Preliminary Design Approach. Air-to-Surface Missile Strategic Weapon System

8/8/2019 Preliminary Design Approach. Air-to-Surface Missile Strategic Weapon System

1/64
http://www.blackvault.com/


2/64

HAFIIMIO (FOIA)

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEWASHINGTON, DC

18 November 2009

1000 Air Force PentagonWashington DC 20330-1000

John Greenewald

Dear Mr. GreenewaldThis is in response your 8 July 2009, Freedom of Information Act request forAccession Number: AD0089238 Title: Preliminary Design Approach. Air-to-SurfaceMissile Strategic Weapon System.The Air Force Plans and Requirements office provided the attached documentresponsive to your request.Please direct your questions to Naida I. Rhoades (703) 692-9960 and refer toCase #201 0-00132. There are no assessable fees for processing your FOIA e s t inthis instance. 1

Sincerely

Freedom of Information Act Manager

Attachment:Responsive document


3/64

AD08923

PRELIMINARY DESIGN APPROACH. AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILESTRATEGIC WEAPON SYSTEM

MiCHIGAN UNJV ANN ARBOR

13 MAY 1955

Distri:bution authorized to U.S. Gov't. agencies and theircontractors; Administrative/Operational Use; 13 MAY i 955. Otherrequests shall be referred to Department of Defense, Attn:

Public Affairs Office, Washington, DC 20301.

NOTICEThere has been a classification change rothis document. I! is the responsibility of therecipiem ro promptly remark it!O indicatechange.


4/64

UNCLASSIFIECI I Lllv11TED

Redistribution Of DTIC-SuRplied lnforn1ation NoticeAl l information received from OTIC, not clearly marked "for public release" maybe used only to bid on or to perform work under a U.S. Government contract orgrant fo r purposes specifically authorized by the U.S. Government agency thatis sponsoring access OR by U.S. Government employees in the performance oftheir duties.Information not clearly marked "for public release" may not be distributed on thepublic/open Internet in any form 1 published for profit or offered for sale in anymanner.Non-compliance could result in termination of access.

Reproduction QuaJitv NoticeOTIC's Technical Reports collection spans documents from "1900 to the present.We employ 100 percent quality control at each stage of the scanning andreproduction process to ensure that 01.1r document reproduction is as true to theoriginal as current scanning and reproduction technology allows.However, occasionally the original quality does not allow a better copy.If you are dissatisfied with the reproduction quality of any document that weprovide, please free to contact ou r Directorate of User Services at(703) 767-9066/9068 or DSN 427-9066/9068 for refund or replacement.

Do Not Heturn This Docurnent To OTIC

U N C L ~ A S S U = I E D I LIMITE[>


5/64

UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBERAD089238

CLASSIFICATION CHANGESTO

unc la ss i f i ed

FROM . .

e e n ! ! t : ' ! e n ~ ~

AUTHORITY

31 May 1967, Group-4, DoDD 5200.10..

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED


6/64

UNCLi\S SlFIED,.----------------------------t - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..--------1- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - .._ _____ _ __t---------..---------------------- - - -11------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ .AD NUMBER f------- ---------

AD0892381--- - ---------

CLASSIFICA.TION CHANGESr - - - - - ~ - - - ..----- ---- - - ------ ..--TO

-ZR ..-&tt aa

1------------------------FROIVI

sC@2

!---------------- ..----- --" I rTH"QDITYc. \ U , . , I'\. .Lt----- - - - - - - - - - - ..--------- - ----.- - - - - ------- -- - - - - 1

I

i 31 ~ l a . y 1953, Gtot'i? --4, DbDD 5200.10IIL..---___. .,:__- __ ______:___ ___- - - -THIS Pi\GEIS C1'1CLASSIFIED


7/64

'':.,I !'

I rUNCLASSIFiED

I'I

U r m e ~ ~ e r v i c e s fe c ~ n i c a l l n t o r m a t i o n I encyReproduced by

.._ - - -

DOCUMENT SERVICE C E ~ I T E R IN 0TT UL DIN I, DAY f 0H, 2, 0H 0

Thil thcument i t the property ol tl United Bbte9 Qover.nment. lt i t f u r n i s h o ~ fo r the du _ration of the contract and 1blll 01 returM\1 wbGn ro r i q u ! r ~ < f , or upon r e c ~ ~ a L l b ASTIAto tht tollow!r4 a . d ! t r e m ~ : Arrud lentee1 Toc!ua!eal X n f o r m a t l o ~ A . ~ e n c : . r .Docamnt len et Cnhr, l:aott l tUI! !uc, Dayton. I 1 Ohio . '

DJII . . . . ..,...,., r . .. .


8/64

r i. I . .

.....,.... .

i NOTiCE: THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION AFFECTING THE- . .l NATIONAL DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEA"l'-11NGI .

!. i ..!_ OF THE ESPIONAGE LAWS, TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTIONS 793 and '794 .- THE TRANS.MlSSION OR THE REVELATION OF ITS C O N T E ~ S IN. /

. ~ 1 \ f ~ E R TO AN U N A U T H ~ = ! : ? ~ ~ ! ~ - - - ~ y - - ( : . _' ' ' .. . , . .", , :> - : . _._, ~ .. . ,::-,. - ~ ' : _ { ; : _ - : __ ~ ~ - ' ~ Y ~ ; . . ; _ _ . : i . , . - ~ ~ - - : _ ~ : . ~ 7.. _ __ .. - .. i . l & ~ ~ ~ ' f ~ ~ , ' f M r ~ w ~ '

,. .... --. .--.. "' .. .. -": . : -..; . _.-


9/64

PRELIHINARY DESIGN APPROACHAIR-TO-SURFft.CE MISSILK STRATEGIC W!E!;f'CiN SYSTEM

BY : R, E, GRE&NE'ifALD

UNIVei'.SITY CF ~ ~ I C P . I G A N

AERONAUTICAL ENGINZERING C O U ~ E #!02 LECTUREMAY lJ 1 l?SS

'hJfc;;.:_: - - -. ;W'!:J:r : o u t ; ~ I U ,,,1,, 11 i;. u i : I I P . I i n ~ ; ; f h ~ 1;,, :, ,,. , .- -:: 1 h ~ lh:iltrl ~ \ ' i l f Ihei C , I f l ' ' ~ \II I"H . :'t l.aws . Til!tt U S C .

jtt: i . 7 ~ 3 unrl J:; lrmoS!nission or the r t v . t l ~ tof il> tonlcuiJ iu ii!IY mann.r to an u n ~ u l h o r i z e d , ~ r l o n il p r o h i b i t ~ d ~ l i k . ' > " ' : . t < 1 ' ~ '\ - . .. . . L -.. L : l

. S-619).9.24

.,Fe

I ,

I

'


10/64

I" i

\": l

..

I I---- ----+---,I 'I

Preliminary Design A . p p r c a c ~

( A i r - t o ~ S u r f e c e Missile S'.;ra te:gic W!:!apcn System)In a recent lecture period, Dr, Welrners discussed the methods employed in an

operational analysis . Theses analysis techniques are particularlY ~ a l u a b l e whenconducting a study program to define a systen1 possessing optimum characteM.sticsfor accomplishing a certain job} since the factors used in ~ 1 c analysis can beapplied uniforml,y to each of several des i r.able systems in an expeditious and

economic manner to det

study program designed to define an optimum weapon system, As a specific exampleI 'Will take a study program recently completed at Bell .6ircraft.

In June of l9.S3, Bell undertook a study program fo r the Air Force to i n v e s t i ~ gate and define an optimized a ir- to qsurface mis!!ile we.apon e:1::;tam. This systemlias to be centered around a B-47 bomber, bu t ~ . r s s to be so defi!'led lis to be useablel l i h a B.$2 1 and w a : ~ to be limited to tho!le c o ~ p o n e n t s l technologiea and eystalll!14hich were sufficiently a d v a ~ e d to permit. operational us.e 1958, A broadBpproach was desired indicating the n e c e : : ~ s 1 ty !o r Btucly o! !aznilies or mhsiled-elJign;, 1 guidance m e t h o d ~ : ~ and operationnl tactics,

I t is apparent. that any t!UCh s t u ~ nl\13t be startsd by deie1'llli.ning th e objectiveato be accO{dpliahed, TheN probabl,y is no system w h ~ c h ia t ruq optiJnUlll 1:li th re!!pectto all possible partilllntar!!l. Such 11. :system '40uld co11t ili1ost nothing to proc\U'a,

!.!"'.finite accur:.cj" 1 c o r u p l ~ t ~ ~ :reliatJla, and completdy de:!Jt1oy all targetsuithout 10M of hU!lln l i fe , 1'h;\.s Of C01lr15S ia p r ~ c t i C & l l y :\.Jllpouiblfl, b\tt C.l.lleelsct 8Cm9 ot t.hal.io P'.ll'am ntera and optimi:r.s the syatem 1:1ith r t l a ~ c t to thU"l

i II j

r1:I .J.III II1

I,iI

I

l.1 i .IiJiIll


11/64

)

' '

'.!ii I

'.

. I

.----

. I.. .. - --

6 . -=SEC"ti"'. .For our particular study the parametet":l :lelected were minimum carder and

crew losses and minimum missile axpenditures. As you ~ i l l eea later, this alsor e s u l ~ s in minimizing the cost of the c a m p a ~ ~ conducted. Having selected theobjectives of the study, the next step wa5 to seiect and o r g a ~ z e the variablesto be C?Osidered into a compact plan of attack,

The objectives determined, we must pick an enemy we wish to destroy, locatet i s military or strategic targets, and from either in t elligence reports, comparison~ t h our own defense capabil i t ies, or s h e a ~ hypothesis, assign probable defenselevels, To conduct this war we must have b&sea of operation, and theae must beselected,

We have said that we must study families of missile designB 1 guidance methodsand operational tactics . These are obviously interrelated since t.ha guidance- .method may l imit the maximum practical range, which of cour5e will affect theroutes to th e t a ~ e t an d ultimately the losses and CaJIIpaign cost, The d a s i N ~ d missile and carrier range!!! Will be suggested by the target CCD!plex and basess ~ l e c t e d , The guidance system a ~ d ~ a r h e a d s salected will determine th e ki l lprobabill ty fo r thoee mi.ssilea reaching the target,

The guidance syl!teM may al!!o be an important !actor in det.a:nnini:ng the .missihdesign and carrier equipment, The complete lrlasile installation, derived fromthese considorat.iona 11.nd th e anomy defense capabilities a:ssllllled t.-1.11 enablsdetennir>.ation O! tha JidssiJe and CarTier YUlnsnb1lity 1 p - a n e t r . t t ~ o n NIUhS ruldopti:u\lill t.nctice fo r th e CAlnpRigl\, Studias ot m!u1la ! nd carrier re lubi l i t ie iSwill be nsces3ary- to . d e t o l ~ i i ~ the - ~ t t a c ~ q u i r s d .. to ' destroy th3 t arget CC1ilplex,

'fheae data .::an th,)n be ueed to tigU.ra the nl.llllber of sorties xequi r-sd, theexpected carrier loel!as and ltl.i:Jaih exp


12/64

.!

J-. -- --- - - - f

This appNach is used. fer eac.h c.f the sever.al r ...milies of mi-ssil 'l ds!!igna 1g u i d a . " l ~ e methcds, and ?peraticnaJ. tactics, The re:;ult:; of these sep'.lrate irweati-gations ar e then c o m p a r e d ~ and the best features of eaf.h gyest&m used to define ano p ~ . i : n u m system, These characteristics are then reinse1ted into a\specific eystemprelimiuary design to combi.ne as many of them as possible into a specific dei!ign,Evaluaticn of this single (o r potentially s e v e r a ~ ) specific d e s i g ~ 1 s eventually~ e a d s to a s..Itisfactcry definition of cu r opt.i;.mm syst

f i rst , ench of the tugr:tl l


13/64

:were -;:cn:lidsr:ed fo r bo.th the local and area. t ~ k a . Incidentally., thesenetworks were assumed to be discrete, that is , r,c area defense3 in local defanBezene5 and v i c e ~ v e r 8 a ,

From theBe asslllilptions of defense levels, calculation of carrie;:- aoo missilesurvival is computed,

You r i l l note that variOUS sizes of bomber group3 'Were as:lluned to det.el"!!\ine .: i the effects of defense saturation, and that the survival pe r aircraft does increase

fo r idcreasingly large flights. U P ~ o r t u n e t e l y , this increase is no t proportionalto the increase of carrier force, Similarly, the missile . surviVal can be computedfo r th " multiple launching .ca,se , It will be noted that th e probability of at

., least ono missile surviving under local defense conditions i:J i l iost 100% !or .

,IfLt>' '

tYo m.tsailes/targst. Note the reduction in probability th& t t. particular missile. .surviven, wnich muot . be considered i f t h ~ method, or tactic of attack is to use

Having ea tabliehad miasile a z : ~ d car-rier : ~ u i - v 1 val probability (or i n v e . r : ~ e l y thair vulnerability), we dafinsd misaile raliability as tha probability that themiBsile vould t ravel the rsqJired d.istance -.,i.th th e S.ccuracy specified vithoutaccident cnused by malfunction of any of its components. Sirnilarlr carrier reli&-bD.ity- was d o f i n ~ d M the probability that the ccarrier vi l l travel beth inbou.r.dand outbound legs without compommt !ai lUH. The in i t id r r l s s i l ~ l ' G l i ~ b i l i t y 111R e a u w ~ d to be .70. Once the launching la aatisfactorily a c c o m p l i ~ h e d , the prob-&bility of coMponent !Ailu:ra during the tiiOO th3 H i l a i! l required to c p e r a ~ i!Jsmall, Thu.a th e dec!'O11!6 ot x-eliability !rith 1ncreaa1rtg range i ll g:-adual, to avalue of about . 6 ~ t l t 800 nn. utical milaa,


14/64

0j

i. I

i:j i"I,.,

r l-, ,:I, f..;... ,l: !I( "!.j.,'I!,q;jI 'ii:rI...f.L.

. I0

r I'!!I;

Ii

...--. L-.

Fo r carrier reliabili ty, we a s s ~ ~ d that 3% of carriers uaed in each miesion~ e r e los t due to normal hazards as take of f 1 landings, etc. I t is of i n t e ~ e t thatin flight refuelings v i l l decrease carrier r e l i a b i l i t i e ~ .

Detail consideration of .tactics ernployed and penetration routes is dependenton the characteristics of the missile system selected, and will , therefore, b9deterrsd unti l a:ftllr consideration of the various mia sile pa.ra.metera.

From the co-nsideration of the target complex and enemy defense levelse x p e ~ t a c t you will recall that a missile range of slightly over 800 nautical mileswould tequir& no carrier penetration of the defended areas. This _would seem tobe a logic.! l initil.ll criteria fo r missile range, I have used the terms initil11critaria intentionalLy, for we will see that although carrier losses due to penet r a t i o ~ d ~ c r e a s a linearly with increeaing missile range up to about 800 nauticalmle;r, anothe.r !actor should be considered, J.s the missile range increases 1 the

.....

accuracies or most type3 of guidance . systems detariorata, This d a c r e ~ e i n g accuracyloliers the kill probabilit,y fo r each strike, and :requires more a ~ d more return (ortiuplicllte) missions to imur-a target destruction, By !lying return lllissions thecarriers survival probability again decreases, indicating that tho optimum missilerange !rom standpoint of carrier losses will be a compromise q ~ p a n d e n t on th e gQid-

accuracy, target c o m p l ~ ~ ~ n d e n e n ~ d e f e n s ~ s . In considering the guid&nce eyf!tems t.nib.ble ve cO!:lipiled a l is t o! deair:Lbl

The f1c toro ;rii considered ilnportant are l h h d he!'$1 good accuracy at axtanded" - ! ~ e , bmunity to ja.D!Ril\g in tho vicinHJ of t.he target where jn:nming vil l probab)J'be JROBt ~ s v a r e 1 a low altitude approach ~ p a b i l l ty , .11 li111i ted c.apabili ty fo ri n c i i ~ o t de..l1lage n : : ~ i l s a a i i l e n t IUldreconMissanu, th e ilbillty to employ h'l .'Ul l ljudgement a!ter la.lllich, -1\nd finally requirements fo r carrier t7quipmlfnt vhicn ' IIUv ~ i l A b l e and p r a ~ t i e t l to ins ta l l in tha oalected cnrritro

. " .iZt!:Rt=- I -

1 I

i\

.. jl+

+I-'

I-


15/64

.I

...... ... .. .. ..-

Next we surveyed tne guidance eystems Jhich were el ther c o m p l e t e r ~ ~ de'feiopedor which would be comp leted within the required time period, T h e ~ e included t h ~ multi-axis inertial system, a multi-axis ir.ertial plus m:!.ssUe. doppler radarsystem, an automatic map matching system (ATRAN)) tr..ree type of Rascal typesysteJJ.Sj a .nple autopilot with radar steering, a single BJd.s (range computing)inertial system with radar steering and a radar monitored s i ~ l e axis inertial..;ystem, a loran or shoran system, and finally a radar _monitored multi-axisinert ial 5ystem. To compare these systems1 we merely C . ~ e C k e d each ayet.ein for uhich a particular characteristic existed.

The m u J . t i ~ a r l a systems and componenis available today will no t pronde fornecessary accuracy at the long ranges desired. The systam is jam proof, andp o s s ~ ~ ~ s a 10)' altitude appr.oach capablli.ty 1 bu t si.'lce i t has no ayes, does l'lOtprovide rmy IBD.A. or recormrlssance information, I t is no t c o n t t ' O l l a ' b ~ e &ftarla.unch, The car:-ier equipl!Ent which vould be required f ~ r l a . u n c ~ i n g with RUitableini t ia l heading and velocity data is not available tD_day, but can be d e v e l o ~ d , en:1this ia further complicated by the lack of adequate map data fer an appreciablepercentage of targets in the c o m p l e x ~

When 11 doppler (o r gl'ound speed r n e a a u r ~ ) rada.r is added in ~ b e missile,the stringent carrier equipment requirements ~ - - e rela.;ced1 and available carr:Ln. !' .equipment 'llill suffice. 1'hia !lyatem1 ho-uaver, s t l l l does not hu :a n d a q u 1 1 ~ accuraC"J at long ranges a.nd suffers in t h ~ - r e c o ~ e a a n c a d a p ~ n t as " W e l l ~

An automatic map matching a y ~ J t e m (ATR.\N) offero good accuracy a t long' . , .:ranges, law altitude approach capability and >-rill_operata ~ n t i s i ' a c t o r t l y with

presently available cnrr:!.er equipment, It can be j"Rilll!Wd 1 pos30sane no n e a l ~ n s . i s ~ a . n c e and IBDA capability an


16/64

- i: !

.I' ' '

. - . .. . . ..... . .... - .. -- ----- - -..... -.'- . .l_, __

\'

f'!J:rther-, this- eystem a ~ a i n suffers severely !rom lack of sufficiently accurate mapdata - data which would have to be gathered on r e c o n ! l a i : ~ s a . n c e I J ~ o n a prior tooperational employment, This is P. serious defect when a "quick war 11 is c o n t e ~ l a t e d ,

'rhe three Rascal type systems which haVii been demonstrated ar:d ' proven in thepresent Rascal Objective I and II flight test are i l l adequate from tbe standpointof IBDA and reconnaissance capability, possess excellent opportunity fo r enplnyir,gn ~ ~ a n judgement after l a ~ c h and p ~ s e n t no problems with regard to carrier equip-

. msnt They do not, how'ever1 nave adequate accv.racy a.t long ranges,It>zan and Shoran systell'.s provide low al .J.tude capability cmd r..ave a min:Umnn

of carrier equipmants bu t are extremely lilll.i. t-ed .S regards the other desired-cl;aracte:risiics 1 and are consi+ red unsuitable for the application.

From tl",ese f o r e g ~ : J i n g :l.nvesh gations-1 an ?-pproach of combining a e v ~ a l of thebest features several sy'Ste 'WM a d o p t ~ d , and the Radar Monitored Multi-axisinert ial system was propoAed. s ahO'.m here, t h l ~ s_ystem m e ~ t all of the deRuedcharacteristics stated, This a stem poa!!eseea th e j!l.l!!l!lir:g Lm.tlnit:l.ea and lowaltitude capabilities of the t i-axis syet-6m1 but utilize a radar ay


17/64

,.

'I ! -_... --- . .Ia ~ G R E T J W

A multi-axis inertial system vn the other hand pos5esses suitable accur&ciee(with the present state of the art) only to 300 to 350 nautical miles with theaccuracies of initial conditions w ~ i c h wculd be available,

It immediately beccmes apparent that a radar sys.tein useable to LOO nauticalmiles could be emplcyad to monitor t he firs t part of the flight and a.lso be usedto enable a h Q ~ a n o p ~ r a t o r in the carrier to introduce flight path corrections,

Purtter invastigation showed that d z ~ f t s and errors occurring during theradar monitored portion of fliV\t be effectively cancelled, resulting ina range extension for the multi-a:ds inertial system of about JOO ru.uticd Drl.hi!with verr l i t t l ~ degradation in accuracy,

Refererce to our target complex analysis shows that 9 1 ~ of the e n e ~ / targetscan be reached with a 700 nautical mile missile range without requiring penetration.This vaa adjudged a suitable c ~ m p r o m i s e , since for the warheads conaiaered, 91%cf a l l :targe.ts could be destroyed w-ith a .ki l l probability of 90% or better, aprobability- adequate to miirlmize the number of repeat miasions,

In oporation then, ini t ial co.nditions of carrier position, velocity andhnding are computed cy the carrier nav-igation equipment and tran:mitted to themissile multi-axiB inertiAl system. The missile 1a then launched up to a maximumrange of 7CO nautical miles from the . target at an a l t i t u d e ~ ! about 40,000 feet,During the firat. 400 nautical milei df flight, the aearch ra.dar may be turned ont.o make pctiition checks of knowr(pointa, and fllght path corrections introdUC3dby the guidance open tor. Dudng the flight the l l l i s s i l < : ~ f ' o l l o v ~ a brequete !lightratil, clL111bing frOln &i,Q(.IO t.o a l : i o u t . 7 o ~ c i 0 o t e e t g , t h a fual lo&d 115 ndiJCed.After the laat missile radar position check the m!a!ile continues on as an i l linertial flight, and may dive on the target in tuo preset m&nnsrs; either a

etef.'tf!f - 8 -

I:,

,

\:- Ir ..


18/64

'i'-- ..

'[ I - - - .1- - ii I

direct f:!J dive On the target or by iABans Of an alts.rnate lOW al\.itude e.pproach,\ ~ ' h e n the terrain surrounding the target per;nits, tlia low altitudt: approach hast.he ad,;antage that the missile remains und.et\::cted long ~ ; n o u g h so that i tsSUr>!ival pro-tis.bili ty dw3 to local dufense action i s almost unity,

I t is t n ; : ~ : n t ; ~ ~ t to not3 that although the missile would have a range cap-ability of 700 nauti;:al rniles, i t can be used a t any range up to the maximum,tnus aenro.dog the ad.ntago of ino t " 'd aoourooy a t tho ahOrLor rang.,,

Having proposed a gtddance syat6m and knowing the missile range required,tho next o\ep in th> mi, l la d " i g ia logiool!Y a '"'" pbnt inmtigtion tode t a n n i n ~ the b e s ~ syster,, for the proposed appllca tion. This is a logical stepsinca the power plant &nd ~ J s l apace requirements will ultimately have a largebearing on the sHo cf tlfe miSsUe air-rrama. One approach here is a comparisonof weight reqQtrements fo r the various propulsion systems fo r various ranges,

In th e ehol't r.ange ll'.iasile designed to have a, g1 .yen Mach No, carrying .agiven :.oarhead (hE:rl3 shca-n as eithei' 1500 or 2800 lbs} it is apparent that a .l iqtid rocket power plant has weight advantages, due to the relatively l i ~ h t engine, !3 t h ~ range increases to about 150 IWUtical miles the weight of theliquid oxidizer which must ba ca!':ried overco-mes the low engine veight 1 and a irbreathing enginsa provida a lightl:lr in!!tallation, Although not shovn he%"$ intr,e 100 - 200 n-.ila I'1111ga to r iJUrposes of graphical cls.ri y 1 th e 1-urbojet \fill'be supe11.oor for ;-angsa of from about 150 u.autical miles to 500 nautical lllilell,Baycr,d t h i ~ range tha r r u i l j e ~ is t h e o r ~ t i c n l l y superior, As a point of i n t e r ~you r l l l note a considerable difference in th" ahl'!.pe and slope of the curvea fo rrrur.jet arrl turboj -st v j . > ' ~ " i t i l ) n , 1'hie is largely due to the fact t.ha t rl th e:rlatingtuz-bojets 1 available engllhlil hav!:! ~ a p a b i l i t1P.3 in diacreta steps, In general, whenadditional fuel must be carried fo r longer r n n g ~ s additional thrJet munt be provid$d

- 9 -

III1IIIi


19/64

' I- '

- I

Ij!I

'f I.. - ....... -- -- ... ..

1t . S E C R Eto both cany the larger mass at the saJtlS speed, a..'1d aiso to counteract theincreased drag due to the l a r g ~ r t a ~ ~ a g e - volume r ~ q u i r e d . In the ramjet CAse,these effects are not as pronounced, since the ramjet a i r f r a m ~ is t h ~ engL1e, a r ~ increases in fuel volwnes n e c c a s a . ~ f o r long ranges increase the size of airfrAmeand hence lilso change the siz.e of engi!-Je resulting in a config\JI'ation lthich canbe designed to be near optilTI'.llll for a ll ranges,

From these curves the r ~ j ~ t hse definite superiority for our ?CO milemissile, Unfortunately, ou r restriction to uss of components which are presentlyor will shol:'tly be a.va1lable legislates against Rar.ljota in favor of the JOON!common, more available and better k n ~ ~ turbojets,

A vary important consideration beyond the missile range alone is the effectof the various propulsion systems on carrier radii, and ultimately on iieAjlCn Systanradii .

Here the carrier radii ar e shewn as d o t t e ~ l ines, and the Weapqn $ystem:-ad.:ri are shown solid. For the caee of liquid ror.kats i t is r!;ladily t i p p r u - ~ n t that carrier radius f i l ls off very rapidly l l i t ~ i n c r e a a ~ miasile ra.r.ge dt


20/64

. '! !

II:,. III

a rough preliminary analysis on some SS possible missile designs. Only fourteenof these showed sufficient promise to . consider further and two mssiles of eachtype were finally picked for detailed study, These were a ll designed primarilyfor the 2800 pound special warhead, Before describing any of the.'3e mis.'31lea indetail i t would be appropriate to dascribe the general characteristics of theentire f11111ilyz

Fi rs t of all 1 missiles are of the body-wing type in both the p i t ~ h and yawplane, This arrangement was choo!!!n over tha more conventional t ail ~ I t or can.ru'dconfigurations for the following reasons:

1. Interference between fore and aft surfaces is eliminated, Thi:! .!'13sultain linear static stability characteristics in both pitch and y a ~ planesUp to hign l i f t va lUSB BB W'Bil as .red.lCed roiling momenta in CO!nblnedplane maneuvers. The . demands on th e autopilot and aervo aysttm\ ~ r e ensed substantially with this arrangement,

2, Structural flight loado on +,he t.ody ara much Bil\aller aince the lll&inl i f t is close to ~ h f l centar of grvity. Thia r s ~ S u l t a in eubatan.t i l l ls true tural w e i g h ~ oavinga, In addition, r.on-s tructural (quicklyremQ':s.l:>le) accer.!! C:.oorB becouvJ qUite practiclll u . n d ~ r thue C.:rro.tablsccnditiona,

3. The n;nnbe;o of pHta ar.a n ~ d . w ; e d coruJic.lurs.bly, e,g , , mui'ttca:s, !itt.:Ulga,ac tun.tnrn, etc. ThLna,,uJ.ta in decreased weight and coat,

1 g n e d to near nautr!l.l. rl t..9.t,ic ~ i : . a b i l i t : r . 'l'h:ia is dao w.n nid in (;iJnpli!icntionof the control ~ y s tem becs'.llle only s:nall contxoF mom enttJ &re requirad to l!l4ne\..'Verth e mia si le , 1he type of design is particularly "'ell juatifi6d in p i l o t e d

fa E < ; R { : q i ~ r- lJ. -

r

. i I) I


21/64

I ,

.: .

. '' .i-II. Ii

SECRET .....missiles thts oategpry because provision of. a significant amount .of aer.ody.ns.!ni.cstabil i ty only reduces performance and neither provides s L ~ p l i c i t y nor increasesthe re l iabi l i ty of the syste:m, It ohould be mentioned here that this very importantphase of the study was investigated in detail using a representative missile asa .model,

Roll and pitch controls are provided by balanced wing elevens; yaw controlis provided by the upper rertical surface which is pivoted a t the ae-rodynamiccilnter. fucause the rnissil& is designed fo r .a low value of directiona- stability,the rolling moment produced by th e proposed surface - arrangement is very small and,therefore, easily handled by tho elevens

The missiles shown herein are designed to accol11!11odate a 48-inch dia."11aterrotating double pi l l-bo:x antenna, in:stalled in a near horizontal p o s i t i o n ~ eitherforward or aft of th e wing. An alternate side-looking antenMt 10 f ~ ~ t in l3ngth,can be inst41led on most of the designs shown.

To facilitate comparisone of th e turbojet and rAliljet de s i gl'l.S, the c ~ n f i g u r a -t i ona and data I will give c o r r ~ s p o n d to m!st11le3 dsBigned fo-:- the 2 1 a . ~ e rangs,

Th9 t ~ o turbojet m i ~ s 1 l e s selected u ~ g the Ju73 and J-65 j ~ t engines,.Uthough a nu.-nber of tu1bojet engine:, ~ r o v e d suitJI.ble for usa, such ae the J-57 1J-71 end J-67 1 adva.nced verdoms of th e ,J-73 tmd J- 65 appeared to be inost favorable'in r ~ g a r d to over-all miasile yerformance and night . In "gard to avru.lllbility 1ea.ch of the basic engine:! is op2mti;, p r s ~ f l n t , and in e.nch i n a ~ r u ' i c s t.hedevelopment progrl!IlHl for t ! J s ~ - e n ~ i n 1 l a , .ilppi'IP,r r ! 3 M ~ n n b l e j_n regard to J N l r f o l ' l l l ~ ance and e i g h t 1 and COillpatlbl3 ti l th th D opent:ton!ll data required.

Both missiles wsre d.e:Jignad f()r 500 naut,ind m.!.le" Z"'.lj'lge, l .luncn t o.oat 40,000 feat , They e.cr.:elero.tt:! vHhod, .


22/64

I. . .. - .... __ ., .. l - -. ri I

Each horizontal s u r f has 35 square feetJ . an a.spcct ratio of. .2,$. and- ataper rat io of ,5, The horizontal ~ u r f a c e s ar e a ~ % m o d i f i e d double wedgeai r fo i l section,

The vertical surfaces havs l l square feet of area each. The upper surfacei s movable and th e lower surface (containing th e guidance relay antenna) is fixed.

The J-73 missile has an overall length of 475 inches; a body diameter of 45inches; n Jlingspan of 203.5 inches, and au overall height of 147 inches, It/Sweight empty is 6 ~ 4 2 pounds and lal.lzy;;b weight .is .13,507 pounds,

The J-65 missile has an overall length of h57. 5 inches, a body d:l.ameter of45 inches, a wingspan of 203,5 inches and an overall height of 148 inchaB, Thiamissile is -slightly heavier than the J-13 varsion 1 having an empty 1wight of7486 pounds and a launch weight of 14,726 pounds.

The missiles deacribed require the usa of afterburning 1 aHhough c . r u i ~ e tsusually e.t less tha.n ful l reheat. One n o n - a n ~ ~ b u r n i n g fjng.tne-mHaile configuragt ion iJaa investigat-ed in an effort to consarvEl ~ t ~ n g t h . SincP. thl3 t . h : r u e t ~ \d.th .f'ullafterburning is more th&n twice th e non-afte?burning thrust) at high apeed 1 a high

'capa.ci ty engine is essential if a!terburning ia to be elimine.ted. Rough prel:l.minnrrreBulta indicated that a J-67 powered configuration would provide satisfactor.rcruise perfornmnce. Howover, th e performance of this particular mi:sila wu1degr.ndsd considerab.cy, dua to oevsral additive factors , in e. recheck or t,ha merepromising configurat ions. The bMic idea is prnr.: t icable 1 nevart.1eleea 1 p r o v H ~ 1 &n $r_,gina Hith higher thruB t o\ltput, vere aviA:ilAbla.

The perfomance ch.nnctarist!cl!l given for these m i a ~ i l e s .ue l ; ) ~ t a e d on the 112!9o! f1..xad inlet. a and ou t la t.u, ;thl.t; h .U11 cornpr?f!lL sed bt;stueen th e t;,;o e.x trt-Ji!OIS oftransonic acceleration and high epeed cruitHl, 'l)fo-pol!.li tion thr{)'lf away ot

1.3 -

II

IIII!I... I

I!II .I :1 II Io II I! I.I

!II

II'


23/64

: .{1$:1

inlet:!, or variable inlets , and variable nozzles do not seem pra:cticaJ: for thisapplication; calculations show that an increase of only about 15 per cent in fuelload is required to compensat-e for th e umis:lion of s u ~ l i more coniplica"ea a.nd lessreliable items,

Since the turbojet engine is started before launch i t would be used to drive. .th e alternator and hydraulic pUJilp required for missile guidance and control

c9mpcner.ts, Here again, pre-launch malfunctions could be observed and suitable

'I I..... -.. - ., .'.

.

JI!;action talten, It should be. noted that neHner ramjet nor rcc li:et miSsiles provide --,such desirable characteris t ics in 'r e gard to engine starting and accessory drives .

The engine, of course, uses th e same type of fuel as the bomber, thus relievingth e logistic problem considerably, Engine reliabil i ty is enha!'l.ced significantlyAJ.so.,. ainca th e .engine c&n be gr.ound tested easily ., under. sta .t ic conditione 1 1 1 h e n ~ ever desired , Further, engine maintsnance cralis are already quite !ami lh r withturbojet power ple.nts, t.'ius ~ M l d n g chackout a ~ d roa:intenance a much simpl-sr problem.!I!J we l l as eliminating the ground crew train:irig which liOuld be l ' l t J C ~ S U r y !or othe:rengine ty;:>ea,

Two basically d i . f h x e n ~ -:ype of ruijet miu i le5 have btHm invaatiga t.ed insome detail .

Thes" are the annular due te d body single burner type .and the twin rM!.jettype 'Iii th a non-ducted body, From waight and performance etatYlpointa , n t ~ i t h e r missile has a pa r t icular adva.ntage ovar th e othar. Jlcce:ssibility to warhead ~ l i d guidance compommts i s better on th e' non-ducted body con.!iguration, but on thGother hand t h e r ~ ar e disadvantages ' inherent in twin engins operation even thoughthey have a c o ~ m ~ o n fuel and cont r ol ayllitur, .

I!

I'-;;


24/64

------ ... - - -t_ __\1 \ '- -_.

Again both mi-ssles- were designed for )bb nautical miles range 1 and hunchat Mach 0,8 at 4o,ooo feet. You will note that external boosters are r e q ~ r e d t .o .accelera-te the mi-ssnes to }{ach L 6, wh -er e the ramjet engines take over forthe acceleration a.l1d climb to cruise at Hach 2,2$ at about 70 1000 feet.

The i.LI'aa of th e horizontal surfaces is increased to 32.5 square feet persurface, b ~ t the L% modified double wedge ai rfoi l maintains i t s 2.5 aspect and,5 taper rat ios, Both th e all-movable upper and fixed lower vertical 3urfacesremaill a t- 11 a qua-re feet pe r surfai:ie.

The e.nnular ducted body configuration engine is 50 inches in di.amet.er andis baaed on a 48 ineh engine developed by th e Wright Aerol'\a.1,!tical Corporation,The overall missile length is 324 inches, body diameter 53 i r ~ h ~ s , ~ ~ n g g p a n : 2 0 7 inches anJ overall h e i g h ~ ;i,lS 142..5 ~ n c h e a ,

The twin rQ.ll\jet engines ar e based on 28 inch diameter Marquardt Enginesscaled up to JS inches. The 111.issils h a : ~ an overal l .}.ength of )L.O : ! : n c h ~ J Bbody diameter vf 4S inches, a wing.'jpun of 220 lnches and an overal l he:l.ght of142 inc!les,

The optilli'UJTI cruising Mach nUIIIbor was d& tennined to be about. 2. 25 for tHesepartial ly self-accelerating ramjet miasilee, Higher crui3a Mach n\.llllbel;"ij requiMthe use of larger rocket boo:stera since the .I'!U'IIjet talce-ovar Bpesd .'i.IJ high6r,The increase in troight due to this it


25/64

-------- - L.! Ie very~ o m p a c t ani can be carried s e m i - s u b m e : r ~ e d in the _ bc!:!b b_;r, ii desired. Onth e other hand, a rather extensive investigation of th e present and futurestatus of r ~ ~ j e t engines indicates a s t r o ~ ~ possibility t h a ~ new ramjet engines,l:Ihich would be r o q u i r e ~ for these missiles, cannot be developed w:i. thin threquired time scale.

The neceasity for rocket booeters to accelerate the ndsaile to the _r a ~ e t take-oYer Mach number results 1n additional logistic, n ~ i n t e n a n c e ~ And atorngoproblems as compared to th e turbojet power missiles, which do not require ' o o o s t . e r e ~

As mantion!:!d before, rar.tjet missiles do not provide p r a c t i c ~ 1 low a1 t i t u ~ approach. For a:x&nple, an approach of Lo n. ;ni. at 1 ~ 1 a.l.titude.!! will cause arange loea of appro:d.matsly 200 n. mi . This occurs ~ i n l y because th e character-i s t ics of ra;n.jet engines ar e auch that fl ight Mach rrumber must be kept to a highvalue - th e lid"ifuD.ll11 .H -&bout H"' 1.6 i:or the 11daaile shm;n, This r e s u i t ~ J inunfe.V"orable combil"li;tion of rts.ch nu.n!ber ar.d al t i udo, insofar as range ia conca-rmd.The low altitude :1.pproach results in uz:>:re sevs.N! inlst 1nst&td.lity-, temperature,and structural prbl&n.B.

lmly one rockat propulsion s-y-stem vi l l be ln19ntionad ht}ra 1 dthough Mveralechell'l!)s :and a y ~ S U 3 m s ware coneidared i! l th e original ~ a l y ~ b . Thiu mis!Uqj WASd ~ s i g n s d :for fl range of 100 nautical mile!!, irom launch a t u:>,ooo feet a t Ht\cho . B ~ '111:s ~ ' O i : J - l r g l i d e n igh t profile ind udea a. boCI!It to ~ c h 3. 7 a t 711500 feet ,

. . . . .: .. I , :glide to !'(.e.cil 1.3 at 63,000 feet arrl d : h ~ to d o t ~ m ' l t i o n ru. ti ude.-.l l so of t.he 'liingbody' c o n f i g u r a t i o ~ , i ta rnaxi:Jnt.l1il d i ~ n a i o t ' :J..ncl.\l.C!e :,n-, inc..l:.el\1:- I'

length, 179 inches !:>rlngspen; !,6 inch body d:l.emeter and 121 :tnch overall haig.'lt,I t ha s slightly err.all':!r 1rlng areas.

JS: . - . .: .. .-sECRE'l' -...16 -

.II

._\.


26/64

i:

I

Ir iI ' ... -- - . - . -

The liquid. propellant rGcket missiles inves-tigated in this B"ttrdy .nre a llcf the boost-glide type, The use cf this flight path, coupl.ed with thrust-weightratios of 2, refinernent;s in ael:'odyr.a'll.tc. ctesign1 and use a ram air t.uftiii'ia.!orauxiliary power, provides a r.ear opti.Jnwn design for these missiles.

Missile l e ~ g t h was kept to the length shewn order to make a bcrnb bayi n s t s . l ~ n t i o n p o ~ : 1 i b l a . For an external (Rascal type) in:1tallation a smallreduction in weight could be obta.ined by increasing t!'le body finene33 ratio,

A-ltheugh the boc:Jst-glide .missile type. r ~ p l e s e n t a a oignificlint, ~ . m p N v a M n t when comperl.ld t.o the b o o a t - c r u i ~ e type of rocket n u s : ~ i l e 1 it is shorm, in JM.t,erialwhich follows, t.h,st thfl i m p 1 ~ o v e d rocket miss:l.l9 do po t a


27/64

'I .I-- --- - .. .. --- - !

: jI

'' I;!

' :'

.; .I.I:I. i

Cnar:ictarfiltics or other turbOjet engines were ir.ve3'tigateo. Tn ad-ditionto the J-73 a11d J ~ 6 5 , the J-79, J-?i and J-57 engines were considered Tofacilitat-e ready' rafaraiica to manufacturers d.;;.ta,- the m a n u t a c t u r ~ r s designationis given here. The engine. parameters at sea level and JS -000 foot altitude andt ~ o ~ a c h numbers are compared, The values shown are correctad fo r inlet lossesand are fo r a c o ~ v c r g e n t - d i v e r g a n t nozzle of 1.6 area ratio, It is apparent thatfrcm a size-tleight-thrust standpoint, the J-79 i3 very a ~ t r a c t i v e . At the t i . l l l ~ or this ~ t u d y , r.ouever, the J - 7 ~ did not look tote a v a l ~ a b l e within the timsspan. Evt:n so , a comparieon of these engiMs was ms.d.e for typic.!l.l :Xach 1. 8cruia.g 800 r.autictl mile flights to datermine the amounts of fuel required forea.ch of these airframe power plant ccmbination3,

,4g&tn i t a p p e , 3 ~ :that the J-79 has adv.o.ntages .of botti fuel requirement:s andl\uooh weighte , CclilpuieoilD of this typo, eve n though the components are cunentlyu r ~ Y a i l a b l e , point out consideratlo advantagaa ' in growth potential of given design!11nd ce valu!lble frcn1 this standpoint.. Indications of th e versatility of the O!AB!cm i : s : ~ i ! ~ defiign ia l l . l ~ o highly desirable, both from a development' and a production"'iau po:!.nt,

A !l'.oro detailed ba:s1c miasile d e : ~ i g n was made fo r the J. 73' engiM con!igilra.tion.'!'h!l m u l t i o ~ . x i l ! l inn t ia l guid!U'lCB aq'Uipu.ent is mown i n ~ t U J i.n t!"rt 110%..:} and r-e&rof the warhead c o - M p a r t m ~ : > n t . The fuel tank located to coincido ni.th t.hu mi!ailai_ center of gruvity tCI ))li.ni.mita C,G, tra:.rel during the flight, '!he h ~ r i ~ 5 o n t a l w i n g

I

!-

.

is t . s d appN:tinud:.slj at the ci.lnter of the 1\lselage S? ~ h a ~ t h t ~ C,G, ..of l if t leo.:!!tiNl!J in sura n near neutral stability. 11. single inlet duct r l h amodified b% boundary hye:r c o r : ~ : - o l ;redge is provid-:sd. 'fhe posaibilitiea o! usingvariable or several throw-away duets were considered 1 bu t deemsd of i n e u ! f i c i ~ n t ' va lue to j u ~ t i f y the added complexity and cost,., ....... . u . c = x ~ : r ~ . _ . .

- 18 -

"I'

. I};


28/64

I '

The sea!'fi:h radar ante-rJ1a is located just af t of the wing carrythrough, Mwe've said before, t1is anterJ1a is used only during the midcourse- constantangle of at tack portion of flignt and .doea not rieed to be pitch etabillzed,The particular configUration shown here shows the growth potential capabilityof using an ATRAN monitored multi-axis inert ial system when auitable ATRANcomponents b ~ c o m e available. For th e radar monitored multi-axis a y s t ~ m thiaunit is replaced ~ ~ t h the command package which decodes and transfers guidanceoperator correction commands.

The J-73 turbojet is m o ~ , t e d slightly below th e forward body centerline,inclined slightly nose down, the hydraulic s.nd electrical pouer supplies fo rthe r ~ i 1 1 s i l e guidance and control equipment mounted on the engine accessory.pads in th e normal manner. T i t ~ ~ o w ! ! r va.r.tical Wing is hinged to fold parallelto the horhontnl "'ing to provide the necllasa.ry ground d e a n n e ~ when t.h.. l'!issila1:5 m o u n ~ e d on the ClUTier aircraft ,

,l l hough the original a tudy dealt nt!linly r l h the 2800 and 3000 pound warheads,this later study indicated the d ~ s i . r a b i l i t y of having a capability of ~ s t n g the6400 pound llpccial warhead. Thia capability was incorporated by i.naUIUing thel ighter warheads in the f o : r o ~ a r d end of the warhead compnrtment and t h ~ . t hnv:l.arwarhead in th e rear of the C9fllpa.rtmant, When the 2800 or )000 ~ o u n . d p ; ~ y l o a d ie installed, a removable fual tank is ineta.lled in th e aft end of the c ~ p u t -ment, to provide the balance o! the fuel needed fo r tha 800 n. m i l ~ Misnion. Thesize of the ~ 0 0 pound \ol!rhead is 13uff19ie,nt to ~ q u j . r e the ~ n t i r e \ f ~ h ~ ~ d ~ c c p a r t -mentt and the resulting m i s ~ i . l e range is .400 n8utical m ~ l e s .

Init ial s ~ r u c t u r a . l design ucrk wl.a concos-rwi with t.he study oJ t:9l"tain s t r u c ~ tural problems 1 pertinent to the selection ot rJpti.nlllJII ll1:11l!ile 8 t : r u r ; t . m ~ . Ef.fort

'[ ' l- .\ ..Lr!

' .II! I

I1 ,

'''! 'I


29/64

iI.I.I

I

'j ( '*iGR:lhwas roncantrated on the center rortion of the body since i t appeared that th13porti.Dn ~ u l d dictate the n o ~ t prondsing structural S.l'l'i!.l'l.gemant !(lr the entirtbody.

Fits center l:odies W9re deaigr.ed, including alwninum alloy atruct:.lras ofpure rronocoque and s e m : U n o ~ c o q u e , and a plastic sti"JCture of sandwich oonstruction.From a comparieon of the W9ight of thB!Hl ci.esigns, togetller with a col"..eilieration otfabrication costs and difficult.ioa, fuel ts.nk sealing problems, structural dn'Slop-rr.ent. pl"'grt.ma, otc., the p u r ~ m:moooq11G1 aluminum al:Wy shell "111\11 ulechd.

Studies ' l ! ' ~ r a Also !l'.ade of ths !orn11r-d errl of the intaka duot W1H'3 pzooblenusa r i : ~ e from the large pressure loads on thin, flllt s u r f a c ~ I J . A satisfactory struo ..tural configuration wu u.ltim tsly a c h i e ' f < ~ d by l l l J i ~ longitl.ldi.nill eanial.GTI1' bwt.ma,:'!lther tha.n rr-ames, in thiiJ section.

The various p t ' : } b l l l l ! i : ~ of thenmll lJtr&sa, orup, oraep buckiillg, ani otherpher.t:l'!ll!l'rta reruting from k . t ~ ~ p e r a t u r a operation have be.en axamined &*nerall;r1and :l.a o o m ~ i d . : ~ r ~ that no aerioua diffi-cultietl exi.et vith the proposed :ad.sailo,

Follo'lf!ng the a : i ' o M ~ ' W n t i o n e d gora l studies, a strJctural cen!igulati.on10s developed for the bade tld.f!sils. Sues ani tl\iclme88se were esto.bJJ.:Ihed forthe prirraey stZ"Jctural !rlihriAl and a !nlppo:rting prelilnir.ary analy!i:J "RI'lB written.i brisf d ~ s o r i p t i o n of the miuilo structure is given 1n the ! o l ) g . d ~ pu ""J,gril.ph;l,

'l'hl vfug i3 typical of thin, highly ~ d < 0 \ 1 eupn""'nic BUrf1cea 1n that i tJ-.1.1.3 it a prim.117 bendiqJ struoturo o! multhab eonstruotiol- \rith l!llldl.wd, t a ~ l ' > Z < l , a l u m i . n ~ i l l lof skins. The lllkirnl 1'l.Y.t0nd 1n on:B pi13Ce !:roil! the roar b.r>..M !orva..""dto +.JJe wading edge aui i 11'0JD the nrl.salltJ" centerl.irW tc t c tip . T h ~ t lhnr 'II>Zlb


30/64

I .. ''' ''.iiI

It

I

I; Ir :

X . e t ~ T ' ' , ...

The fuselage is prilr.a.rily a ring-stiffened, p ~ ; . r e monocoque shell, circular in section except over the center portion where i t is deepened and given flatsides to acconunodate th e intake duet, Aft o! the leading sdge J th'3 intake cuctrises into the fuel tank and changes gradually from a sem"\.rec tangular to acircular section. Internal duct pressures are resisted by channel section frameswhich also extend up into the fuel tank to carry fuel tank pressures, The Yingcarry-through structure and the search antenna are positioned b e n e ~ t h the duct,and th e resul ting cuto\.:t in the fuselage shell is bridged by char.nal-.sectionlongerons. Large structural doors are p r o v i ~ e d fo r warhead and e n g i ~ o installs-tion, and most of the fuselage structure is fonned from 24S -T6 aluminum alloy,

The upper vertical surface is allmoveable, and is piVoted on: ,a 2 1/4 inchdi ameter a l loy steel ahaft, carried in bearings in ths fuselage . This s h ~ f t ertends up into t he ve-rti cal surface iffiere 1 chD.ngea to a r e c ~ n g u l a r t s ~ C t i o l ' l , forming the Main bsil.l11, The rorna i ning upper uurface structurtl consj.st! or twoo n ~ - p i e c . e alumnum nlloy .skins., .aepara tod by aolld m a - g n ~ a i v . l ! l r:l.ba.

The lowsr val'tict!.l surfac e is fixed in frea f l ight , bu t is hing'-ld on tli'oroot fittings to !acilitat8 storage of the n d a s i l ~ on tha cnrrie_. The priaa iy,structure is of rwltiYob construction, u11ing al\..1!dnUI!I alloy ekil"-8 tThich ar eJ l ' ~ c h i n e - t a p e r e d in thiclmeaa and three chamal-eect1.on epamdne b i l : ~ . m 1 1 Thofront and r u r b t ~ l l l l s pic!< up tha root hinge t'it tings , w.hile the skins ~ u - ~ piece f r om root to t ip and !rom l e a d i ~ ~ to trailing e d g ~ . .

To p e r m i t comprehensive examination of the structura l aspocta of theva.rloua con!igur:. tion n, an rmalysis of basic critl'lt'i a and NHil;J.ting !llajor d;)sig:nloads had t o be made. J. .repl"il!lOnt:at.ive configuration vn11 . \l.3ed ~ ~ ~ t.h!! i!XMph ,and ac tu rd pn ll1mins.ry design loads vare deri ved fP r Ul'e in : ~ t r M I ' . I a.mJytJb ~ . 1 : - d

r I -i !II!III. iji

Ir

I


31/64

'I'I! :i;

fi ':I !'.I: I,. ;' I. !;' jf i ll..1 i

IIIIIl

., . ! -

eubsaquent weight estimation, For other configurations, loads ware ?btained by_applying the ratios of gross 11eights and/or moments of inertia,

The salecti'Jn of the design criteria is r e n e d by ~ h . e target- ~ c c u r a c y andassociated maneuver requirements, probable gust loads, and captive flight conditions,Data provided are: s true tural design weights, limit load f a c t o r ~ , . a.zid._.defi.itltllnnof crit ical condition combinations, flaxirnUJ11 load factors of J,Cg in pitch andl.?g in yaw were selected fo r missile free-flight-condition design,

I t interesting to note as an aside that about the time this secQqq stJJdy;a1s completad 1 it becrune a;>parent that the J-79 engine was coming along much fasterths.n the advanced J-73 engine, .ar!d that today \ i l ~ think al.moat entirely in ta!'llle ott,he J-79.

The m i a : ~ i l e inatallatlon aa datermined in the original study hs.s not baenappreciably changed,

Studies to date vf nrious carrier-mi3Sile .-:ocl'igurations he.vv show thatthe body mount. arra.'lgement ( ~ W b r to the p r e a e r . t ~ s c a i ) the mo!lt p : r o ! i t i a i J ~ for missiles over J40 inches length for the B-47 and 420 inches fo r t l 1 ~ B-52aircraft, i typical installation o! this type 1a shewn here,

J.n arnngemer.t wher11by th s missile is mounted on the wing in pboe of onoof the \ling t.l>.nke ha.!l scine merit for present Ba47B !rr l B-47E f!lodele in tJ'...nt thl'}elimination of one wing tan..lc does no t ieduca the ll.Jilount of fuel ~ t t can 011csrried, Thi3 location p o a a e i 5 a ~ ~ a further advantage in that exi.!lting attllchments function ad3quataly ad a m i ~ a i l e mount. On the other hand, longer ~ ' f l 9 v a r ~ t of th a E ~ 4 7 are being considered by tha USAF; thece airpl!lno9s t:.k$ otta t, and refuel, to higher groas ~ e i g h t . ' : ! than prssent B - ~ 7 l!'lodels and \fou.ld requireaU >1vaHabh tankagu for maximll-'11 r-adius, On ~ n e s e models, there foro 1 tha le eaof a wing tank would constitute an important disadvantage,

1t S C C t l : : ; ~ t : . . , - 22 -

' f \ ___I

'j __

l-1

I

; l 1-


32/64

i. (

I

I'!Ii..n1:I

I1!!;I,,'

\ =:IIiII 'i :I: . .

liing mount a r r a n g e m f l n ~ s en the B-52 dt? nQt. appesr v.er.y aatis.fac tory, Thewing tank is much further outbcard and further r.ft, c o r ~ p a r e d to the B-47,Mounting the missil.e in p h c ~ q( the. wtng .tank PNsents; consequentlY', morasevere lateral and longi tudi.rJ).l balance problems as well as increased align-ment troubles. As with the S-.47 1 inboard, pylon-type wing mounts are infariorto body mounts on many scores and have no outstanding advantages,

Another possibility serious disadvantage cf wing mounted missiles, in general,is that on an aborted mission 1t r ~ a y be necessary to jet-tison th e missile to preventexcessive landing loads on the outrigger landing gear ~ ~ d subsequent loa6 of theaircraft. For testing purposes, missne weight cun be l'educed to 4000_-pomide .orless and would not present the same p r o b l e m ~ .

For missiles falling within the.lsngth limitations mentioned p r e T ! o u ~ l l (ehort range rocket mi!sileB and short or long r a ~ e ra.'njet missiles), a se!;t\.-submerged bolllb bay location iD po;H,i-b-lc, }. small advantage or thia arr&ngllillentts found :trt i ts greater si.ndlP.ri of appenr-ance to the usu.al grll'li ty bombf.lr thMia found whan wing or bod)' mO\\Ilta ar o empleyed. On th e other hMd loading thelrli!sile aboard the carM.er 1B l l : > r ~ c . ~ p l i c a t a d , because of thll rather au l lground oleap-;mce, The upper ! in (aa 1rell as the lcroer fin) u i l l h11ve to be e 1 t ht o l d . a b l t ~ or r-udil,y I'9111ovable, other.ti!7e p it loading will be Nqui:rod,

M".Aificat1ona to the cur ia r are a.lao gl'6atoq the b < o ~ ~ b bar fuel tank 1 the

r-aquire modifications, . A . l . t h o ~ h corlni.l cu1ie .r lilOd.i.i'icAtioni! could ba of llp e r n ~ & n e n t nature, 1"8conv'll!'8ion bai:lt to. V i " ~ y bl)!ilbing Jiliaeions 1a moro CCil\pll-cated Ullm fo r th a axtarnlll moUt-t nrrangell\er:t.

ToYing the missile bahiod eit.hP.r the fuselage ot' the uing presents m&nyaerioua problems c o m p a r ; ~ d t,o th!l &rrangements mentioned px'Gvioualy, Because

...

. : . - - - ---

Ij!I

I

I_:_I


33/64

preliminary calculations inaicate that r:o import(lnt ad:van .tages .hav.e. been d i a c o v ~ r e d in the tow arrangement (probably because this weapon system make u r ~ c f an existingairplane), less effort ha3 ' Q ~ e n exp.ende.d_ on this typG of design,

The external body mount arrangamant 1 9.s contra3 ted with ot.'ler arr1111gamenta 1offers the most s2.tisfactory compromise t.o th e ovE;r-all installation problem,To sum up:

l , The drag is low on both legs of the carrier flight,2, The disturbance to longi t l d l ~ l and la.teral balance is small,3. Modifications to aircraft s t r u c t u ~ and fuel tankage are s n ~ l l ,

Loading t ~ e missile on the carrier is simple,5. .A.ccells to the missile, when piaced on the carrier, is good,6. .Accells to the carr.i.er ralaj" ant.onna i?.nd ether equipment which is

located in the free bomb bay area 1:3 excellent,1. Siri\111U'ity in mount t.o Rallc:l will pe nnit the use of much of the

e;d!lting ground support equipmP.nt snd techniqu&s.8. The least configurational d ~ ! r : a n d ~ are pl;iCed on the m1s sile,.

: i a. Body length and fineness ratio l!..t'S ;wc predicated by rmyarbitra.ry c c n s t r a 1 . ~ t , ('!,g,, biJi,lb b ~ y langth. Instead, a nearoptimlllll fineness r a t ~ o , considering both drag a.nd structurdweight, can be used,

b, The upper fin is r 9 q u i r ~ d tJ ~ a s i l y removable or foldable,It Bhould be noted hera .that: a . bo;,.,b ba:r installation of the relay antenna

is preferable, for long range m ~ . s s i 1 e s ) to . f o l O l : ' f ~ aft locationB, fo r bro reasons.F.trst, it provides forward a.s well as l'C tu1:ie.j;f vislo;J, The result is that thacommurJ.cation link can ba m a i n t f . l l ! ~ d ~ r i th the carrier hEaded both towardll anda11ay from the target. This faature is very d r . . ~ i r a b l a fe r long- range missiles

e E G M. . . ....., P'fh: l;- 24 -

r

\;.


34/64

:-!

:;- ,; I' l, I:II

' IlIIIi

., I.. . . . .. .. .. - - r- ' \

..-ccRE't-preliminary calculations indicate that no important a4.VIl.fltp.ges .ha:ve. been. discoveredin the tow arrangement (probably because this weapon system make uae ct' an exintingairplane), less effort ha s been e x ~ n d e d on _hi s ty.pe. of -desi-gn,

The exleinal body mount arrangement, as contrasted with other arrangements,offers th e most satisfactory compromise to the o v a r ~ a l l installation problem,To SWll up:

is

l . The drag is low on both legs of the carrier flight.2. The diatuibance to l o n g i t u d i n a ~ a ~ d l ~ t e r a l balance is. sm&ll,3. Hodifications to aircraft structure and fuel tankage are srr.all.4. Loading the ~ ~ s a i l e on the carrier is simple,s. Acces:J to the missile, when placed on the carrier, is good,. .6, . i c c e s < ~ tl ) the carrier relay antenna and other equipment 1oilich i"

located lT1 the free bomb bay area i3 excellant,7. Sind.larit.y in mount to !lasca l will penni t the u ~ e of much o! the

existing ground eupport equipment and tachniques.The leaat c o n f i g v ~ a t i o n a l demands are p ~ c s d on the ~ i s a i l e 3 , Eody l ~ n g t h and fineness ratio are not prsdicated by any

arbit.ra.ty constraint, e .g , , bC111b bay length. lMtead, a nearoptimU!ll i'inElness ratio, considering both drag a.nd s tructun.lwaight, can be used.

b, 'fue upper fi n im not. required to be en:dly removable or fold11bJ.s.It ehould ta not&d hare that a bomb bay inatallation of the relay a n t e ~

preferable 1 for loilg range missiles, to more a!t loca tiona, fo r tltO reasona.First, it provides fo rward as well as r e a n R ~ r d vtsion, T h ~ result i l l that thecomm'..lnication link C:i!n be m & i n t a i n ~ d with the carritH hended both tor.rards ~ n d away from the target, This feature is very desif"\ible for long- range miasilsB

.cceRE " ~ " ) ! " -. ., -. .- 24 -

IIIIII .'I

I II I

II.

II

II.I

IIIIIIII! .iII

..J1


35/64

.. ------ ..L.)! I

~ h e r e a s better vision to the side and rear is more important for s h o r t ~ r a n g a misi!iles, Secondly; the larger relay antenna (42 11 diameter) required fo r thelonger range missiles can be installed in the bomb bay w ~ t h no modi!ication' tothe baaic 6tructure, provided, a3 mentioned p r e v i o u s ~ , the missile is externallymounted,

In regard to o t h ~ r ~ ~ i d a n c e equipment on the carrier, the intant is to .useR.aacal tachniquea and dflvelopment Nheravar profitable, For example, it a . p p a t . r ~

. .possible to uaa ~ ~ 8 ~ 4 7 navigator-bombardier station in i ts entirety, aa devisedfor Rased, The re.rnaining guidance equipment can be installed in a capsule mountedin the bomb bay, similar to Rascal; or it may be pref.erabla, becnuse of th e .savaracooling problem fo r ~ a p a u l a . c o n t a i n e d equipment, to m?unt the components on raclcll,

Looking- back at ou r : ~ t u e y plan, iiil nave pretty well completed t.he mi11siled e ~ S i g n and inatalls.tion, deternrl.ned our target complex, p o ~ s i b l e basao of opera-tion 8..!1d h y p o t h ~ s h e d th e probable enemy cisfensa levels. We have :.spoken brieflyof carrier and missile reliabili t iea end v ~ l n e r ~ b i l i ty . The remo.ining arsae ofconsideration are therefore those of tactica and the actual weApon M n $ l y s i ~ .

.At the riak of some alight l'"epatition le t e rsviev the significant !ac tonaffecting each of th e various phasoB of euch an operation ar.d then considar ou.rspecific p r o b l ~ . We nave dons several such anAlyses; the lateet w ~ e undor acontinuation of the original study program, in which major ccnsidantion 11!!3

\g-lv en to the B-52 aa carrier, and the propO:!lGd . i l o I h < ~ v e d a v e l o p ~ d !or yo11The nwnbers I 111 give you todAy will be baaed on this lat8st ana]J!Ii.s,A. MISSION SUCCESS

Coriaidar a reapon system consisting of a }Tarhead 1 & o o n t fo r the r h e i l d , and a carrier to deliver thi3 varhead pAckage, 'I"he containsr msy ba eith


36/64

; ;r .;.I

i: '

-- - '- ... l. ;I l :' il(1) survil a l cf the carr ier to a relesse point; for th e '.oia1'head packllgt'l, ( 2)su-rtiva"i of the wa:rhead pac;)


37/64

&SE6RET I . . . - ...reliably .ov:er- t-his initi-al t:blre tnternil' component f ~ i l u r e rates are expected to

increase gradually as the operating time is increased. From a p ~ c h o l o g i c a l pointOf v:i:ew 1 howeverj detectiCfn of mirier falluroa by- a pilot. ~ r i l l no t result in abortedmissioM ae often after th e cal l haa penet:at'3d considsra;,.J.y into enerey terri toryas they will during in i t ia l entry- into defended reg_ior.a.weapon system effectivenei5a 1 i t b e c o m ~ B Mce"eary to dofine an operational f&ctor1po" to represent th e probability that, a carrier will abort, For any cost anAlysisi t ia neces!uy t o- evdua.te cafrl;fr losses jo, t h e ~ f o r - e , will bci1 ue5d to d ~ s i g nats thn probability that a.n aborMd ;nisaion wi1l r t ~ u u l t in loos t-f the carriar ."po11 i s primarily !l function of tima or fl ight "tr where t. '"' st. with: t 0 timf L - l lof fl ight from takeoff to entr ; into en13my defended t!irt"Uory 7l..

of w a r h c ~ d p a c k a ~ . t tilllo of ! l ight durlng which i: l expol.!l:lti t ; ; ~ : teed d"f.sot:GIJ pno r to3

:releas:a of wathead p.ackage,\ time carrier must loi ter_ subject to a rM defena;5 .sub:!il{lUfmt to releua

ot warhead po.ckAgll, Deaoite th s incr!J1l,sa in ; : ~ r r i e r vulnertbil i ty cauaudb ) " l o i t e ~ t i n g in regions covered by lthl!l .enemy'" def.eilsive forces, it .!requantly becomes necasaAry to accep_ th:i.!l p ~ n a l ty in or.dar t.o obtaind2:mage .uneatnnent datA or to provide guidmca of thu wl!l.rheadpackage to i ts detonation point.

t .. time carrier muo :t .loita r I'J!.lbject t.o d e ; f ~ n . s t ~ 6 ~ t u b : W q l . : e n t to Nlaue o!5wa.rhud p\!.ckage. SL"lCI8 th ,a tannually e ~ ~ ~ p l o y e d to deiJig-M ts J n u t ' J a ~ l y "xclu.si:;e !11


38/64

... ... -.. .. '--.. .\". -- rlI I

t 0 " ~ i , m ~ of. r ~ t u r . n . ..fligh.t.,,. subsequen-t -o--'elea;ll& of wa-rhead ~ k a ; g e .ll.nd lo i t;e-rtime

1during which carr ier i s exposed t.o local defenaall.

:t7 time- .of- retu-rn fl ight; oubeequent to r e l - a a . t J ~ o! r a ~ ' h e t l d pacih"gll aiixl lei te i'tima, during which carr ier i:s exposed to aru. da!ensea.

t 8 time of f l ight b e t 1 i ~ H m ex:it .fl""Jm enern;y dafend!3d ter r i tory and rsturn to homebase.The enemy i s expected to sur-round !lach prilll.fl target H th a net-worl! of local

.defense weapons including ant ..aircraf t l f . l l ' l ~ ; t'lngtiid':ld' barra..ge rockets and guidedmissile installation=. This cha:rt !3hOW:3 the c.apttbilities of each ty-pe of weapon

. system in terms of me.xi.mwn al :tt:.Jde 9.nd na."'':i.r.Jum horizontal range, These contourswere derived on a basis of existing .and estimatad ft1turs perfo:iJI.ance charactar-i s t ics of u.s. w e ~ p o n syste11113, In order to ~ v ~ l u a t a th e e!!ectiYenssa. or a local

a) ths q1J.antity ann employmtsnt Pt' oe.cb t;,ypF.i Of '!oroa.potl;b) The rat.e of f ire attained by e&ch insul lat in, i . e . th a mmbar o! roundM

thnt C!ln be fired and th\1t dunt ion o.f r;. !!lingle rol.!ndJ .,,ndc) t h ~ l r . i l l probabil i ty per round for


39/64

..I!I;, .i:I=; .

i .

III

.IIIii

.... . .. ..... I I

A-ma-jor portion of this effort will be acccmplished oy interceptors aiw3d Withconvantional armament (gun6 1 cannon and unguided rockets) with future improve-ment-- provtded- by an.to-ilir ' guided mistilae, In eva.iuating the effectiventll!Sof an interceptor that han been ccrrunitted against a groUp of attacking bcmbera,it :!..s necessary to ctly r e l i ~ d to th a per!o:nna..,lca c h a r a c t A ~ : r -i s t i c : ~ of th e in t.arceptor 1 u, g. i ti l rate of clilllb, cruising speed, m.uii'!ll11ll al t 1 t ~ d ! ! .etc, Detaction ie of coun3 dG?l"ndant on th e capabilitiaa of the i n h ~ o p t o rAI :r'Oldar. Once having accoapliahad < l & t ~ c t i o n o! thD bcmber .group, th" intsrceptol"muat be capabla. of m a n a u v e - ~ n g into a pV-sit!.un lfbere i t s capable o! fiMni itaa:rm::unent againat the b ~ , \ b e r . ~ b . i e v ~ m e n t ':Jf a bi;.nlier ki l l is then d e J l ' l r ~ h m t onthe accuracy and lt!the.lity of the ? ~ r t : l . c u l a r 'iieapcn GLlployad. Aft;n 1Ul enlU!!l

t h ~ a.ttack in tarns ~ J f . : (ll) the lior!:>ei : . ~ c l t ; (b) th a Bills ll11d deployl!ant o! thobomber group; (c ) thea lf?CaUon, o.f thaenrl;y wa!!Iihg dtt.tct1on lil'IAJ {d) tho l o o a ~ tion or interceptor bases and the nUlllbers and t-ype! of Mch i n t o r ~ s p t o r (plu'a T t ~ l l . m e n t ) availabl9 to each base J r . d ('a) t ~ 9 cc.m:.ni.i tbterrt. rate io r e.tch b u ~ againat th


40/64

. j

! -,.-. .

I1 rl. I I. lII: {!i!S E G R ~

bombers in ~ e n e t r a ting the intercs?tor defenses. Other weapon systems could beemployBd fo r area defense (e.g. AA guns and bar.aga rocketa) bul:. J u t ~ to the vastamount of territory r&quirir.g some measure of defense unrtlasonable quantities ofthese weapons w uld be r;aquired to provide adequate coverage, The onl_.v othe:t> iweapon that can be praeantly eilviaioned as capable of providing a l e v ~ l of IIdafen.sa sufficiant]J high to wanant c::msideration is a long runge t J U r f a c a ~ t o ~ a i r i!;clasila cf the Bomarc typo, Duo to the comple.xitise inherent in establiehiug anoperotior.all.y reliable and accurate system oi" this natura 1 it is fa l t that untilabout 1965 interceptors must be ralieved upon to provide virtually a ll o! the ~ r e a

Strengthening of this area defense can be &CCOliiplished by1a) i ~ N a s i l ' ! g the n1.11l1ber of interceptors ava.iinbls fo:r comb!l.t;.b) imp ro;inz the accuracy and leth.ility o th e a t ~ e n t ; arrlc) providing interceptors rti th greatai' porfo:mar.cs Col'.yl biliti&s and

!hue, i t is sean ~ 1 a t . in utder to e v ~ l u a t e np51p, the probabilit] that anyghen carrier sur-vives to i ts designated ls.1.:nch position, i t io necessaiY to~ v d ' . ! . a t e a larga nUlllbor of factors includ:Ut.g per1'ornu.-ce criterla 1 and ope:ratiooals.vailab1l1ty of d e f e n ~ J e ;roapon eystom.5 1 and t h ~ gecmetzy and strategy of thuattacking and defending forces, In ger.eral PSL is a p r o d ~ t . of threQ p:robabiliiiaa1

PSL a (1 - Po) ? PSAD SLD( l - P0 ) - probability thAt the cs.rr-ier r t l l not abortP - probabilit,y that the carrier 11urvives through the area defenae5}llPSLD probability that th e carrier s u r v i v e ~ through th;: loo.\11 de!eooe

. . . ..l,ilpliiilliSEel'rEI- .30 -

fII.II


41/64

. I

A number of cases may arise in which th e carrier is not subjected to eitherthe area defen.9es or the local defenses. In these instances, the appropriatesurvival probabilities are defined to be equal to unity,(2) S u r f i v ~ l of Warhaad Package from Launch to Detonation {o )wps

Assuming that the carrier hss successfuTly reached a hunqh position thenext phase reqQ\ring a n a ~ s i s ia that of r e l a a ~ e of the wnrhead package and~ a a s a g e of this package to a d e ~ i r e d location fo r a detonation of the warhsad.previously indicated the c o n ~ i n e r fo r the warhead may be either an nir- to-su:rfP-csJni.ssUe or a gravity bomb,

If a gravity bomb is uaed the probability that i t will arriva at an intendedlocati\)n fo r warhead detonation dependent on the accur2.cy and L'aliabilit.y ofth e bomb sight$ II.Cc:ura:cy the input d&t.!l. 1 er..d r\lliebilH.y of t.lra r.alsuemecha!liam. The bomb i .J invulne..-able to enemy co\lntc::rmeaouros d u r l n ~ i t s drcpfrom . elease at alti.tude to detoootion.

When an a.ir-to-uurf&ce mis:Jila (.iSM) is employed. to delivar th e nrhead, theproblems of missile system reliability and vulner&bility become critical. Ananalysis of t\SM reliabil i ty in particular is difficul t to per!onn due to the com-plc.u:i ty of equiproent req.lirad t perform g u i d a n c e ~ control L'1d propulsion f'un:tianufo r the miesile.

J,, gtme ral 1 missile reJ..iability i : ~ a funr.tion of tim-a-of-flight. .M in th acas e of the c:a:rrier, most of the missile system COillponente ar-"J callsd upon tooperata during the in i t ial phe :Je of the missile fl ight pattsrn, and hence amajority of equipment malfunctions a r t ~ expected to occur early i l l the fl ight,-.Since some components may no t be in operation unt"i.l th -e lat ter p o r t ~ on of tilef l ight due to th e special mrtu re of t .heir fuht;l;i-on 1 e.g: mechanilrnl"ll requi:red toinit iate the t.e:nnina.l dive phaae in the fl ight progra..11, zrd. 9sile fsilur-ee due to

- 31 -

. ... ~ __( -

I1:1


42/64

.

non-reU-ab1e opera:t:l:otl are expected to i ncrease as time of fllgh t ia i n c r e a : : ~ e d , It is expected, howevGr 1 t hC\t the number of l 'eliebility failures experiencedinit ial ly wtll be very large as compared to tha number of f ai lures experienceddi..:ring the remainder cf th e f light, Although the super5onic speed and highaltitude capabilit.ie s of an AS1-! render i t invulnerable to interceptor waapor.systems 1 surface-to--air guid8d missile systema of the Nike-typ'=' are effectivein combating an attack by ASM 1e. It thus becomes necessary to re-evaluate. tha'ef fee t ~ v e n e s - : r of the lociil d'Bfenae ne tMork in combating an at Uick b;y 4\S.M 1s,

Thu s 1 if rrr 11 is \!.sed to re pr s s:m t th e reliabili ty of ths 1>1arhead'WJlp&ckage fr om la11nch t,o det.or.atkn a. nd 11 p5 d 11 i s th(! prvbability of surviving enemydafenaas 1 then ~ p w p 1 5 1 the probabiUty that s warhead pac! \Y be roughly dividsd i nto f ou r ca t..ego r i e 21r

I . r-elio.bility of detonating mechanillm (fuzing syat.Slll);I I . location of the burst;

a~ C ~ ~ r ....- 32 -

I. rI I jI I

lIlIItIII

It I


43/64

I I

I-- - --- - . - - - I \

I l l . - le-thali -y of the warhea-d; 2ndIV, the nature of the target a:1d t.he amount of ; n a g e required to

effect -targe t naesti".ic tion1r;The probability of obtaining proper detonation of the warhead is dependent

on reliable functioning of the fuzing mechani!lrn ( 1 rf 11 ). Of the ssvara.l typesof fuzing that may be employed, the one ultimately -selected fe r usa ia dependenton i t s compatability 11ith the type of warhe!ld that is u . s ~ r l :md th e operatil.)nnlcha-racterla:ti c -9 of th e vshicl:s entp1oyed' tc delivar the uirhead.

In order to c o m p ~ e t e l y e v a l u a t ~ t1e e f f e c t i v e n ~ a s of a burst, i t is necessary to know the ground zero (g. z.) :and al tude at "'hich the rarlwad detonates,In addition to this data, the latitude nnd longitude of the targat must oe specifiadin order to determine &n intended aim point to relate th e bu.r.11t loc!ltion and thatarget position, Eecauae the enemy will undoubtedly attempt to concaal " t a r g e t ~ locatiohB 1 i t ie often necessary to rely upon intelligence reports and seco!'V!Aq. 0data as a ba2is fo r estimating target positions. Hence, i t becomo3 importantto assess the d-egree of accuracy with vhioh these positions are reported, Inevaluating a given weapon system the burst pattern or d i ~ t r i b u t i o n or burstabout an intended &im point, should be determined, In a guided missile, thispattern 13 determined by th e accuracy of th e gUidance i5)"!tem. Xnovledg-e of thisprob.ibi l i t r di.stribution of burst l o c a t i o n ~ about an inte:1ded aiM. point when Cctlt-binad t-lith ll


44/64

II:IIIH'I.i

;.,

- -i

I ;. -- - - - - -1 --- . rJ_I ! II

a dist inct method of target destruction ls considered, The Bingle stage aarheadis used to achieve a high level of overprsssure against a structural or nearpoint target. ~ ' h e n two stage w a t n e < ~ d s are employ.ed , the concept of dsstructionis changed, It now becomes feasible to "dest.rcy11 a target.,. 1. e . , nullify- i tsusefulness to the enenrJ 1 by crippUng or de:;troying supporting faci l i t i e . ~ fo rth e target that exist in the surrounding area. I t is ~ e c n , therefore, that itis most importent to completely define the t.arget ;>bjecthre, If it is a st.rac-tural target and a sng).e s tage l1arhend is used, target to ;ighnasil m\wt oe assessedand the amount of overpressure required to d e s t r ~ y th e target can then be : ~ i n e d , If a two stage warhead is employed and the concept of inriiroct target destructioni5 accepted, the s i ; ~ : e and shape of the area on which sustenance of the targetsuseful;l&llS ia dependenh mu't b? ; ! . p f . ! g : i . n ~ d . I t is than necas_sary to apacify alllininmm ovorprassure that !hotlld exist over a certain per cent of tha IU 'I l l l , thispe r cent dependent on t h ~ extant to which !\Jpporting fac i l i th3 m u ~ t be dii!lruptedin order to halt the targets output and usa: ' i e 'a to th e e n e ~ .

'!bus, the probability that a Ha.rhead that has reached a detonation pointwi l l destroy i ta target objec t i va io a product o! "P c" dafined above nnd thereliability of t h ~ fuzing mechani3m,

Hance, "P", the suoceaa ot a miBoion ( i .e . , sccomplit!h!tent o! daa ~ r u c t i o n of t h ~ ta r gJt objective) b given b1f

P psl Pvpt! Pd( l P o ) psad pll.ld r ; . ~ p Paci rr pk

, II Il

j.i

I! :

I ;I I! I


45/64

: i, I

: I; ;

iIIIII

I. . . . . . - . . . - - 1 -I I.

From the c-rew's potr.t of view, th e miasion is , of course, net a succeasunti l they have returned 5afely to home bsee, If :

P 1 ,. outbound cu r i e r suNival probability through local deranaesldP ~ a d .. outbound carrier survival probability through area defense1 _ pi probability that the carriel' doea no t suffer a i '!it!il abort on its0

outbound legthen fo1 the outbound survival provability

p "P ' pi (l-}i)so sl d sad oThe to ta l carrier survival i)robability, 11P 11 is given by:5

p ,. p p - ( l - p ) p p pi pi {1 - pi)5 al so 0 aad al d al d aad O B.. OPER.\TimiAL FR..\JiE'fi'ORK

The term "operational frameworkH is uMd he l'a to M p r u ~ n t ' (i) the target :!!Yl!!tem,

(11) ths detenat} network tor that syst


46/64

i- I. '

' !' :... :

< S E C P ! ~ l depot and surface-to-31Jrfac.: missile installat ions and, ( i1 ) those repre sent.inglocations of faci l i t ias vi ta l to the nation!!lllconorey, e,g, industrial plants,power a ~ p p l , y sources, to:';msportation and conununication ce-nters,

While reconnai:;sance and intB:Uigence reports are expected to provide moetof th e neceasary data cc:.1cerning tRrgets prior th e outbrea.Ic of hostilitiel!l ,: ~ o m e provision muat be mll.de fo r attacking l o c a t i o n ~ vita l to the enemy discoveredt.ubsequent to the beginning of the war. Ta.rge t c cmplox1 a a uaed he l"e 1 shall beused t.o refer to cnJ.y the known fixad sites. In addition to specifying the lcca-tions of the targets, i t . i s dnsirable to obtain data concerning the physicalstructure and economic r e l e . t i o n ~ h i p 9f ~ h e ai't1aS ill'JT1ad.i,ate those locations,This information is necessary in order to evaluate the effectiveness of usingth e tlro stage warheads and ln aalec ting ailii point.!!, Where two or more -tArget..Bexis t in the same area 1 thi3 d;tta t


47/64

. !

. II

, I. iiI'

'I I _,., . . . _ .. - ,

radar l ine. This is 1 Of course, dependent on the type of radar equipment anilablaand th e locations of radar systems re la t ive to the target comple;c, T h ~ next stt!pis to deteimine th e sites of . interceptor bases (and, in the futui"e, Bcma1-c typesurface-to-air missile installations) and the relation of interceptor control toearly warning detection, From thls informat :t0n, it is possible to establish thelocus of points at. whtch the attack force f i r s t beccmea amenable to enen11 c o u n ~ e r -measures. The ter r i tory enclosed by thls locus is defined as the target .area,The two types of .defense (area defense and lo cal d e f ~ n s e ) eXistant in this areahave been previously disc]Jssed (Sec t i ~ J n A, 1), Once th e arsa and local defensepatterns have been eetablishedJ the routes to be us9d. by th e attacking f o r c ~ s ar eselected,

J.In conducting a campaign against. th e target ~ o m p l e . x , a.n a t t a ~ ia m&da

to select attack routes which r e q u i ~ th-!! l a a . ~ t mount of . : : l l : l ' r i t ~ : r p o ~ u r a tocountermeasures. 'l'he !.bility to accomplish ~ 1 i s against !l.ll of tho t.IYrgflh in tht.ayatem is dependent on the effective operating ndlus of th e w ~ J t p o n " ~ - i J t . - E l l l l and thelocations of bases !rom which t h i : ~ weapon sy::;.tem msy !:lperate .

Suitable sites for bases of operation ma;y be et.llecteJ frol'll & l1l.\lltber of oval"-se.aa locations. The vulnerabilit.y and logist ics problems aeeociatad l ~ i t h th -su-se of overseas baaes, however . suggests th e d loc3.t-eo on th& :.u.inlandof th e United States. A minimu:n of opera Uonal c Clllpllix.ity would l'


48/64

SECRET '"' sttprior to retUl'nir:g to the U.S, In this mar.ne r, th n operat:i:ng radiue of tho3 vuponsystem may be effectively extended to permit the selection of less v ~ l n o r a b l a anack routes.

4, St.oc lm i leIn the evah1ation of a particular wapon system, i t ia n e c e e ~ 1 1 . r y to estil\u1te

the number of active u11ita wh1.ch m.ay be called upcn to p:rovide th e s tr iking powsrc.t any !!pacified ti.me period, ). time i s then selactc;d to dseiana.ta in i t ia t ion ofth e campaign and uaing the 5tockpiles of curier!l 1 warhoa.d container!! A:nd W&"rho,ndsavailable a.t, this time it i t ~ poP.sible to dotarmin!l th s .atructUl'Co &nd aise ot thein i t ia l et r ika , . lt thh at4ge o the .Wiilyai1' 1 it iB impo1tant to fonr.uhi;.l\l OOtr.$gues! as to t h ~ Mture of tlHl Cllnflict and tho tL'Tl;ll pan.od &nils.blc d u r l ~ uhioh

pile at t h ~ outbreak o! hoatiliti.rget. Tbia ia , oi' couriJGI1

against Mc h tugi3t and ~ h e a.mountl! of equiFtlJtmi llVdlabl4l to 11io t h o J I j o b ~ . Within t...'lis frame,..ork, t.he!l, l'ltratagle;3 .aro .ealocted 1fhich re1.1ult in !! 1 1 1 i n i . J n ~ of loa a o! hv)Mn l i v e ~ (crewa) and the l ~ u t coat . tn ' f.IXf1anrtl tuN o! equiflll!l?nt,Furthonr.ore, t.hi5 o p t i m i ~ ~ ; ~ t i o n mu .c;t ref.luJ.t in Btl'& ugiol9 'tlhit>h r l l l a c c o p . l i J h th e camps.i&,"il objer)tiYu Y.i thin t,he a l lotted timr:; period.

.( . . ri 1

! .iI

!


49/64

IIII..

.p, SECRETThe complete cvsting of a campaign involves a complex analysis which ~ h o u : l d

take into a ~ c o u n t : ( i) th e actual cost ir i terms ei:juiprr.e:it ex?eiided duriilg ~ . h e -crunpai gn,

( i i) th e maintenance costs e n ~ a i l e d in keeping the system in 5t a te CJfreadiness, and

( i i i ) th e ini t ia l cost of estaHishlng the :;,-stem {illcludir.g such items ase s t a : , l h h . m ~ n t of bases and 1 ! \ l ~ p l y ! ~ . n e . o , stockpi_\ing of n f l c e a ~ a r y

In m a t ~ ' i n s t s n ~ e s a sufficier.t m e a s u r ~ nf t ~ e c.,a t of a giv

GGI ( O r ~ ; ~ u ! d ::ontrolhd I I J ~ , w ; ~ p sup1J ~ ' V i B ~ c t i } J > " ~ o ;>lanes can f i ~ t eng.sgsattacking fo:rce s of B--52 1:. !..-as a ! ' l l ; l i m ~ d , thntl f i n i n ~ t ~ J a t.:trgot l l f ' f l ~ . This chart

S ~ Q r t ~ - -


50/64

iiIIII[,.it'J

'

thi:; defense border. I t is seen from ~ h e gra.ph that a1:>out So% of the areas arewithin JCO n m . ?f the defense bordP.l', '!'he distribdion o! the 1)2 target objec-tives is alrr.cst identical to that for the 70 areas , 'l'abl :.! II-A give\! a breakdollllof the 70 areas in terns of the nUJllber of t argets ( from th e 152 objectives) ineach area, I t is notable that 31 areas or 44% of the total n u . ~ b e r of target areascontain only cnP. target objective, Destructi on of these target objectives (struc-!.ural ty-po targe ts ) may be accompi.L;lHd in either of two wayss> - - ------of Trget'

In Area Number of Arsas of Tvtal N u . ~ b e r of Areas5 4 64 9 133 lJ 18 . 52 13 18.51 Jl 44

~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(a ) by destroying the target directly with an oveT?resaure of about .10-12 psi on the target s t.n:c turfl 1 or

{b) by covering a 11 vital" area adjacent to the target vi h tm overpresst\.Nof about 6 ps i . (In brief, the reasoning is that the affectivene88of a " s t r ~ c t u r a l type target" may now be destroyed by ~ a u s i n g destruction and havoc over a sufficient portion of an area adjacentto the target containing a major portion of supporting activitiea forthe target,)

In this analysis the vite.l ar ea described is assl.!ms d to be circular in s h a p ~ uit,h a radiua of 2 l /2 n.mi.

~ ~ j " ~ 40 -

-.--.. -.l .. .. II l I!

lI Ii iIijII!

' '


51/64

'

II

I.,

ri.. .. .. . - . . . ... - t .I

The levels of area and local defense a.ssumed to exist within the defenseborder are 8Xi)eCted to r e p r ~ . s e r : t th e enemy Is ::ap- bilitis3 about l9CO. 1'o aimpli!ythe analysis i t is assumed h > ~ t in tercepto r bases are diJtributed in a pattern so ras to provide uniforn cove ra g-a of t he defended area. This msans that the !llllOuntcf opposition e n ~ o u n t e r e d by an attacking B-52 forcP. is a function of the amountof er..emy tan:l.t vry travde.:r over by the E-)2 forc 0, T h - : ~ level 0f arss defanaeselected fo r the analysis may be interpreted as c:redHing the cnem:r wi tli )000ir:terc'?::>tcrs with a kill probability pe r intercepter of .10 ready for i n a t a n t a n e o u ~ use in combating an offense directed against the targets, Es timatad capabilitiesof this de!.'ensa against a group cf 50 B-52':'1 p e n e ~ r a t i n g 500 n, m, into defendedterritory are summarized in Table II-B.

Inbound Outbound Tatli. , . . . . . . . . ~ -

Survival Probability 0.825 0,891 0.735(Each ~ 5 2 ) Expected Loose ::! I 8.75 h.5o 13.25..L-Ini t.ial !!52 cel l 1:11za - 5oBapth of penetration - sao n, ~ i .

' l ' A B ~ II-B SU!o'Jf.ARY OF .A.R.EJ, DEFE!lSE CAPABILITIESThe dominant factor in tha local defense netwoix is aa

surface- to-air missile systSlll , The defense level assumed in t h i t ~ moda l ia obhin (l}dby p r ~ v ! d . i n g each area w1 t h th:rea SA..'i 1118 ta ll&tions . T ~ b l e II-C aUI\RI&ri:a.u thecapabilitie:3 of this local def en:1e aga1Mt cel ls of air-to-surfaca rr.itHlileaattacking a target with a speed of Mach 2.0 from an altitude of 60,0rJC ft ,

.g..

- 41 -


52/64

l..-I..

.. _____ _._Cell Prob, A Given ,. Prob, At LeastSize ASM Su.rt i ves I Onr. ASM Suni.NB- .. . . . ..1 o.2LO 0.240

3 o. 6]0 0.95Ls o. 7W l.O

TABLE II-C S ~ . A R Y OF LOCAL DEFENSE C ~ P A B I L I T Y ,W.UNSTAIR-TO-S!iRFACK MISSilE

I The capabilities of this lc.cal defense against cel ls of B-52 1s are gi1renin Table II - ;D;

I Prob, Tha.t at LeastIrtt tis.l Cell One B-52 Reaches Expected

S iu Bomb Releaae Line I.osseo-.. 4 0.720 J,59"-l - . - --I 5 0.963 4.12}---I 6 ().973 4.36-

TABLE XI-D S u ~ ~ OF LOCAL DEFENSE CAPABILI1lAGU!-IST B-52.' s

Character is tic s of the missile ayshlM exrunined are described in Tabl9Primary interest is centered about tho long rang() {700 n. mi, max, range) ;\r'.HI'B ,For p u r j ) o a e : ~ of comp.!lrlson 1 the 100 n. mi. and LOO n. mi. ma;ci.Millll ltl.nge rrl!eileaar-a studied .

s.r;g: f!fETr '- L2 -

-


53/64

--- - ---- ----

I" IiI

...... 9 E C f - 1 ? ~ ' F - - Inflight SurveillanceMaximum Range Type of Guidance of Missile..100 n. :ni. All inertial None

. .100 n. mi. RASCAL ~ y p e To detcnation

400 n. mi. Multi-axis inertial with NoneNorth seeki:1g plAtformand K-u plus Doppler (20mn, leveling)-

hoo n. mi. H u l U ~ a x i s inertial with To initiation of diveNorth seeking platform or end of relay linkand K ~ 4 . plus Doppler (20min. leveling)- - -1ob n. mi. ~ u i t i - a x i s inertiai with NoneNorth seeking platformand Y.-:-4 plus Doppler (20

mir leve1ing)-

700 n. mi. lluUi-a:ds inertial Yi th To init.Lu.tiou of dinN o r t ~ aeeking platformand K-4 plus Doppler (20 or en.d o! r - e l ~ linkmin. le,eling)

700 n. mi. Radsr monitored MAIG with To inith.tion of diveN t ~ r t h seekif'..g pla.t.foT.'ltl andK ~ plU8 Doppler ( f i n ~ or end o! rslo.7 linkleveU.ng)

TABLE II-E MIS-SilE S'lS'l'EJ-1 CHARACTERISTICS'llie guidance ayatem c npnbilitie.s of each !yatam in t.a t inll of CEP .'!.3 h tum: tion

of range ars swiuli&rizsd here, The rel iabil i ty of each syatem 13 ass\med to be_. 1 6:) and conn tant W1 th range. Per fact dCCUl'!ICY and 1 0 ~ reliability ar e ! l i ' l . \ l \ J r ~ ; ) d I fo r the B-52/gravity bomb aystenl, All m i s s i l e ~ are 1 1 1 5 6 \ l l m ~ d capublt! of curyi.ng

1 either of lfarhead types 1 single stage and two stage liarheada, The lethalI

- u) -


54/64

'1i

L

Ifl'l'""'

radius cf the 8inglc sta5e wa;-head is about 5700 feet while several two stagewarhea:ls ar-.a considered, As prt!vicusly indicated, t:'le target can be destrorsdby 2Ch.i.eving a high l.:n>ei. Of cverpressure agair.st it S strtc!!t l a ~ : . n c h reconns.isi!!U\Ca or mon!toring capabili t.y of the 'l{l)apon 5;"Bt


55/64


56/64

I.II.IIIIIi

;,.. ,

. II.I

!I,

. . O ~ C R E i =Today, looking forward into the future 1 h' e anticipate that area defenses

will be vast ly improved by 1960 _nd subsequent, thus raising ~ h e cost ofconducting a campa

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	john-greenewald
View:	230 times
Download:	0 times

Preliminary Design Approach. Air-to-Surface Missile Strategic Weapon System

Documents