
sin γ
i
/ [ 32.2 ( 0.002378 ) ( 0.000428 ) (
0.86 )} ln { 1 + t / { 2 ( 0.00352 ) / [ 32.2
( 0.002378 ) ( 0.000428 ) ( 0.86 ) ( 75.2
)]}} + h
i
– 32.2 t
2
/ 2
= 249.8 sin γ
i
ln ( 1 + 0.301 t ) + h
i

32.2 t
2
/ 2 = 249.8 ( 0.5 ) ln [ 1 + 0.301 (
1.8 )] + h
i
– 32.2 ( 1.2 )
2
/ 2
= h
i
+ 1.9 ft
2/24/2008 ELF 360
Soda Straw Rocket Range Driven by Inside
Chamber Length and Launch Angle
Soda Straw Rocket Range Driven by Inside
Chamber Length and Launch Angle
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
lc Gamma pgauge W tau CD0
Nondimensional
Range
Sensitivity to
Parameter
Note: Decreased chamber length ⇒
shorter duration thrust ( decreased
total impulse ) ⇒decreased end-of-
boost velocity
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline:
W = Weight = 0.00423 lb
l
c
= inside chamber length = 6 in
τ = Time constant to open solenoid
valve = 0.025 s
p
gauge
= gauge pressure = 30 psi
γ
i
= Initial / launch angle angle = 30 deg
l
t
= 7 in
V = Launch velocity = 75.2 fps
C
D
0
= Zero-lift drag coefficient = 0.86
t
impact
= Time from launch to impact =
1.8 s
R
x
= Horizontal range = 94 ft
Example: 10% decrease in
inside chamber length ⇒
7.7% decrease in range at t =
1.8 s. Note: Result is
nonlinear because inside
chamber length = launcher
length. Increase in l
c
also
leads to decrease in range.
2/24/2008 ELF 361
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Flight Range
Uncertainty Is +/- 2.4%, 1 σ
Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Flight Range
Uncertainty Is +/- 2.4%, 1 σ
4Estimate of Level of Maturity / Uncertainty of Soda Straw Rocket Baseline Parameters Based on
4Wind tunnel test
4Thrust static test
4Weight measurement
4Prediction methods
4Total Flight Range Uncertainty for 30 psi launch at 30 deg
4ΔR / R = [ (ΔR / R )
1
2
+ (ΔR / R )
2
2
+ (ΔR / R )
3
2
+ (ΔR / R )
4
2
+ (ΔR / R )
5
2
+ (ΔR / R )
6
2
]
1/2
= +/- 2.4%, 1σ
4R = 94 ft +/- 2.3 ft, 1σ
+/- 0.2%, 1σ +/- 20%, 1σ 0.86 6. Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient
+/- 0.2%, 1σ +/- 20%, 1σ 0.025 s 5. Solenoid Time Constant
+/- 0.4%, 1σ +/- 6%, 1σ 1.6 g 4. Weight
+/- 0.5%, 1σ +/- 3%, 1σ 30 psi 3. Gauge Pressure
+/- 1.7%, 1σ +/- 3%, 1σ 30 deg 2. Launch Angle
+/- 1.5%, 1σ +/- 2%, 1 σ 6 in 1. Inside Chamber Length
ΔR / R Due to
Uncertainty
Uncertainty in
Parameter
Baseline Value Parameter
2/24/2008 ELF 362
1 - Customer Requirements
2 – Customer Importance Rating ( Total = 10 )
3 – Design Characteristics
4 – Design Characteristics Importance Rating ( Total = 10 )
5 – Design Characteristics Sensitivity Matrix
6 – Design Characteristics Weighted Importance
7 – Design Characteristics Relative Importance
House of Quality Translates Customer
Requirements into Engineering Emphasis
House of Quality Translates Customer
Requirements into Engineering Emphasis
Weight
Flight Range
3
7
Tail Planform Area Chamber Length
4 6
2 8
26 = ( 7x2 + 3x4 ) 74 = ( 7x8 + 3x6 )
2 1
0
Note on Design Characteristics Sensitivity
Matrix: ( Room 5 ):
++ Strong Synergy
+ Synergy
0 Near Neutral Synergy
- Anti-Synergy
- - Strong Anti-Synergy
Note: Based on House of Quality, inside chamber length most important design parameter.
2/24/2008 ELF 363
DOE Explores the Broad Possible Design Space
with a Reasonably Small Set of Alternatives
DOE Explores the Broad Possible Design Space
with a Reasonably Small Set of Alternatives
0.125 4 Lower Value
0.25 6 Upper Value
S
T
, Tail Planform Area,
in
2
l
c
, Inside Chamber
Length, in
Engineering
Characteristics Range
“Petite”
“Stiletto”
“Shorty”
“Big Kahuna”
Concept Sketch
0.125 4
0.125 6
0.25 4
0.25 6
S
T
, Tail Planform Area,
in
2
l
c
, Inside Chamber
Length, in
Full Factorial DOE Based on Upper / Lower Values of k = 2 Parameters:
Number of Combinations = 2
k
= 2
2
= 4
Design Space for Design of Experiments ( DOE )
Note: DOE concepts should emphasize customer driving requirements and the driving engineering characteristics.
2/24/2008 ELF 364
Engineering Experience Should Guide the DOE
Set of Alternatives and the Preferred Design
Engineering Experience Should Guide the DOE
Set of Alternatives and the Preferred Design
4 As an Example, for the Soda Straw Rocket, from
Experience We Know That
4 Soda Straw Rocket Must Fit on Launcher
4 Maximum Boost Velocity Occurs When Chamber Length = Launch
Tube Length
4 Three or Four Tails Best for Stability
4 Tails That Are Too Small May Result in an Unstable Flight
4 Tails That Are Too Large Add Weight and Cause Trajectory
Dispersal
4 Canards Require Larger Tails for Stability, Add Weight, and Cause
Trajectory Dispersal
4 Wings Add Weight, Add Drag, and Cause Trajectory Dispersal
2/24/2008 ELF 365
Engineering Experience Should Guide the DOE
Set of Alternatives and Preferred Design ( cont )
Engineering Experience Should Guide the DOE
Set of Alternatives and Preferred Design ( cont )
As an Example, Soda Straw Rocket Geometry Should Be Comparable to an Operational
Rocket with Near-Neutral Static Stability ( e.g., Hydra70 )
2.66
1.89
1.89
2.79
2.79
b / d,
Total Tail Span /
Diameter
2 17.9 “Petite”
Hydra 70
“Stiletto”
“Shorty”
“Big Kahuna”
Concept Sketch
1 15.1
2 25
2 17.9
2 25
c / d,
Tail Chord /
Diameter
l / d,
Total Length /
Diameter
Note: For a subsonic rocket with the center-of-gravity in the center of the rocket, slender body theory and slender
surface theory give total tail span and chord for neutral stability of b
NeutralStability
≈ 2 d and c
NeutralStability
> ≈ d
respectively.
2/24/2008 ELF 366
Optimum Design Should Have Balanced
Engineering Characteristics
Optimum Design Should Have Balanced
Engineering Characteristics
4 As an Example, for the Soda Straw Rocket Design We
Should
4 Reflect Customer Emphasis of Requirements for
4 Range
4 Weight
4 Provide Balanced Emphasis of Most Important Engineering
Characteristics
4 Chamber Length
4 Tail Size / Span
2/24/2008 ELF 367
Summary of Sizing Examples
Summary of Sizing Examples
4 Rocket Powered Missile ( Sparrow Derived Baseline )
4 Standoff range requirement
4 Wing area sizing requirements for maneuverability, turn rate, and
turn radius
4 Multi-parameter harmonization
4 Ballistic versus lofted glide flight range
4 Ramjet Powered Missile ( ASALM Derived Baseline )
4 Robustness in range uncertainty
4 Propulsion and fuel alternatives
4 Surface target impact velocity
4 Computer Aided Sizing Tools for Conceptual Design
4 ADAM
4 Analytical prediction of aerodynamics
4 Numerical solution of equations of motion
2/24/2008 ELF 368
Summary of Sizing Examples ( cont )
Summary of Sizing Examples ( cont )
4 Computer Aided Sizing Tools for Conceptual Design ( cont )
4 TMD analytical sizing spreadsheet ( based on this text )
4 Analytical prediction of aero, propulsion, and weight
4 Closed form analytical solution of simplified equations of motion
4 Soda Straw Rocket Design, Build, and Fly
4 Static margin
4 Drag
4 Performance
4 Sensitivity study
4 House of Quality
4 Design of Experiment ( DOE )
4 Discussion / Questions?
4 Classroom Exercise ( Appendix A )
2/24/2008 ELF 369
Sizing Examples Problems
Sizing Examples Problems
1. Required flight range is shorter for a head-on intercept and it is longer
for a t___ c____ intercept.
2. The rocket baseline center-of-gravity moves f______ with motor burn.
3. The rocket baseline is an a_______ airframe.
4. The rocket baseline thrust profile is b____ s______.
5. The rocket baseline motor case and nozzle are made of s____.
6. The rocket baseline flight range is driven by I
SP
, propellant weight
fraction, drag, and s_____ m_____.
7. Contributors to the maneuverability of the rocket baseline are its body,
tail, and w___.
8. Although the rocket baseline has sufficient g’s and turn rate to
intercept a maneuvering aircraft, it needs a smaller turn r_____.
9. Compared to a co-altitude trajectory, the rocket baseline has extended
range with a l_____ glide trajectory.
10. The ramjet baseline has a c___ inlet.
11. The Mach 4 ramjet baseline has a t_______ airframe.
2/24/2008 ELF 370
Sizing Examples Problems ( cont )
Sizing Examples Problems ( cont )
12. Although the ramjet baseline combustor is a nickel-based super alloy, it
requires insulation, due high temperature. The super alloy is i______.
13. The flight range of the ramjet baseline is driven by I
SP
, weight, thrust,
zero-lift coefficient, and the weight fraction of f___.
14. Extended range for the ramjet baseline would be provided by more
efficient packaging of subsystems and the use of s_____ fuels.
15. A conceptual design sizing code should be based on the simplicity,
speed, and robustness of p______ based methods.
16. The House of Quality room for design characteristics weighted
importance indicates which engineering design characteristics are most
important in meeting the c_______ r___________.
17. Paredo sensitivity identifies the design parameters that are most
i________.
18. DOE concepts should emphasize the customer driving requirements and
the driving e__________ characteristics
19. If the total tail span ( including body diameter ) is twice the body
diameter, the missile is approximately n________ s_____.
2/24/2008 ELF 371
Outline
Outline
4 Introduction / Key Drivers in the Design Process
4 Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Propulsion Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Weight Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Flight Performance Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration
4 Sizing Examples
4 Development Process
4 Summary and Lessons Learned
4 References and Communication
4 Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises,
Example of Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms,
Conversion Factors, Syllabus )
2/24/2008 ELF 372
Relationship of Technology Assessment /
Roadmap to the Development Process
Relationship of Technology Assessment /
Roadmap to the Development Process
4 Technology Roadmap Establishes Time-phased
Interrelationships for
4 Technology development and validation tasks
4 Technology options
4 Technology goals
4 Technology transition ( ATD, ACTD, DemVal, PDRR, SDD )
4 Technology Roadmap Identifies
4 Key, enabling, high payoff technologies
4 Technology drivers
4 Key decision points
4 Critical paths
4 Facility requirements
4 Resource needs
2/24/2008 ELF 373
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
Basic
Research
Exploratory
Development
Advanced
Development
Demonstration
& Validation
System
Development
and
Demonstration
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
System
Upgrades
Technology
Development
~ 10 Years
Technology
Demonstration
~ 8 Years
Prototype
Demonstration
~ 4 Years
Full Scale
Development
~ 5 Years
Limited
~ 2 Years
1-3 Block
Upgrades
~ 5-15 Years
First
Block
~ 5
Years
Production
Note:
Total US DoD Research and Technology for Tactical Missiles ≈ $1.8 Billion per year
Total US DoD Acquisition ( SDD + Production + Upgrades ) for Tactical Missiles ≈ $8.3 Billion per year
Tactical Missiles ≈ 11% of U.S. DoD RT&A budget
US Industry IR&D typically similar to US DoD 6.2 and 6.3A
Maturity Level Conceptual Design Preliminary Design Detail Design Production Design
Drawings ( type ) < 10 ( subsystems ) < 100 ( components ) > 100 ( parts ) > 1000 ( parts )
2/24/2008 ELF 374
Technology Readiness Level ( TRL ) Indicates
the Maturity of Technology
Technology Readiness Level ( TRL ) Indicates
the Maturity of Technology
TRL 1- 3
Category 6.1
Basic
research
TRL 4
Category 6.2A
Exploratory
development
of a
component,
conceptual
design
studies, and
prediction
methods
TRL 5
Category 6.2B
Exploratory
development
of a
subsystem
TRL 6
Category 6.3
Advanced tech
demo of a
subsystem
TRL 7
Category 6.4
Prototype
demonstration
Initial assessment ⇒ ⇒ component test ⇒ ⇒ subsystem test ⇒ ⇒integrated subsystems ⇒ ⇒integrated missile
2/24/2008 ELF 375
Conceptual Design Has Broad Alternatives
While Detail Design Has High Definition
Conceptual Design Has Broad Alternatives
While Detail Design Has High Definition
1
10
100
1000
0 5 10 15
Time ( Years )
T
y
p
i
c
a
l

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s

o
r

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
e
s
i
g
n

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
Number of Concepts
Number of Drawings
Conceptual Prelim. Detail Production
Design Design Design Design
2/24/2008 ELF 376
US Tactical Missile Follow-On Programs Occur
about Every 24 Years
US Tactical Missile Follow-On Programs Occur
about Every 24 Years
Year Entering SDD
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 Martin
Long 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, > 2007
Hypersonic Missile > 2007
Long Range STS, BGM-109, 1972 - General Dynamics Hypersonic Missile > 2007
2/24/2008 ELF 377
Missile Design Validation / Technology
Development Is an Integrated Process
Missile Design Validation / Technology
Development Is an Integrated Process
•Rocket Static
•Turbojet Static
•Ramjet Tests
-Direct Connect
-Freejet
Structure
Test
Hardware
In-Loop
Simulation
Ballistic Tests
Lab Tests
Seeker
Actuators / Initiators
Sensors
Propulsion Model
Aero Model
Model Digital Simulation
Wind Tunnel
Tests
Propulsion
Airframe
Guidance
and Control
Power
Supply
Warhead
Environment
Tests
•Vibration
•Temperature
Sled Tests
IM Tests
IM Tests
Flight Test Progression
( Captive Carry,Jettison,
Separation, Unpowered
Guided Flights, Powered
Guided Flights, Live
Warhead Flights )
Lab Tests
Tower
Tests
Autopilot / Electronics
Witness / Arena Tests
2/24/2008 ELF 378
4Airframe Wind Tunnel Test ………………………………………………………
4Propulsion Static Firing with TVC ……..
4Propulsion Direct Connect Test …………………………………….
4Propulsion Freejet Test …………
Examples of Missile Development Tests and
Facilities
Examples of Missile Development Tests and
Facilities
2/24/2008 ELF 379
Examples of Missile Development Tests and
Facilities ( cont )
Examples of Missile Development Tests and
Facilities ( cont )
4 Warhead Arena Test ……………………………………………………….
4 Warhead Sled Test ………………………
4 Insensitive Munition Test ……………………………………………..
4 Structure Test …………………………………………..
2/24/2008 ELF 380
Examples of Missile Development Tests and
Facilities ( cont )
Examples of Missile Development Tests and
Facilities ( cont )
4 Seeker Test ……………………………………………………….
4 Hardware-In-Loop ………
4 Environmental Test ……………………………………………..
4 Submunition Dispenser Sled Test ……………………
2/24/2008 ELF 381
4RCS Test ……………………………………………………………….
4Store / Avionics Test
4Flight Test ……………………………………………………………………….
4Video of Facilities and Tests
Examples of Missile Development Tests and
Facilities ( cont )
Examples of Missile Development Tests and
Facilities ( cont )
2/24/2008 ELF 382
Missile Flight Test Should Cover Extremes of
Flight Envelope
Missile Flight Test Should Cover Extremes of
Flight Envelope
Flight 7
Flight 7
Flight 3
Flight 7
Flight 1
Flight 3
Flight 7
Flight 3
Flight 7
H
i
g
h

D
y
n
a
m
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
High Aero Heating
High L / D Cruise
L
o
w

D
y
n
a
m
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
B
o
o
s
t
e
r

T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
:

T
h
r
u
s
t

-
D
r
a
g
Note: Seven Flights from Oct 1979 to May 1980.
Flight 1 failure of fuel control. As a result of the high thrust, the flight Mach number exceeded the design Mach number.
Example: Ramjet Baseline Propulsion Test Validation ( PTV )
2/24/2008 ELF 383
Example of Aero Technology Development
Example of Aero Technology Development
4 Conceptual Design ( 5 to 50 input parameters ) Prediction
4 Preliminary Design ( 50 to 200 input parameters ) Prediction
4 Missile DATCOM. Contact: AFRL. Attributes include: Low cost
4 MISL3. Contact: NEAR. Attributes include: Modeling vortex shedding
4 SUPL. Contact: NEAR. Attributes include: Paneling complex geometry
4 AP02. Contact: NSWC. Attributes include: Periodic updates
4 CFD. Contact: Georgia Tech. Attributes include: Model runs on Parallel
Processing PCs
4 Preliminary Design Optimization
4 Response Surface Model: Contact: Georgia Tech. Attributes include
10x more rapid computation
4 Probabilistic Analysis: Contact: Georgia Tech. Attributes include an
evaluation of design robustness
2/24/2008 ELF 384
Example of Aero Technology Development
( cont )
Example of Aero Technology Development
( cont )
4 Wind Tunnel Test Verification
4 Body buildup force and moment
4 Control effectiveness and hinge moment
4 Store carriage and separation
4 Flow field ( may be required )
4 Pressure distribution ( may be required )
4 Plume, heat transfer, and dynamic stability ( usually not
required )
4 Inlet ( if applicable )
4 3 to 6-DOF Digital Simulation
4 Hardware-in-loop Simulation
4 Detail Design ( over 200 input parameters )
4 Flight Test Validation
2/24/2008 ELF 385
Example of Missile Technology State-of-the-Art
Advancement: Air-to-Air Missile Maneuverability
Example of Missile Technology State-of-the-Art
Advancement: Air-to-Air Missile Maneuverability
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year IOC
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
n
g
l
e

o
f

A
t
t
a
c
k
,

D
e
g
AIM-7A
AM-9B
R530
AA-8
AIM-54
R550
Skyflash
Python 3
AA-10
Aspide
Super 530D
AA-11
AIM-120
Python 4
AA-12
MICA
AIM-132
AIM-9X
Controls Augmented
with Propulsion
Devices ( TVC,
Reaction Jet )
2/24/2008 ELF 386
Example of Missile Technology State-of-the-Art
Advancement: Ramjet Propulsion
Example of Missile Technology State-of-the-Art
Advancement: Ramjet Propulsion
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year Flight Demonstration
M
c
r
u
i
s
e
,

C
r
u
i
s
e

M
a
c
h

N
u
m
b
e
r
Cobra X-7 Vandal/Talos St-450 SE 4400
RARE Bloodhound BOMARC Typhon STATEX
D-21 CROW SA-6 Sea Dart LASRM
ALVRJ 3M80 ASALM AS-17 / Kh-31 ASMP
ANS Kh-41 SLAT BrahMos Meteor
HyFly SED
Scramjet
Ramjet
2/24/2008 ELF 387
Enabling Technologies for Tactical Missiles
Enabling Technologies for Tactical Missiles
Dome
4Faceted / Window
4Multi-mode
4Multi-spectral
4Multi-lens
Seeker
4Multi-mode
4Multi-spectral
4SAR
4Strapdown
4Uncooled Imaging
4High Gimbal
G & C
4GPS / INS
4In-flight Optimize
4α, β Feedback
4ATR
Propulsion
4Hypersonic Turbine-Based
4Liquid / Solid Fuel Ramjet
4Variable Flow Ducted Rocket
4Scramjet
4Combined Cycle Propulsion
4High Temperature Turbine
4High Temperature Combustor
4High Density Fuel / Propellant
4High Throttle Fuel Control
4Endothermic Fuel
4Composite Case
4Pintle / Pulsed / Gel Motor
4High Burn Rate Exponent Propellant
4Low Observable
Warhead
4High Energy Density
4Multi-mode
4High Density Penetrator
4Boosted Penetrator
4Smart Dispenser
4Powered Submunition
Insulation
4Hypersonic
4High Density
Flight Control
4EM and
Piezoelectric
4TVC / Reaction Jet
4Dedicated Roll
Power
4MEMS
Airframe
4Lifting Body
4Neutral Static Margin
4Lattice Fins
4Split Canard
4Low Δx
AC
Wing/ Low Hinge Moment Control
4Free-to-Roll Tails
4Compressed Carriage
4Low Drag Inlet
4Mixed Compression Inlet
4Single Cast Structure
4VARTM, Pultrusion, Extrusion, Filament Wind
4High Temperature Composites
4Titanium Alloy
4MEMS Data Collection
4Low Observable Shaping and Materials
Electronics
4COTS
4Central
Data Link
4BDI / BDA
4In-flight Retarget
4Moving Target
4Phased Array
2/24/2008 ELF 388
Summary of Development Process
Summary of Development Process
4 Development Process
4 Technology roadmap
4 Development activities
4 Time frame
4 Level of Design Maturity Related to Stage of Development
4 Missile Follow-on Programs
4 Subsystems Development Activities
4 Subsystems Integration and Missile System Development
4 Flight Test Activities
4 Missile Development Tests and Facilities
4 State-of-the-Art Advancement in Tactical Missiles
4 New Technologies for Tactical Missiles
4 Discussion / Questions?
4 Classroom Exercise ( Appendix A )
2/24/2008 ELF 389
Development Process Problems
Development Process Problems
1. A technology roadmap establishes the high payoff technologies g____.
2. The levels of design maturity from the most mature to least mature are
production, detail, preliminary, and c_________ design.
3. Technology transitions occur from basic research to exploratory
development, to advanced development, to d____________ and v_________.
4. Approximately 11% of the U.S. RT&A budget is allocated to t_______
m_______.
5. In the U.S., a tactical missile has a follow-on program about every __ years.
6. Compared to the AIM-9L, the AIM-9X has enhanced m______________.
7. Compared to the AIM-7, the AIM-120 has autonomous guidance, lighter
weight, higher speed, and longer r____.
8. Compared to the PAC-2, the PAC-3 has h__ t_ k___ accuracy.
9. Guidance & control is verified in the h_______ in l___ simulation.
10. Airbreathing propulsion ground tests include direct connect tests and
f______ tests.
11. Aerodynamic force and moment data are acquired in w___ t_____ tests.
2/24/2008 ELF 390
Outline
Outline
4 Introduction / Key Drivers in the Design Process
4 Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Propulsion Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Weight Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Flight Performance Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration
4 Sizing Examples
4 Development Process
4 Summary and Lessons Learned
4 References and Communication
4 Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises,
Example of Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms,
Conversion Factors, Syllabus )
2/24/2008 ELF 391
Evaluate Alternatives and Iterate the System-of-
Systems Design
Evaluate Alternatives and Iterate the System-of-
Systems Design
• Mission / Scenario
Definition
• Weapon
Requirements,
Trade Studies
and Sensitivity
Analysis
• Launch Platform
Integration
• Weapon Concept
Design Synthesis
• Technology
Assessment and
Dev Roadmap
Initial
Tech
Initial
Reqs
Baseline
Selected
Alt
Concepts
Initial Carriage /
Launch
Iteration
Refine
Weapons
Req
Initial Revised
Trades / Eval Effectiveness / Eval
Tech
Trades
Initial
Roadmap
Revised
Roadmap
Update
Note: Typical design cycle for conceptual design is usually 3 to 9 months
Alternate Concepts ⇒Select Preferred Design ⇒Eval / Refine
2/24/2008 ELF 392
Exploit Diverse Skills for a Balanced Design
Exploit Diverse Skills for a Balanced Design
Customer ( requirements pull )
⇒mission / MIR weighting
Operations analysts
⇒system-of-systems analysis
System integration engineers
⇒launch platform integration
Missile design engineers
⇒missile concept synthesis
Technical specialists ( technology push )
⇒technology assessment / roadmap
2/24/2008 ELF 393
Utilize Creative Skills
Utilize Creative Skills
4 Use Creative Skills to Consider Broad Range of Alternatives
4 Ask Why? of Requirements / Constraints
4 Project into Future ( e.g., 5 – 15 years )
4 State-of-the-art ( SOTA )
4 Threat
4 Scenario / Tactics / Doctrine
4 Concepts
4 Technology Impact Forecast
4 Recognize and Distill the Most Important, Key Drivers
4 Develop Missile Concept that is Synergistic within a
System-of-Systems
4 Develop Synergistic / Balanced Combination of High
Leverage Subsystems / Technologies
2/24/2008 ELF 394
Identify and Quantify the High Payoff Measures
of Merit
Identify and Quantify the High Payoff Measures
of Merit
Max / Min
Range
Time to
Target
Robustness
Weight
Survivability
Lethality
Miss Distance
Observables
Reliability
2/24/2008 ELF 395
Start with a Good Baseline
Start with a Good Baseline
I would have
used the wheel
as a baseline.
2/24/2008 ELF 396
Conduct Balanced, Unbiased Tradeoffs
Conduct Balanced, Unbiased Tradeoffs
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Structures
Seeker
Guidance and
Control
Warhead – Fuze
Production
2/24/2008 ELF 397
AA- 8 / R-60 Python 4 Magic 550 U-Darter
Python 5 Derby / R-Darter AIM-9L Aspide
AA-10 / R-27 Skyflash AIM-7 R-37
AA-12 / R-77 AIM-9x Super 530D AIM-132
AA-11 / R-73 AIM-54 AIM-120 Mica
IRIS-T Meteor A-Darter Taildog
Evaluate Many Alternatives
Evaluate Many Alternatives
Note: Although all of the above are supersonic air-to-air missiles, they have different configuration geometry
2/24/2008 ELF 398
Search a Broad Design Solution Space ( Global
Optimization vs Local Optimization )
Search a Broad Design Solution Space ( Global
Optimization vs Local Optimization )
Local Optimum ( e.g., Lowest Cost
Only in Local Solution Space )
Local Optimum ( e.g., Lowest Cost
Only in Local Solution Space )
Global Optimum ( e.g., Lowest Cost in
Global Solution Space ) within Constraints
2/24/2008 ELF 399
Evaluate and Refine as Often as Possible
Evaluate and Refine as Often as Possible
2/24/2008 ELF 400
Provide Balanced Emphasis of Analytical vs
Experimental
Provide Balanced Emphasis of Analytical vs
Experimental
Thomas Edison: "Genius is 1%
inspiration and 99% perspiration."
Albert Einstein: "The only real
valuable thing is intuition."
2/24/2008 ELF 401
Use Design, Build, and Fly Process, for
Feedback That Leads to Broader Knowledge
Use Design, Build, and Fly Process, for
Feedback That Leads to Broader Knowledge
Design
Build
Fly ( Test )
Prediction Satisfies
Customer
Requirements?
Test Results Satisfy
Customer Requirements
and Consistent with
Prediction?
Is it Producible?
No
Yes
C
l
i
m
b

L
a
d
d
e
r

o
f

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
Data
Failure /
Success
Information
Understanding
Wisdom
No
No
Where is the wisdom we have lost in
knowledge? Where is the knowledge
we have lost in information?--T. S.
Eliot ( The Rock )
Knowledge comes by taking things
apart: analysis. But wisdom comes by
putting things together.--John A.
Morrison
We are drowning in information but
starved for knowledge.--John Naisbitt
( Megatrends: Ten New Directions
Transforming Our Lives )
We learn wisdom from failure much
more than from success. We often
discover what will do, by finding out
what will not do; and probably he who
never made a mistake never made a
discovery.--Samuel Smiles ( Self Help )
Knowledge
2/24/2008 ELF 402
Evaluate Technology Risk
Evaluate Technology Risk
2/24/2008 ELF 403
Keep Track of Assumptions and Develop Real-
Time Documentation
Keep Track of Assumptions and Develop Real-
Time Documentation
It’s finally
finished ! . . .
2/24/2008 ELF 404
Develop Good Documentation
Develop Good Documentation
M
IR
s
W
eig
h
tin
g
Sketches of alternative
concepts
Justification of
recommended concept(s)
Aero and propulsion
characteristics
Mission flight profiles of
preferred concept( s )
Sensitivity of system /
subsystem parameters
Traceability of
system driving MIRs
Three-view drawing of
preferred concept( s )
Weight and balance
Unit production cost
and development cost
Technology Roadmap
2/24/2008 ELF 405
Utilize Group Skills
Utilize Group Skills
Source: Nicolai, L.M., “Designing a Better Engineer,” AIAA Aerospace America, April 1992
Detail /
Production
Design –
30%
Other Than
Design –
60%
Preliminary Design – 8%
Conceptual Design – 2%
(Test, Analysis,
Configuration
Management, Software,
Program Management,
Integration,
Requirements,
etc.)
2/24/2008 ELF 406
Balance the Tradeoff of Importance vs Priority
Balance the Tradeoff of Importance vs Priority
Advanced Programs /
Conceptual Design
SDD Programs /
Preliminary Design
Production Programs /
Detail Design
2/24/2008 ELF 407
Evaluate Alternatives and Iterate the
Configuration Design
Evaluate Alternatives and Iterate the
Configuration Design
Yes
Establish Baseline
Meet
Performance?
No
No
Yes
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Alt Mission
Alt Baseline
Define Mission Requirements
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Weight
Trajectory
Measures of Merit and Constraints
2/24/2008 ELF 408
Configuration Sizing Conceptual Design
Guidelines: Aeromechanics
Configuration Sizing Conceptual Design
Guidelines: Aeromechanics
Configuration Sizing Parameter Aeromechanics Design Guideline
4 Body fineness ratio 5 < l / d < 25
4 Nose fineness ratio l
N
/ d ≈ 2 if M > 1
4 Boattail or flare angle < 10 deg
4 Efficient cruise dynamic pressure q < 1,000 psf
4 Missile homing velocity V
M
/ V
T
> 1.5
4 Ramjet combustion temperature > 4,000° F
4 Oblique shocks prior to inlet normal > 2 oblique shocks / compressions if M >
shock to satisfy MIL-E-5008B 3.0, > 3 shocks / compressions if M > 3.5
4 Inlet flow capture Shock on cowl lip at M
max
cruise
4 Ramjet Minimum cruise Mach number M > 1.2 x M
InletStart
, M > 1.2 M
MaxThrust = Drag
4 Subsystems packaging Maximize available volume for fuel /
propellant
2/24/2008 ELF 409
Configuration Sizing Conceptual Design
Guidelines: Guidance & Control
Configuration Sizing Conceptual Design
Guidelines: Guidance & Control
Configuration Sizing Parameter G&C Design Guideline
4 Body bending frequency ω
BB
> 2 ω
ACT
4 Trim control power α / δ > 1
4 Neutral stability tail-body If low aspect ratio, b / d ≈ 2, c / d > ≈ 1
4 Stability & control cross coupling < 30%
4 Airframe time constant τ < 0.2 s
4 Missile maneuverability n
M
/ n
T
> 3
4 Proportional guidance ratio 3 < N’ < 5
4 Target span resolution by seeker < b
target
4 Missile heading rate γ
.
M
> γ
.
T
4 Missile turn radius R
T
M
< R
T
T
2/24/2008 ELF 410
Wrap Up ( Part 1 of 2 )
Wrap Up ( Part 1 of 2 )
4 Missile design is a creative and iterative process that includes
º System considerations
º Missile concepts and sizing
º Flight trajectory evaluation
4 Cost / performance drivers may be “locked in” during
conceptual design
4 Missile design is an opportunity for a diverse group to work
together for a better product
º Military customer ⇒mission / scenario definition
º Operations analysts ⇒system-of-systems modeling
º System integration engineers ⇒launch platform integration
º Missile design engineers ⇒missile concept synthesis
º Technical specialists ⇒technology assessment / technology roadmap
2/24/2008 ELF 411
Wrap Up ( Part 2 )
Wrap Up ( Part 2 )
4 The missile conceptual design philosophy requires
4 Iteration, iteration, iteration
4 Evaluation of a broad range of alternatives
4 Traceable flow-down allocation of requirements
4 Starting with a good baseline
4 Paredo sensitivity analysis to determine the most important, driving
parameters
4 Synergistic compromise / balanced subsystems and technologies
that are high leverage
4 Awareness of technology SOTA / technology assessment
4 Technology impact forecast
4 Robust design
4 Creative design decisions made by the designer ( not the computer )
4 Fast, simple, robust, physics-based prediction methods
2/24/2008 ELF 412
Outline
Outline
4 Introduction / Key Drivers in the Design Process
4 Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Propulsion Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Weight Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Flight Performance Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration
4 Sizing Examples
4 Development Process
4 Summary and Lessons Learned
4 References and Communication
4 Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises,
Example of Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms,
Conversion Factors, Syllabus )
2/24/2008 ELF 413
References
References
1. “Missile.index,” http://missile.index.ne.jp/en/
2. AIAA Aerospace Design Engineers Guide, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1993
3. Bonney, E.A., et al, Aerodynamics, Propulsion, Structures, and Design Practice, “ Principles of Guided Missile Design” ,
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1956
4. Jerger, J.J., Systems Preliminary Design Principles of Guided Missile Design, “ Principles of Guided Missile Design” , D.
Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1960
5. Chin, S.S., Missile Configuration Design, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961
6. Mason, L.A., Devan, L., and Moore, F.G., “Aerodynamic Design Manual for Tactical Weapons,” NSWCTR 81-156, 1981
7. Pitts, W.C., Nielsen, J.N., and Kaattari, G.E., “Lift and Center of Pressure of Wing-Body-Tail Combinations at Subsonic,
Transonic, and Supersonic Speeds,” NACA Report 1307, 1957
8. Jorgensen, L.H., “Prediction of Static Aerodynamic Characteristics for Space-Shuttle-Like, and Other Bodies at Angles
of Attack From 0° to 180°,” NASA TND 6996, January 1973
9. Hoak, D.E., et al., “USAF Stability and Control DATCOM,” AFWAL TR-83-3048, Global Engineering, 1978
10. “Nielsen Engineering & Research (NEAR) Aerodynamic Software Products,” http://www.nearinc.com/near/software.htm
11. Ashley, H., Engineering Analysis of Flight Vehicles, Dover Publications, Inc., 1974
12. Anderson, John D. Jr., “Modern Compressible Flow,” Second Edition, McGraw Hill, 1990
13. Kinroth, G.D. and Anderson, W.R., “Ramjet Design Handbook,” CPIA Pub. 319 and AFWAL TR 80-2003, June 1980
14. “Technical Aerodynamics Manual,” North American Rockwell Corporation, DTIC AD 723823, June 1970
15. Oswatitsch, K.L., “Pressure Recovery for Missiles with Reaction Propulsion at High Supersonic Speeds”, NACA TM -
1140, 1947
16. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J. C., Conduction of Heat in Solids, Clarendon Press, 1988
2/24/2008 ELF 414
References ( cont )
References ( cont )
17. Allen, J. and Eggers, A.J., “A Study of the Motion and Aerodynamic Heating of Ballistic Missiles Entering the Earth’s
Atmosphere at High Supersonic Speeds”, NACA Report 1381, April 1953.
18. Schneider, S.H., Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, Oxford University Press, 1996
19. Klein, L.A., Millimeter-Wave and Infrared Multisensor Design and Signal Processing, Artech House, Boston, 1997
20. US Army Ordnance Pamphlet ORDP-20-290-Warheads, 1980
21. Carleone, J. (Editor), Tactical Missile Warheads, “ AIAA Vol. 155 Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics,” American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1993
22. Christman, D.R. and Gehring, J.W., “Analysis of High-Velocity Projectile Penetration Mechanics,” Journal of Applied
Physics, Vol. 37, 1966
23. Heaston, R.J. and Smoots, C.W., “Precision Guided Munitions,” GACIAC Report HB-83-01, May 1983
24. Donatelli, G.A. and Fleeman, E.L., “Methodology for Predicting Miss Distance for Air Launched Missiles,” AIAA-82-
0364, January 1982
25. Bennett, R.R. and Mathews, W.E., “Analytical Determination of Miss Distances for Linear Homing Navigation
Systems,” Hughes Tech Memo 260, 31 March 1952
26. Nicholas, T. and Rossi, R., “US Missile Data Book, 1996,” Data Search Associates, 1996
27. Bithell, R.A. and Stoner, R.C., “Rapid Approach for Missile Synthesis,” AFWAL TR 81-3022, March 1982
28. Fleeman, E.L. and Donatelli, G.A., “Conceptual Design Procedure Applied to a Typical Air-Launched Missile,” AIAA 81-
1688, August 1981
29. Hindes, J.W., “Advanced Design of Aerodynamic Missiles ( ADAM ),” October 1993
30. Frits, A.P., et al, “A Conceptual Sizing Tool for Tactical Missiles, “ AIAA Missile Sciences Conference, November 2002
31. Bruns, K.D., Moore, M.E., Stoy, S.L., Vukelich, S.R., and Blake, W.B., “Missile DATCOM,” AFWAL-TR-91-3039, April
1991
2/24/2008 ELF 415
References ( cont )
References ( cont )
32. Moore, F.G., et al, “The 2002 Version of the Aeroprediction Code”, Naval Surface Warfare Warfare Center, March 2002
33. Nicolai, L.M., “Designing a Better Engineer,” AIAA Aerospace America, April 1992
2/24/2008 ELF 416
Bibliography of Other Reports and Web Sites
Bibliography of Other Reports and Web Sites
4 System Design
4 Fleeman, E.L., “Tactical Missile Design,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006
4 “DoD Index of Specifications and Standards,” http://stinet.dtic.mil/str/dodiss.html
4 “Periscope,” http://www.periscope1.com/
4 Defense Technical Information Center, http://www.dtic.mil/
4 NATO Research & Technology Organisation, http://www.rta.nato.int/
4 “Missile System Flight Mechanics,” AGARD CP270, May 1979
4 Hogan, J.C., et al., “Missile Automated Design ( MAD ) Computer Program,” AFRPL TR 80-21, March 1980
4 Rapp, G.H., “Performance Improvements With Sidewinder Missile Airframe,” AIAA Paper 79-0091, January 1979
4 Nicolai, L.M., Fundamentals of Aircraft Design, METS, Inc., 1984
4 Lindsey, G.H. and Redman, D.R., “Tactical Missile Design,” Naval Postgraduate School, 1986
4 Lee, R.G., et al, Guided Weapons, Third Edition, Brassey’s, 1998
4 Giragosian, P.A., “Rapid Synthesis for Evaluating Missile Maneuverability Parameters,” 10th AIAA Applied
Aerodynamics Conference, June 1992
4 Fleeman, E.L. “Aeromechanics Technologies for Tactical and Strategic Guided Missiles,” AGARD Paper
presented at FMP Meeting in London, England, May 1979
4 Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design, A Conceptual Approach, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1989
4 Ball, R.E., The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis and Design, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1985
4 “National Defense Preparedness Association Conference Presentations,” http://www.dtic.mil/ndia
2/24/2008 ELF 417
Bibliography of Other Reports and Web Sites ( cont )
Bibliography of Other Reports and Web Sites ( cont )
4 System Design ( continued )
4 Eichblatt, E.J., Test and Evaluation of the Tactical Missile, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
1989
4 “Aircraft Stores Interface Manual (ASIM),” http://akss.dau.mil/software/1.jsp
4 “Advanced Sidewinder Missile AIM-9X Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD),”
http://deskbook.dau.mil/jsp/default.jsp
4 Wertz, J.R and Larson W.J., Space Mission Analysis and Design, Microprism Press and Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1999
4 “Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles”, http://www.designation-systems.net/
4 Fleeman, E.L., et al, “Technologies for Future Precision Strike Missile Systems,” NATO RTO EN-018, July 2001
4 “The Ordnance Shop”, http://www.ordnance.org/portal/
4 “Conversion Factors by Sandelius Instruments”, http://www.sandelius.com/reference/conversions.htm
4 “Defense Acquisition Guidebook”, http://akss.dau.mil/dag/
4 Aerodynamics
4 “A Digital Library for NACA,” http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/
4 Briggs, M.M., Systematic Tactical Missile Design, Tactical Missile Aerodynamics: General Topics, “AIAA Vol.
141 Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics,” American Institute of Aeronautics, 1992
4 Briggs, M.M., et al., “Aeromechanics Survey and Evaluation, Vol. 1-3,” NSWC/DL TR-3772, October 1977
4 “Missile Aerodynamics,” NATO AGARD LS-98, February 1979
4 “Missile Aerodynamics,” NATO AGARD CP-336, February 1983
4 “Missile Aerodynamics,” NATO AGARD CP-493, April 1990
4 “Missile Aerodynamics,” NATO RTO-MP-5, November 1998
4 Nielsen, J.N., Missile Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960
2/24/2008 ELF 418
Bibliography of Other Reports and Web Sites ( cont )
Bibliography of Other Reports and Web Sites ( cont )
4 Aerodynamics ( continued )
4 Mendenhall, M.R. et al, “Proceedings of NEAR Conference on Missile Aerodynamics,” NEAR, 1989
4 Nielsen, J.N., “Missile Aerodynamics – Past, Present, Future,” AIAA Paper 79-1818, 1979
4 Dillenius, M.F.E., et al, “Engineering-, Intermediate-, and High-Level Aerodynamic Prediction Methods and
Applications,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 36, No. 5, September-October, 1999
4 Nielsen, J.N., and Pitts, W.C., “Wing-Body Interference at Supersonic Speeds with an Application to
Combinations with Rectangular Wings,” NACA Tech. Note 2677, 1952
4 Spreiter, J.R., “The Aerodynamic Forces on Slender Plane-and Cruciform-Wing and Body Combinations”, NACA
Report 962, 1950
4 Simon, J.M., et al, “Missile DATCOM: High Angle of Attack Capabilities, AIAA-99-4258
4 Burns, K.A., et al, “Viscous Effects on Complex Configurations,” WL-TR-95-3060, 1995
4 Lesieutre, D., et al, “Recent Applications and Improvements to the Engineering-Level Aerodynamic Prediction
Software MISL3,’’ AIAA-2002-0274
4 Moore, F.G., Approximate Methods for Weapon Aerodynamics, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2000
4 “1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator”, http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/
4 “Compressible Aerodynamics Calculator”, http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~devenpor/aoe3114/calc.html
4 Ashley, H. and Landahl, M., Aerodynamics of Wings and Bodies, Dover Publications, 1965
4 John, James E.A., Gas Dynamics, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, 1984
4 Zucker, Robert D., Fundamentals of Gas Dynamics, Matrix Publishers, 1977
4 Propulsion
4 Chemical Information Propulsion Agency, http://www.cpia.jhu.edu/
4 St. Peter, J., The History of Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Development in the United States: A Tradition of
Excellence, ASME International Gas Turbine Institute, 1999
2/24/2008 ELF 419
Bibliography of Other Reports and Web Sites ( cont )
Bibliography of Other Reports and Web Sites ( cont )
4 Propulsion ( continued )
4 Mahoney, J.J., Inlets for Supersonic Missiles, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1990
4 Sutton, G.P., Rocket Propulsion Elements, John Wiley & Sons, 1986
4 “Tri-Service Rocket Motor Trade-off Study, Missile Designer’s Rocket Motor handbook,” CPIA 322, May 1980
4 Humble, R.W., Henry, G.N., and Larson, W.J., Space Propulsion Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, 1995
4 Jenson, G.E. and Netzer, D.W., Tactical Missile Propulsion, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
1996
4 Durham, F.P., Aircraft Jet Powerplants, Prentice-Hall, 1961
4 Bathie, W.W., Fundamentals of Gas Turbines, John Wiley and Sons, 1996
4 Hill, P.G. and Peterson, C.R., Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion, Addison-Weshley Publishing
Company, 1970
4 Mattingly, J.D., et al, Aircraft Engine Design, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1987
4 Materials and Heat Transfer
4 Budinski, K.G. and Budinski, M.K., Engineering Materials Properties and Selection, Prentice Hall, 1999
4 “Matweb’s Material Properties Index Page,” http://www.matweb.com
4 “NASA Ames Research Center Thermal Protection Systems Expert (TPSX) and Material Properties Database”,
http://tpsx.arc.nasa.gov/tpsxhome.shtml
4 Harris, D.C., Materials for Infrared Windows and Domes, SPIE Optical Engineering Press, 1999
4 Kalpakjian, S., Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Materials, Addison Wesley, 1997
4 MIL-HDBK-5J, “Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures”, Jan 2003
4 “Metallic Material Properties Development and Standardization ( MMPDS )”, http://www.mmpds.org
2/24/2008 ELF 420
Bibliography of Other Reports and Web Sites ( cont )
Bibliography of Other Reports and Web Sites ( cont )
4 Materials and Heat Transfer ( continued )
4 Mallick, P.K., Fiber-Reinforced Composites: Materials, Manufacturing, and Design, Second Edition, Maecel
Dekker, 1993
4 Chapman, A.J., Heat Transfer, Third Edition, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1974
4 Incropera, F.P. and DeWitt, D.P., Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, Fourth Edition, John Wiley and
Sons, 1996
4 Guidance, Navigation, Control, and Sensors
4 Zarchan, P., Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance, “AIAA Vol. 124 Progress in Astronautics and
Aeronautics,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1990
4 “Proceedings of AGARD G&C Conference on Guidance & Control of Tactical Missiles,” AGARD LS-52, May 1972
4 Garnell, P., Guided Weapon Control Systems, Pergamon Press, 1980
4 Locke, A. S., Guidance, “ Principles of Guided Missile Design” , D. Van Nostrand, 1955
4 Blakelock, J. H., Automatic Control of Aircraft and Missiles, John Wiley & Sons, 1965
4 Lawrence, A.L., Modern Inertial Technology, Springer, 1998
4 Siouris, G.M., Aerospace Avionics Systems, Academic Press, 1993
4 Stimson, G.W., Introduction to Airborne Radar, SciTech Publishing, 1998
4 Lecomme, P., Hardange, J.P., Marchais, J.C., and Normant, E., Air and Spaceborne Radar Systems, SciTech
Publishing and William Andrew Publishing, 2001
4 Wehner, D.R., High-Resolution Radar, Artech House, Norwood, MA, 1995
4 Donati, S., Photodetectors, Prentice-Hall, 2000
4 Jha, A.R., Infrared Technology, John Wiley and Sons, 2000
4 Schlessinger, M., Infrared Technology Fundamentals, Marcel Decker, 1995
2/24/2008 ELF 421
Follow-up Communication
Follow-up Communication
I would appreciate receiving your comments and
corrections on this text, as well as any data,
examples, or references that you may offer.
Thank you,
Gene Fleeman
Tactical Missile Design
E-mail: GeneFleeman@msn.com
Web Site: http://genefleeman.home.mindspring.com
2/24/2008 ELF 422
Outline
Outline
4 Introduction / Key Drivers in the Design Process
4 Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Propulsion Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Weight Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Flight Performance Considerations in Tactical Missile Design
4 Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration
4 Sizing Examples
4 Development Process
4 Summary and Lessons Learned
4 References and Communication
4 Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises,
Example of Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms,
Conversion Factors, Syllabus )