If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
aircraft as weapons platform
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
aircraft as weapons platform
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
aircraft as weapons platform
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
aircraft as weapons platform
In article ,
grasshopper wrote: Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets? Think missile sub concept...... Wasn't this one of the concepts considered for the BAe SABA project in the later 80s? I know there were several with dorsal or ventral gun turrets, some with dorsal or ventral rotating hypervelocity missile mounts. Vertical or fixed launch (exiting via the dorsal or ventral surface) could well have been considered, though there might have been a penalty in time from launch to impact... -- Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
aircraft as weapons platform
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:40:02 -0500, grasshopper
wrote: Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets? Think missile sub concept...... No - the unstable firing orientation speaks against it. Brian W |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
aircraft as weapons platform
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
aircraft as weapons platform
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
aircraft as weapons platform
On Sep 11, 9:40*am, grasshopper wrote:
Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets? Think missile sub concept...... I'd think the problem with that would be the slipstream. If you're having the missile come out of a tube vertically, the slipstream's vector will be perpendicular to the velocity vector produced by the missile's motor. That's going to push the missile's initial trajectory sharply towards the aft end of the aircraft. Once the missile gets enough of its own velocity it may not matter much, but I'd worry about it being blown into the tail in the first few seconds after launch. As Mr. Rasimus points out, some missiles do go vertical after launch to acquire a target or extend their range- he mentioned the Standard ARM, and I think the AIM-54 Phoenix did it as well. Not really the same thing, though. -JTD |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
aircraft as weapons platform
In article ,
grasshopper wrote: Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets? Think missile sub concept...... In WWII the Germans launched rockets (or maybe cannon) pretty much straight up from interceptors. The fighter would "park" under a bomber, and then fire upwards. It was called Schrage Musik. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
aircraft as weapons platform
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:46:42 -0700, Julian Gomez
wrote: In article , grasshopper wrote: Has any military experimented with vertically launching missiles from the back of an aircraft for 360 degree targets? Think missile sub concept...... In WWII the Germans launched rockets (or maybe cannon) pretty much straight up from interceptors. The fighter would "park" under a bomber, and then fire upwards. It was called Schrage Musik. Cannon, not rockets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrage_Musik Ron Wanttaja |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jim's EAA Platform '05 | RST Engineering | Home Built | 18 | July 14th 05 09:57 PM |
Jim's EAA Platform '05 | RST Engineering | Piloting | 15 | July 13th 05 10:40 PM |
Multiple Platform Simulator | Richard Kaplan | Simulators | 1 | November 8th 04 10:28 PM |
Flying Platform | Ballchain | Home Built | 1 | October 7th 04 10:17 PM |
flying platform | Bill3 | Home Built | 5 | October 5th 04 07:00 PM |