aircraft as weapons platform

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?

"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

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


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

"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