Author Topic: Missiles on gun tanks  (Read 25249 times)

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #30 on: March 25, 2013, 10:25:32 AM »
Hypervelocity missiles have been flirted with by the US but they never reached any fruitition.  LOSAT has come and gone, morphing into HATM, so obviously simply making a much faster missile is a little more difficult than one supposes.  While it has the advantage of being recoilless, such a weapon needs to be fly a  line-of-sight course, like a gun so they lose the advantage of being able to utilise full defilade which many normal missiles can.

LOSAT would be a nightmare in the field. It had a huge firing signature like an MLRS and would basically be a way of saying to everyone on the battlefield here I am over here under this giant plume of white smoke and behind the searing streak of white light.

The US FOG-M and the European Polyphen systems, utilising fibre-optic cable, rather than traditional wires for guidance are IMHO an excellent solution.  They allow firing from full defilade, have no "gather" times and can even be utilised for immediate reconnaissance if necessary, utilising their TV cameras to report back on what is occurring on "the otherside of the hill" as Wellington termed it.  However both have been abandoned unfortunately.

This capability is basically the RAFAEL Spike sytem. Thanks to advances in radio technology longer range missiles can safely use wireless like Spike-NLOS and as was planned for the NLOS-LS PAM and LAM weapons. Lots of other weapons have similar capabilities like Griffon and Delilah.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • ‹ber Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #31 on: March 25, 2013, 11:07:41 AM »
Any high-performance missile is going to have a large IR, visual, and radar launch signature, the last because the best high-performance solid rocket fuel burns aluminum with amonium perchlorate and that generates quite a reflective plume.  We had fun getting the folding vertical fin of ground-launched TSSAM to unfold through that booster plume and retain it's low-observables characteristics; Northrop ended up doing a bunch of testing with the booster maker to find suitable materials and I got involved as the responsible engineer at Northrop for the boosters and was involved in designing the test fixture.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2013, 01:52:51 PM »
Hypervelocity missiles have been flirted with by the US but they never reached any fruitition.  LOSAT has come and gone, morphing into HATM, so obviously simply making a much faster missile is a little more difficult than one supposes.  While it has the advantage of being recoilless, such a weapon needs to be fly a  line-of-sight course, like a gun so they lose the advantage of being able to utilise full defilade which many normal missiles can.

LOSAT would be a nightmare in the field. It had a huge firing signature like an MLRS and would basically be a way of saying to everyone on the battlefield here I am over here under this giant plume of white smoke and behind the searing streak of white light.

You could use an elevating mount which while it wouldn't prevent retaliation it would decrease the likelihood of losing the vehicle.

Quote
The US FOG-M and the European Polyphen systems, utilising fibre-optic cable, rather than traditional wires for guidance are IMHO an excellent solution.  They allow firing from full defilade, have no "gather" times and can even be utilised for immediate reconnaissance if necessary, utilising their TV cameras to report back on what is occurring on "the otherside of the hill" as Wellington termed it.  However both have been abandoned unfortunately.

This capability is basically the RAFAEL Spike sytem. Thanks to advances in radio technology longer range missiles can safely use wireless like Spike-NLOS and as was planned for the NLOS-LS PAM and LAM weapons. Lots of other weapons have similar capabilities like Griffon and Delilah.

Wireless can be jammed or even hacked.

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2013, 04:41:09 PM »
You could use an elevating mount which while it wouldn't prevent retaliation it would decrease the likelihood of losing the vehicle.

Not really. The position of the vehicle would still be betrayed. Mast mounted weapon stations are just the same as hull down vehicles except it increases the terrain conditions you can be hull down in.

Wireless can be jammed or even hacked.

Considering just about every new guided missile has a wireless datalink from Javelin Increment II through to JASSM I think the boffins know what they are doing re signal jamming.

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2013, 04:42:54 PM »
Any high-performance missile is going to have a large IR, visual, and radar launch signature, the last because the best high-performance solid rocket fuel burns aluminum with amonium perchlorate and that generates quite a reflective plume.  We had fun getting the folding vertical fin of ground-launched TSSAM to unfold through that booster plume and retain it's low-observables characteristics; Northrop ended up doing a bunch of testing with the booster maker to find suitable materials and I got involved as the responsible engineer at Northrop for the boosters and was involved in designing the test fixture.

Which is why you want to keep them out of direct line of sight of the enemy. So they can have a reasonable chance to shoot and scoot.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2013, 06:06:37 PM »
You could use an elevating mount which while it wouldn't prevent retaliation it would decrease the likelihood of losing the vehicle.

Not really. The position of the vehicle would still be betrayed. Mast mounted weapon stations are just the same as hull down vehicles except it increases the terrain conditions you can be hull down in.

Partially true.  They do tend to ensure that the launcher is both harder to spot and harder to eliminate.

Wireless can be jammed or even hacked.

Considering just about every new guided missile has a wireless datalink from Javelin Increment II through to JASSM I think the boffins know what they are doing re signal jamming.
[/quote]

One should never assume that a radio signal cannot be jammed or hacked.  Such hubris has, upon several occasions in the past ended up with lots of red faces and invariably dead people.   Be it Tannenberg to the "battle of the beams", Window and through to the recent hacking of drones' video feeds in Iraq, it all started with people making assumptions about the security of their radio systems.

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2013, 07:57:27 PM »
Partially true.  They do tend to ensure that the launcher is both harder to spot and harder to eliminate.

Ehh thatís part of the benefits of hull down?

One should never assume that a radio signal cannot be jammed or hacked.  Such hubris has, upon several occasions in the past ended up with lots of red faces and invariably dead people.   Be it Tannenberg to the "battle of the beams", Window and through to the recent hacking of drones' video feeds in Iraq, it all started with people making assumptions about the security of their radio systems.

Who said anyone in Raytheon, RAFAEL, Lockheed Martin, etc are making assumptions about radio security in their missile guidance system designs?

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2013, 08:08:17 PM »
I've often wondered whether you could add anti-armour KE capability and anti-aircraft capability to a low-velocity gun by using it to launch a ramjet-powered hyper-velocity missile. The propellant charge would get the thing up to ramjet ignition speed and a solid fuel ramjet (like the Spark missile) would them take over. Guidance could be laser beam riding or semi-active laser.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2013, 08:56:53 PM »
I've often wondered whether you could add anti-armour KE capability and anti-aircraft capability to a low-velocity gun by using it to launch a ramjet-powered hyper-velocity missile. The propellant charge would get the thing up to ramjet ignition speed and a solid fuel ramjet (like the Spark missile) would them take over. Guidance could be laser beam riding or semi-active laser.

You would need to rely upon a kinetic kill.  One of the problems with ramjet or rocket powered shells is that they lose an appreciable amount of their filling to fuel for the ramjet/rocket.  They also tend to, unless guided, to have often erratic trajectories compared to true guns.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2013, 01:32:36 AM »
I've often wondered whether you could add anti-armour KE capability and anti-aircraft capability to a low-velocity gun by using it to launch a ramjet-powered hyper-velocity missile. The propellant charge would get the thing up to ramjet ignition speed and a solid fuel ramjet (like the Spark missile) would them take over. Guidance could be laser beam riding or semi-active laser.

You would need to rely upon a kinetic kill.  One of the problems with ramjet or rocket powered shells is that they lose an appreciable amount of their filling to fuel for the ramjet/rocket.  They also tend to, unless guided, to have often erratic trajectories compared to true guns.

The whole point would be to achieve a kinetic kill from a low-velocity gun, and yes, it would definately be guided.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2013, 10:58:33 AM »
I've often wondered whether you could add anti-armour KE capability and anti-aircraft capability to a low-velocity gun by using it to launch a ramjet-powered hyper-velocity missile. The propellant charge would get the thing up to ramjet ignition speed and a solid fuel ramjet (like the Spark missile) would them take over. Guidance could be laser beam riding or semi-active laser.

You would need to rely upon a kinetic kill.  One of the problems with ramjet or rocket powered shells is that they lose an appreciable amount of their filling to fuel for the ramjet/rocket.  They also tend to, unless guided, to have often erratic trajectories compared to true guns.

The whole point would be to achieve a kinetic kill from a low-velocity gun, and yes, it would definately be guided.

In theory it would be possible then, if that is the objective.  However, in practice it might be more difficult. That rather limits the size of the weapon, 'cause you've got to cram fuel, motor, guidance system and guidance method (fins, etc) into the package.  Not impossible just technically hard.   More than likely 40+mm would be the minimum and I'd expect something more about the 60+mm size.  Not sure how high velocity you'd be able to achieve.  Ramjets require a fair distance to develop thrust and accelerate, even with a boosted launch.  Rockets less so.   So velocity would be rather dependent on range.  More than likely there would be some optimum range where conventional guns are superior but beyond that, a rocket/ramjet fired weapon would be better.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2013, 12:01:48 PM »
The idea came from a real 1980s missile project called Spark which was essentially a ramjet-powered HVM. I can't recall the exact spec (and can't find it on line) but I do remember that it was small enough to launch from a tank-size gun (i.e. under 155mm) although that wasn't the intention and it's sustainer ignition speed was within the muzzle velocity of a howitzer. It had a solid rocket booster packed inside a solid ramjet grain, so if that booster was replaced by a propellant charge, there'd be room down the middle for quite a bit more gubbins.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2013, 02:14:03 PM »
The idea came from a real 1980s missile project called Spark which was essentially a ramjet-powered HVM. I can't recall the exact spec (and can't find it on line) but I do remember that it was small enough to launch from a tank-size gun (i.e. under 155mm) although that wasn't the intention and it's sustainer ignition speed was within the muzzle velocity of a howitzer. It had a solid rocket booster packed inside a solid ramjet grain, so if that booster was replaced by a propellant charge, there'd be room down the middle for quite a bit more gubbins.

I sort of know what you are talking about. There were proposals to use a ramjet in an artillery shell to extend range like rocket assist and base bleed. However thatís all I can remember of the top of my head but will look around some files to bring up more.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2013, 08:54:19 PM »
I found a small entry about Spark in an old reference book last night, but I'm sure I used to have a much more extensive magazine article on it that's probably long gone now, sadly.

It was a bit bigger than I remembered: 165mm diameter, and the air vehicles they actually tested in the late '70s/early '80s had no guidance, but they did have space for it in the intake centrebody. If the concentric booster in the middle of the ramjet was removed, the diamter could be reduced quite a bit. As far as I know, it petered out when attention switched to the rocket-powered HVM that became LOSAT.

The Germans also did some work on ramjet ("athodyd") shells in WWII, with a variety of different intake configurations.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 08:56:15 PM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #44 on: March 26, 2013, 09:06:43 PM »
The South Africans currently have a ramjet artillery round research project underway.