aircraft as weapons platform

[grasshopper]

Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?

Think missile sub concept......

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

grasshopper wrote:
>
> Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
> the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
>
> Think missile sub concept......
>

Think of the difference in speeds of the launch platforms.

[grasshopper]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:42:29 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>grasshopper wrote:
>>
>> Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
>> the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
>>
>> Think missile sub concept......
>>
>
>Think of the difference in speeds of the launch platforms.
>



I don't see a problem here. Think about a modern ejection seat.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:40:02 -0500, grasshopper
> wrote:

>Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
>the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
>
>Think missile sub concept......

The AGM-78 Standard ARM was programmable by the Weasel Bear and could
be directed toward emitters in any quadrant. On launch it cleared the
aircraft forward then turned upward to apex at over 100,000 feet. In
about 90 seconds it would come back down and follow the programming to
the memorized location, re-acquiring the emitter in the process.

Almost got hit by one on the way down during one mission.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

[Andrew Robert Breen]

In article >,
grasshopper > wrote:
>Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
>the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
>
>Think missile sub concept......

Wasn't this one of the concepts considered for the BAe SABA project in the
later 80s? I know there were several with dorsal or ventral gun turrets,
some with dorsal or ventral rotating hypervelocity missile mounts.
Vertical or fixed launch (exiting via the dorsal or ventral surface) could
well have been considered, though there might have been a penalty in time
from launch to impact...

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

grasshopper wrote:
>
> I don't see a problem here.
>

Then you have poor vision.

[Brian Whatcott]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:40:02 -0500, grasshopper
> wrote:

>Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
>the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
>
>Think missile sub concept......

No - the unstable firing orientation speaks against it.

Brian W

[grasshopper]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:15:43 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>grasshopper wrote:
>>
>> I don't see a problem here.
>>
>
>Then you have poor vision.
>



Lol. Perhaps so. :-)

[Tiger]

grasshopper wrote:
> Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
> the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
>
> Think missile sub concept......
>


I like the thought process, The execution needs work. A VLS needs a
space not filled by engines, fuel, or controls. Pehaps if you had a
Blended wing Or flying wing it would work? The easy solution is a small
stinger sized missle in the tail to protect the rear in a horizontial
fashion.

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Sep 11, 9:40*am, grasshopper > wrote:
> Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
> the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
>
> Think missile sub concept......

I'd think the problem with that would be the slipstream. If you're
having the missile come out of a tube vertically, the slipstream's
vector will be perpendicular to the velocity vector produced by the
missile's motor. That's going to push the missile's initial
trajectory sharply towards the aft end of the aircraft. Once the
missile gets enough of its own velocity it may not matter much, but
I'd worry about it being blown into the tail in the first few seconds
after launch.

As Mr. Rasimus points out, some missiles do go vertical after launch
to acquire a target or extend their range- he mentioned the Standard
ARM, and I think the AIM-54 Phoenix did it as well. Not really the
same thing, though.

-JTD

[Eunometic]

On Sep 12, 12:09*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:40:02 -0500, grasshopper
>
> > wrote:
> >Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
> >the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
>
> >Think missile sub concept......
>
> The AGM-78 Standard ARM was programmable by the Weasel Bear and could
> be directed toward emitters in any quadrant. On launch it *cleared the
> aircraft forward then turned upward to apex at over 100,000 feet. In
> about 90 seconds it would come back down and follow the programming to
> the memorized location, re-acquiring the emitter in the process.

Was this to add a harassment or loiter capability, extend range or
allow a top view of the radar (aka the UK ALARM)?

>
> Almost got hit by one on the way down during one mission.

Did you forget to turn?

>

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> grasshopper wrote:
>> Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
>> the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
>>
>> Think missile sub concept......
>>
>
>
> I like the thought process, The execution needs work. A VLS needs a space
> not filled by engines, fuel, or controls. Pehaps if you had a Blended wing
> Or flying wing it would work? The easy solution is a small stinger sized
> missle in the tail to protect the rear in a horizontial fashion.
>

VLS is just a bad idea for aircraft. Missiles are not stressed for an
ejection long side on to a high speed air flow and would be very
likely to tumble even if they didnt break up.

Ejecting them into the air flow in the normal way provides a much
simpler problem to solve and the as the missile has the same KE
either way doesnt give any appreciable disadvantage

Keith

[Paul J. Adam]

In message
>,
Eunometic > writes
>On Sep 12, 12:09*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>> The AGM-78 Standard ARM was programmable by the Weasel Bear and could
>> be directed toward emitters in any quadrant. On launch it *cleared the
>> aircraft forward then turned upward to apex at over 100,000 feet. In
>> about 90 seconds it would come back down and follow the programming to
>> the memorized location, re-acquiring the emitter in the process.
>
>Was this to add a harassment or loiter capability, extend range or
>allow a top view of the radar (aka the UK ALARM)?

Range extension by trajectory shaping, as I understand it.

>> Almost got hit by one on the way down during one mission.
>
>Did you forget to turn?

It wasn't Ed's missile - someone else had fired it, it was on its way
back down, and the AGM-78 neither knew nor cared about any traffic in
the airspace it wanted to fly through.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[WaltBJ]

I was attending the Air Defense Command's Interceptor Weapons School
back in 1963 and one of our lectures was "Future Developments' by a
team from Wright Pat Air Development Center. In the course of events
the 'suits' mentioned chaff rockets - folding-fin 70mm rockets fired
from a bomber that dispensed spaced bundles of chaff to mask the
bomber and draw off radar-homing missiles. The 'suits' complained that
they had tried firing them sideways out of a special turret mounted on
a B29 but the rockets insisted on going straight ahead. We looked at
each other incredulously and finally one of our group asked "Did you
ever consider that there was a 300 mile an hour wind blowing past the
rocket launch tube?" No, they hadn't . . .
FWIW simulated ICBMs have been launched from transport aircraft. A
drogue chutes hauls it out the back and a few seconds later it is
hanging from the chute in a vertical position - next a timer fires the
rocket motor and off it goes. I suspect the big problem back then was
establishing an accurate launch position for the inertial guidance
system to start from. Maybe GPS can do that nowadays. FEDEX contract
proposal? When 'next day' isn't quick enough? Ummm - front yard or
back yard?
Walt BJ

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:42:29 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> >grasshopper wrote:
> >>
> >> Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
> >> the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
> >>
> >> Think missile sub concept......
> >>
> >
> >Think of the difference in speeds of the launch platforms.
> >
>
>
>
> I don't see a problem here. Think about a modern ejection seat.

A one shot device...

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:58:10 -0700 (PDT), Eunometic
> wrote:

>On Sep 12, 12:09*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:40:02 -0500, grasshopper
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
>> >the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
>>
>> >Think missile sub concept......
>>
>> The AGM-78 Standard ARM was programmable by the Weasel Bear and could
>> be directed toward emitters in any quadrant. On launch it *cleared the
>> aircraft forward then turned upward to apex at over 100,000 feet. In
>> about 90 seconds it would come back down and follow the programming to
>> the memorized location, re-acquiring the emitter in the process.
>
>Was this to add a harassment or loiter capability, extend range or
>allow a top view of the radar (aka the UK ALARM)?

In the SAM suppression mission you don't get the luxury of keeping all
of the sites in front of you. Occasionally you get in the "Dr. Pepper"
situation with threats at "10, 2 and 4."--That's a reference to a US
soft drink slogan.

The Standard ARM was broad band programmable from the aircraft, so it
could be launched against EW, GCI, SAMs, etc. If you were supporting
on ingress, you might bypass a threat before he started emitting. Then
the missile could still be employed without necessity of turning back
and abandoning the force you were supporting.
>
>>
>> Almost got hit by one on the way down during one mission.
>
>Did you forget to turn?

The missile didn't care where we were and no one had anticipated that
it would select a flight path that would again intersect with our own.
It was a shock, since most of our threat scan was downward against
enemy missiles, not one of our own. It passed between me (#3 in an
F-4E and the Weasel in an F-105G. Unavoidable in the circumstances,
but not pleasant.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Sep 11, 4:08 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
> I was attending the Air Defense Command's Interceptor Weapons School
> back in 1963 and one of our lectures was "Future Developments' by a
> team from Wright Pat Air Development Center. In the course of events
> the 'suits' mentioned chaff rockets - folding-fin 70mm rockets fired
> from a bomber that dispensed spaced bundles of chaff to mask the
> bomber and draw off radar-homing missiles. The 'suits' complained that
> they had tried firing them sideways out of a special turret mounted on
> a B29 but the rockets insisted on going straight ahead. We looked at
> each other incredulously and finally one of our group asked "Did you
> ever consider that there was a 300 mile an hour wind blowing past the
> rocket launch tube?" No, they hadn't . . .

Yeah rockets are designed to point into the wind,
that's why the fin's are at the back!

We launched a small experimental rocket in a 20-30
knot stiff breeze and decided to point the launcher
into the wind, that was a mistake. What we should
have done is pointed with the wind, because it get's
twisted at lift-off.
We wrote up a "sim" to confirm that.

> FWIW simulated ICBMs have been launched from transport aircraft. A
> drogue chutes hauls it out the back and a few seconds later it is
> hanging from the chute in a vertical position - next a timer fires the
> rocket motor and off it goes. I suspect the big problem back then was
> establishing an accurate launch position for the inertial guidance
> system to start from. Maybe GPS can do that nowadays. FEDEX contract
> proposal? When 'next day' isn't quick enough? Ummm - front yard or
> back yard?
> Walt BJ
Ken

[Eunometic]

On Sep 13, 1:55*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 4:08 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
>
> > I was attending the Air Defense Command's Interceptor Weapons School
> > back in 1963 and one of our lectures was "Future Developments' by a
> > team from Wright Pat Air Development Center. In the course of events
> > the 'suits' mentioned chaff rockets - folding-fin 70mm rockets fired
> > from a *bomber that dispensed spaced bundles of chaff to mask the
> > bomber and draw off radar-homing missiles. The 'suits' complained that
> > they had tried firing them sideways out of a special turret mounted on
> > a B29 but the rockets insisted on going straight ahead. We looked at
> > each other incredulously and finally one of our group asked "Did you
> > ever consider that there was a 300 mile an hour wind blowing past the
> > rocket launch tube?" No, they hadn't . . .
>
> Yeah rockets are designed to point into the wind,
> that's why the fin's are at the back!

Indeed, prior to development of the R4M "Orkan" (Hurricane) folding
fin rocket (this was the grand daddy of all such rockets) German
researches put a great deal of effort into pure spin stabilized
rockets that could easily be fired from tubes and 'revolver' style
magazines eg RZ65 and RZ73. Although they worked their dispersion was
simply to great to make them particularly effective Air to Air or even
Air to Ground weapon that could engage point targets and as a result
the folding fin rocket was born. Admittedly the R4/M may just have
also had the advantage of a more powerful rocket motor to give it
speed.

Having said that the pure spin stabilized rocket would surely be far
superior and possible totally effective in lateral launches with
enormous cross winds, which on a B-29 would approximate 150ms.
Assuming a 100G acceleration to 500m/s over a 0.5s boost the bulk of
the acceleration is within the cross wind and one would expect the
rocket to expend most of its acceleration heading into the direction
of flight. In the 500G case things would be only a little better but
not that much. Fins will quickly orient the rocket in the direction
of airflow.

A flat plate has a Cd of about 1 so assuming a pair of fins on a 70mm
rocket has a total area A of 10cm x 10cm (0.01sqm) the force in
Newtons will be F = 0.5Cd x p x A v^2 where v = velocity in m/s and p
= air density in kg/cubic meter. Assume 330mph or 150m/s later launch
at about 5000ft where air density is about 1kg/cubic meter

F = 0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.01 x 150^2 = 112N or about 12Kg.

A missile weighing a few kilograms will very quickly orient in the
direction of flow. A 2 kg mass at the tail will accelerate at 112/2 =
56m/s more than at the nose. In 0.1 sec during the boost phase
seconds it would move 27cm relative to the nose section of the rocket
which is enough to orient it about 45 degrees. If the burn was 0.5
seconds it would more or less end up flying with the bomber.

Bullets obviously don't change direction and they don't have fins.
Only the relatively lighter weight of the tail would induce it to
accelerate faster than the warhead nose section.

Modern MEMS inertial guidence technology combined with finless thrust
vectoring nozzles would make it easy to accurately launch and guide
missiles from aircraft at almost any angle. Take a look at the
guidence system of the MBT LAW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT_LAW
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/


>
> We launched a small experimental rocket in a 20-30
> knot stiff breeze and decided to point the launcher
> into the wind, that was a mistake. What we should
> have done is pointed with the wind, because it get's
> twisted at lift-off.
> We wrote up a "sim" to confirm that.
>

I believe it is also known by bazooka launchers that the missile has
to be fired 'with the wind' rather than against it to compensate.

[Eunometic]

On Sep 12, 9:08*am, WaltBJ > wrote:
SNIP . .
> FWIW *simulated ICBMs have been launched from transport aircraft. A
> drogue chutes hauls it out the back and a few seconds later it is
> hanging from the chute in a vertical position - next a timer fires the
> rocket motor and off it goes. I suspect the big problem back then was
> establishing an accurate launch position for the inertial guidance
> system to start from. Maybe GPS can do that nowadays.

Stellar-Inertial guidance entered service with Trident C4. One of
its earliest uses would have been the
abandoned skybolt B-52 launched ballistic missile. Both subs and an
air launched missile would have
the same problems. Typically subs maintained position using an
inertial navigation system that was updated
by radio navigation or alternatively a star fix.

Stellar inertial could have been ready earlier than Trident C4 but
because it had been sold as "providing counter force capability" it
was attacked in congress. Later it was sold as 'enhancing
survivability"(greater standoff distances) it went through.

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 13, 1:55 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 4:08 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
>
>> Yeah rockets are designed to point into the wind,
>> that's why the fin's are at the back!

> Indeed, prior to development of the R4M "Orkan" (Hurricane) folding
>fin rocket (this was the grand daddy of all such rockets)

The Le-Prieur rockets were used by British and French aircraft against
Zeppelins
in WW1.

Keith

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Sep 13, 8:00 am, Eunometic > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 1:55 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 4:08 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
>
> > > I was attending the Air Defense Command's Interceptor Weapons School
> > > back in 1963 and one of our lectures was "Future Developments' by a
> > > team from Wright Pat Air Development Center. In the course of events
> > > the 'suits' mentioned chaff rockets - folding-fin 70mm rockets fired
> > > from a bomber that dispensed spaced bundles of chaff to mask the
> > > bomber and draw off radar-homing missiles. The 'suits' complained that
> > > they had tried firing them sideways out of a special turret mounted on
> > > a B29 but the rockets insisted on going straight ahead. We looked at
> > > each other incredulously and finally one of our group asked "Did you
> > > ever consider that there was a 300 mile an hour wind blowing past the
> > > rocket launch tube?" No, they hadn't . . .
>
> > Yeah rockets are designed to point into the wind,
> > that's why the fin's are at the back!
>
> Indeed, prior to development of the R4M "Orkan" (Hurricane) folding
> fin rocket (this was the grand daddy of all such rockets) German
> researches put a great deal of effort into pure spin stabilized
> rockets that could easily be fired from tubes and 'revolver' style
> magazines eg RZ65 and RZ73. Although they worked their dispersion was
> simply to great to make them particularly effective Air to Air or even
> Air to Ground weapon that could engage point targets and as a result
> the folding fin rocket was born. Admittedly the R4/M may just have
> also had the advantage of a more powerful rocket motor to give it
> speed.
>
> Having said that the pure spin stabilized rocket would surely be far
> superior and possible totally effective in lateral launches with
> enormous cross winds, which on a B-29 would approximate 150ms.
> Assuming a 100G acceleration to 500m/s over a 0.5s boost the bulk of
> the acceleration is within the cross wind and one would expect the
> rocket to expend most of its acceleration heading into the direction
> of flight. In the 500G case things would be only a little better but
> not that much. Fins will quickly orient the rocket in the direction
> of airflow.
>
> A flat plate has a Cd of about 1 so assuming a pair of fins on a 70mm
> rocket has a total area A of 10cm x 10cm (0.01sqm) the force in
> Newtons will be F = 0.5Cd x p x A v^2 where v = velocity in m/s and p
> = air density in kg/cubic meter. Assume 330mph or 150m/s later launch
> at about 5000ft where air density is about 1kg/cubic meter
>
> F = 0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.01 x 150^2 = 112N or about 12Kg.
>
> A missile weighing a few kilograms will very quickly orient in the
> direction of flow. A 2 kg mass at the tail will accelerate at 112/2 =
> 56m/s more than at the nose. In 0.1 sec during the boost phase
> seconds it would move 27cm relative to the nose section of the rocket
> which is enough to orient it about 45 degrees. If the burn was 0.5
> seconds it would more or less end up flying with the bomber.

That's agreeable, however the initial correction
could impart enough yaw - via inertial moment -
into the missile to blast it into the cockpit!

> Bullets obviously don't change direction and they don't have fins.
> Only the relatively lighter weight of the tail would induce it to
> accelerate faster than the warhead nose section.
>
> Modern MEMS inertial guidence technology combined with finless thrust
> vectoring nozzles would make it easy to accurately launch and guide
> missiles from aircraft at almost any angle. Take a look at the
> guidence system of the MBT LAWhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT_LAWhttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/
>
> > We launched a small experimental rocket in a 20-30
> > knot stiff breeze and decided to point the launcher
> > into the wind, that was a mistake. What we should
> > have done is pointed with the wind, because it get's
> > twisted at lift-off.
> > We wrote up a "sim" to confirm that.
>
> I believe it is also known by bazooka launchers that the missile has
> to be fired 'with the wind' rather than against it to compensate.

Interesting to know.
Ken

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> On Sep 13, 8:00 am, Eunometic > wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 1:55 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> I believe it is also known by bazooka launchers that the missile has
>> to be fired 'with the wind' rather than against it to compensate.
>
> Interesting to know.
> Ken

Unfortunately the enemy rarely checks the wind direction is in your
favour before attacking.

Keith

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Sep 13, 2:40 pm, "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > On Sep 13, 8:00 am, Eunometic > wrote:
> >> On Sep 13, 1:55 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >> I believe it is also known by bazooka launchers that the missile has
> >> to be fired 'with the wind' rather than against it to compensate.
>
> > Interesting to know.
> > Ken
>
> Unfortunately the enemy rarely checks the wind direction is in your
> favour before attacking.
> Keith

The problem is like launching a rocket in a 300-400
knot cross wind.
I watched Eastwood's "Firefox" and he was doing Mach-mucho
and fired a missile backward. so I guess it's possible ;-).
Ken

[Eunometic]

On Sep 14, 1:32*am, "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 13, 1:55 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 4:08 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
>
> >> Yeah rockets are designed to point into the wind,
> >> that's why the fin's are at the back!
> > Indeed, *prior to development of the R4M "Orkan" (Hurricane) folding
> >fin rocket (this was the grand daddy of all such rockets)
>
> The Le-Prieur rockets were used by British and French aircraft against
> Zeppelins
> in WW1.
>
> Keith

The photograph of Le-Prieur rockets on Wikipedia shows that they were
'stick' rockets. Basically a long somewhat ungainly
stabilizing stick attached in the manner of fire works rockets when
they were legal and therefore not "Folding Fin" rockets. It was the
folding fin (with a touch of spin stabilization) that gave these
rockets exceptional accuracy (for a rocket) while also making them
relatively easy to carry. (Low drag, compact). I believe they
remain the only style of unguided air launched rocket in service.

[Julian Gomez]

In article >,
grasshopper > wrote:

> Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
> the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
>
> Think missile sub concept......

In WWII the Germans launched rockets (or maybe cannon) pretty much
straight up from interceptors. The fighter would "park" under a bomber,
and then fire upwards. It was called Schrage Musik.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:46:42 -0700, Julian Gomez >
wrote:

> In article >,
> grasshopper > wrote:
>
> > Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from
> > the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets?
> >
> > Think missile sub concept......
>
> In WWII the Germans launched rockets (or maybe cannon) pretty much
> straight up from interceptors. The fighter would "park" under a bomber,
> and then fire upwards. It was called Schrage Musik.

Cannon, not rockets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrage_Musik

Ron Wanttaja