F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: Air to Air Missile performance at high altitude - F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8306-start-15-sid-a4432b606cadb52b28bfd7fc45fcce5d.html
Printed on: 18 November 2008

Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

Air to Air Missile performance at high altitude



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Previous  1, 2
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
sferrin
PostPosted: May 28, 2007 - 01:30 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1088

Status: Offline
Raptor_One wrote:
All I was trying to say is that an aircraft will lose maneuverability as it gains altitude.


As will a missile.



Raptor_One wrote:
In addition, air breathing engines produce less thrust the higher up they go for the same basic reason (decreased air density and the resulting decrease in mass flow rate through the engine). Rocket motors are less prone to atmospheric effects since they carry their own oxidizer. They are only affected by the under- or over-expansion of exhaust gases exiting the nozzle due to changes in atmospheric pressure.



A rocket will actually produce MORE thrust at altitude than it will at sea level because it doesn't have to fight as much back pressure. That's why ISP values for a given motor will be lower at sea level than in a vacuum. HOWEVER, if the motor has burned out than even an airbreathing engine will have more power.


Raptor_One wrote:
Think about the way the shuttle's solid rocket boosters' exhaust plumes look just before they run out of fuel. That's over-expanded flow and is an off-design condition if I remember correctly. As far as I know, this is the only significant atmospheric effect on a rocket motor's thrust output.


Over/under expansion is a factor but unless you're using an aerospike or are flying straight and level a bell nozzle will ALWAYS be in either one or the other of those conditions except for the moment they fly through the exact altitude the nozzle happens to be designed for.



Raptor_One wrote:
I think I got a little bit off track there. The simple point I was trying to get across is that any aircraft is less maneuverable at high altitude vs. low altitude. The same is likely the case for a missile too, unless the missile is somehow more maneuverable at speeds it can only reach at high altitudes (i.e. Mach 3-4+). I doubt that is the case though.


You seem to be confusing Gs pulled with manueverability. A Mach 6 missile pulling 20 Gs is NOT going to out turn a Mach 1 jet pulling 5 Gs.



Raptor_One wrote:
Missiles simply perform better in terms of range and energy potential at high altitude because there's less drag, but I doubt they can turn faster/tighter up high than down low.


They can't. Speed may be higher but air density is a LOT lower.



Raptor_One wrote:
Anyway, it's a well known fact that A-A missiles are much more likely to hit a high-flying target than a low-flying target...



Really? Says who? A Mach 2 target pulling 7 Gs at 20,000 feet is going to be WAY easier to hit than a Mach 2 target pulling 7 Gs at 70,000 feet.



Raptor_One wrote:
especially when launched from high altitude and high speed (F-22 supercruising for example). This is because a missile (when fired within reasonable parameters) has more of an energy-maneuverability advantage on a high-flying aircraft than vice-versa.


If it can't make the turn it can't make the turn. What good does it do if the missile is going Mach 6 and pulling 40 Gs if it goes zipping by the target sideways because it couldn't make the turn?


Raptor_One wrote:
Another thing one has to consider in the performance equation is weight. A missile doesn't weigh very much and has a huge T/W ratio. Even after rocket motor burnout, it can pull 20G turns given enough kinetic energy. And it pulls these high G turns in an incredibly tight turning radius.


Sorry but it's just not going to happen at high altitude. Suggest you do some more reading up on the subject.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Nov 18, 2008 - 6:55 PM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





   
 
Raptor_One
PostPosted: May 28, 2007 - 04:52 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 1092

I guess I haven't read enough about missile performance. I do have quite a bit of educational material on the missile performance, so perhaps I'll delve into it a bit and report back. Very Happy
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Obi_Offiah
PostPosted: May 28, 2007 - 03:55 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Mar 27, 2004
Posts: 115

Status: Offline
Unfortuately this excerpt from an article on the Crotale surface to air missile doesn't included altitude information, it does however give an idea of range vs manoeuvrability.

"No spare missiles are carried on the vehicle and fresh missiles are brought up by a truck and loaded with a light crane. A well-trained crew of three can load four missiles in about two minutes. The missile is designated the R440 and weighs 84 kg, has an overall length of 2.89 m, span of 0.54 m and a diameter of 0.15 m. The missile complete with its transport/launch container weighs 100 kg. The HE high-energy focused fragmentation warhead in the centre of the missile weighs 15 kg, has a lethal radius of 8 m for the 2,300 m/s velocity fragments and is activated in the original R440 missiles by either the infrared proximity fuze (the fuze is commanded to activate 350 m before interception) or back-up contact fuze. The missile has an SNPE Lens III rocket motor with 25.45 kg of solid propellant powder. The missile reaches a maximum speed of 750 m/s in 2.8 seconds. The Naval Crotale fires a slightly modified missile, the R440N fitted with a Thomson-CSF FPE pulse-Doppler I/J-band proximity fuze. For 1 m{2} radar fluctuating cross-section targets with velocities of 50 and 250 m/s respectively the engagement parameters in Table 1 apply.

Table 1. Velocity 50 m/s 250 m/s Head-on target (maximum operational intercept range) >10,000 m 9,500 m (minimum operational intercept range) 500 m 500 m Crossing target (maximum operational intercept range) 9,700 m 5,500 m (minimum operational intercept range) 500 m 2,000 m Target altitude (maximum) >5,000 m 4,500 m (minimum) 15 m 15 m {ct} The Single-Shot Kill Probability for a single missile is 0.8 and for a salvo of two 0.96. The missile is itself capable of the following performance:

Range Manoeuvrability* Flight time 5,000 m 27 g 10 s 6,000 m 18 g 13 s 10,000 m 8 g 28 s 13,000 m 3 g 46 s

Note: * The manoeuvrability (or load factor) of the missile in terms of time is the maximum number of g which can be applied to the weapon in pitch and/or yaw when under guidance. The maximum range to which Crotale has been guided against a slow moving target (for example, helicopter) is 14,600 m. Minimum flight time is 2.2 seconds (the time required to arm warhead section)
. In early 1987, TDA tested a new HE fragmentation warhead for Crotale. This uses a time-space convergence technique to ensure that the warhead fragments arrive coincidentally within a 40 cm band at a distance of 5 to 8 m irrespective of the missile/target miss distance. The fragments are capable of penetrating up to 10 mm of steel plate within this range or severing the aluminium alloy body of a missile."
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
ViperDude
PostPosted: May 29, 2007 - 07:59 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 141

Status: Offline
flighthawk wrote:
Guys

Does anyone know whether A-A missiles (such as the AIM-120, AIM-9, R-77 etc) can actually turn at all above 40,000ft with those tiny fins?


I read a lot of the answers given in this thread but most of you are getting away from how a missle really works after weapon release. First of all I'm going to be very generic here and talk in general about IR missiles, so I will not be talking about any thrust vectoring missiles.

Most A/A missles use what we call "proportional navigation guidance", which means it causes the aircraft to fly to a point to intercept the target rather then simply chase a target. When the missile is launched the missile's flight continually changes until the target is destroyed or aerodynamic drag slows it down and the projected collision point becomes further ahead of the target, in other words "the missile simply can't get from here to there", not enough umph, no more gas, gas gauge on empty..lol

The missle homes in on the IR energy emitted from the target. The IR energy gathered by the seeker and is processed by the internal electronics of the missile into tracking and guidance commanded signals. These signals are then converted into fin commands which steer the missile to the target (so yes the fins do steer the missile).

So when the missile leaves the aircraft generally a tracking error has been developed between the missile heading and the desired flight path to the target. The missile is continuosly trying ti minimize this tracking error. The missile motor is burning to accelerate the missle and after rocket motor burnout it is then simply gliding to intercept the target. Now remember the misslie does not have to hit the target it just needs to be close enough to sense energy reflected back by to the missiles optical target designators. But of course I'll take a direct hit any day.

Now some missiles are better at different firing aspect angles, some are better in a forward hemisphere shot, some are better at look down, some are better at a rear hemisphere shot, and some are what we call all-aspect. So to answer the question above, yes those tiny fins do turn the missile whether its at 40,000 ft or 10,000ft.

Cheers,

ViperDude
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: May 30, 2007 - 12:14 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1088

Status: Offline
ViperDude wrote:
flighthawk wrote:
Guys

Does anyone know whether A-A missiles (such as the AIM-120, AIM-9, R-77 etc) can actually turn at all above 40,000ft with those tiny fins?


I read a lot of the answers given in this thread but most of you are getting away from how a missle really works after weapon release. First of all I'm going to be very generic here and talk in general about IR missiles, so I will not be talking about any thrust vectoring missiles.

Most A/A missles use what we call "proportional navigation guidance", which means it causes the aircraft to fly to a point to intercept the target rather then simply chase a target. When the missile is launched the missile's flight continually changes until the target is destroyed or aerodynamic drag slows it down and the projected collision point becomes further ahead of the target, in other words "the missile simply can't get from here to there", not enough umph, no more gas, gas gauge on empty..lol

The missle homes in on the IR energy emitted from the target. The IR energy gathered by the seeker and is processed by the internal electronics of the missile into tracking and guidance commanded signals. These signals are then converted into fin commands which steer the missile to the target (so yes the fins do steer the missile).

So when the missile leaves the aircraft generally a tracking error has been developed between the missile heading and the desired flight path to the target. The missile is continuosly trying ti minimize this tracking error. The missile motor is burning to accelerate the missle and after rocket motor burnout it is then simply gliding to intercept the target. Now remember the misslie does not have to hit the target it just needs to be close enough to sense energy reflected back by to the missiles optical target designators. But of course I'll take a direct hit any day.

Now some missiles are better at different firing aspect angles, some are better in a forward hemisphere shot, some are better at look down, some are better at a rear hemisphere shot, and some are what we call all-aspect. So to answer the question above, yes those tiny fins do turn the missile whether its at 40,000 ft or 10,000ft.

Cheers,

ViperDude


It sounds like you may have missed the forest for the trees. The question wasn't do the fins steer the missile. Of course they do. The question was how much authority do they have at high altitude. A tiny fin at 60,000 or 70,000 feet isn't going to have as much effect on the change in direction as at 10,000 feet.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
ViperDude
PostPosted: May 30, 2007 - 02:34 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 141

Status: Offline
Huh?...

He asked if a missile could actually turn above 40K Alt, and the answer is yes they move no matter what altitude your at. How much they move and when is decided by the intercept path, and finally what matters is whether your shot is within Rmin or Rmax.

Cheers,

ViperDude
Ex Air-to-Air Lead Engineer for Weapon Integration on the F-16)
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel