Comparison by Spurts

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4785
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post25 Feb 2020, 18:34

That video suggests one of three things

SL version of MICA uses a different motor entirely (unlikely)
MICA has a ~3.5s Boost only motor (unlikely)
MICA has ~3.5s boost phase and a much lower thrust sustain phase (most likely)

" On October 23, 2008, 15:30, at CELM, Biscarosse (Landes), a VL MICA missile successfully performed the last of its 14 test firings meaning it is now ready for mass production. The target drone was flying at low level, over the sea, 12 km away; despite this distance, MICA, equipped with an active radar seeker, locked on the target and shot it down."

So we know a surface launch against a low altitude target is engageable from 12km (6.5nm).

Let's look at option 2 first.
a 3.5 motor burn time would do this, but the final speed would be a mere 0.36M.

Option 3
a 3.5s boost and 16.5s sustain (to stay with my 20s total burn time) with a 5:1 thrust ratio increases final speed to 0.83M

Option 2 for comparison test
missile hits Mach 5.75 but is down below Mach 1 by 24nm

Option 3 for comparison test
missile hits 3.77 Mach and loses 0.1nm of flight range. This is consistent with the MICA being a "Mach 4 missile with 80km range"
If I change the boost thrust ratio to 3 top speed becomes 3.99 Mach and range increases by 0.4nm, also consistent with "M4 80km"

After watching that video and running numbers I see reason to alter the MICA motor to Option 3 with a 3:1 thrust ratio.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 04:15

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That video suggests one of three things

SL version of MICA uses a different motor entirely (unlikely)
MICA has a ~3.5s Boost only motor (unlikely)
MICA has ~3.5s boost phase and a much lower thrust sustain phase (most likely)

" On October 23, 2008, 15:30, at CELM, Biscarosse (Landes), a VL MICA missile successfully performed the last of its 14 test firings meaning it is now ready for mass production. The target drone was flying at low level, over the sea, 12 km away; despite this distance, MICA, equipped with an active radar seeker, locked on the target and shot it down."

So we know a surface launch against a low altitude target is engageable from 12km (6.5nm).

Let's look at option 2 first.
a 3.5 motor burn time would do this, but the final speed would be a mere 0.36M.

Option 3
a 3.5s boost and 16.5s sustain (to stay with my 20s total burn time) with a 5:1 thrust ratio increases final speed to 0.83M

Option 2 for comparison test
missile hits Mach 5.75 but is down below Mach 1 by 24nm

Option 3 for comparison test
missile hits 3.77 Mach and loses 0.1nm of flight range. This is consistent with the MICA being a "Mach 4 missile with 80km range"
If I change the boost thrust ratio to 3 top speed becomes 3.99 Mach and range increases by 0.4nm, also consistent with "M4 80km"

After watching that video and running numbers I see reason to alter the MICA motor to Option 3 with a 3:1 thrust ratio.

I get your point but I feel uneasy because this video shows very quick burn motor
I screenshot some parts of it, we are lucky that there is a time indicator on the top of the video
The boost motor start at 13:52:31:319 and end at 13:52:34:339 so the boost phase operate for 3 seconds give or take
Mica flame out and the smoke trail stop at 13:52:36:739 so the sustain phase burn for 2.3 seconds or does motor flame stop glowing in the sustain phase?
1.PNG

1.5.PNG

2.PNG
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 04:40

I also find a video of AIM-132 ASRAAM


The motor burn bright start at 0:18 then shut down fully at 0:22 so I think it is a 4 seconds full boost motor instead of 2 seconds boost and 20 seconds sustain, is that possible?

1.PNG

1.5.PNG
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4785
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 16:17

In short, no. No missile is going to have anything even close to medium range with 4s or less of total thrust. The only plausible answer is that the sustain thrust does not produce enough "glow" for the video capture. The AIM-132 was supposed to be a "BVR" missile with more range than Sidewinder, that was the whole point.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 18:32

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:In short, no. No missile is going to have anything even close to medium range with 4s or less of total thrust.

Can you please explain to me why can't they do that? :(
AIM-120C- motor burn for 7.77 seconds so shouldn't AIM-132 burning for 4 seconds have about 51% the range? The thrust is lower but AIM-132 is smaller too. And what if the burn time is low but the thrust is very high? similar to a gun
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4785
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 19:35

AIM-120 achieves phenomenal range off a relatively short, but very powerful, burn combined with a long, thin body and small fins that provide very little drag and a high lofting trajectory. By the time the motor of the AIM-120 burned out the missile is already over 5,000ft higher than the launching aircraft and traveling 25 degrees up into thin air at Mach 4.22.

The AIM-132 has the same diameter as the AIM-120 but it shorter, it has a lower fineness ratio which increases drag. It has only small fins on the rear, so the form drag from fins is smaller, but that means most the lift is coming from the body, which comes with more drag.

If I take the AIM-32 to a single 4s pulse... and acknowledge that it must have datalink for LOAL capability and as such CAN utilize a loft profile (lofting was not an assumption I was allowing before), and reduce the rocket motor mass by 18lb (it was nearly 45% of the missile weight before) I get a 4.75M top speed and a few tenths of a nm more range in the same time. I see it is performing a sharp pull instead of a ballistic curve, so the loft I gave it may be non-optimal for the time of flight limit.

So, the AIM-132 might have a 4s motor, but no way can MICA make twice the range on the same burn, not with all that fin.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 02:59

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:AIM-120 achieves phenomenal range off a relatively short, but very powerful, burn combined with a long, thin body and small fins that provide very little drag and a high lofting trajectory. By the time the motor of the AIM-120 burned out the missile is already over 5,000ft higher than the launching aircraft and traveling 25 degrees up into thin air at Mach 4.22.

The AIM-132 has the same diameter as the AIM-120 but it shorter, it has a lower fineness ratio which increases drag. It has only small fins on the rear, so the form drag from fins is smaller, but that means most the lift is coming from the body, which comes with more drag.

If I take the AIM-32 to a single 4s pulse... and acknowledge that it must have datalink for LOAL capability and as such CAN utilize a loft profile (lofting was not an assumption I was allowing before), and reduce the rocket motor mass by 18lb (it was nearly 45% of the missile weight before) I get a 4.75M top speed and a few tenths of a nm more range in the same time. I see it is performing a sharp pull instead of a ballistic curve, so the loft I gave it may be non-optimal for the time of flight limit.

So, the AIM-132 might have a 4s motor, but no way can MICA make twice the range on the same burn, not with all that fin.

Thank you,now I understand
Any how, I have just double check and the diameter of AIM-132 is 165 mm compared to 180 mm of AIM-120, it has LOAL ability but unfortunately no datalink.
Do you think Peregrine can match Mica range? Peregrine is about 1.8m (6ft) long and 68kg (150lb)
Capture.PNG

mica.jpg
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4785
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 04:57

eloise wrote:
Any how, I have just double check and the diameter of AIM-132 is 165 mm compared to 180 mm of AIM-120, it has LOAL ability but unfortunately no datalink.
Do you think Peregrine can match Mica range? Peregrine is about 1.8m (6ft) long and 68kg (150lb)

AIM-132 MOTOR is 165mm, the AIM-120 BODY is 180mm. They both are a 7in, 180mm body. AIM-132 has to have a one-way datalink in order to do LOAL doesn't it?

Peregrine (and CUDA before that) hare "HalfRAAM" missile with two thirds of the motor of an AMRAAM. They are typically HTK missiles and as such replace the warhead space with more fuel. Those can have tremendous range potential, somewhere between MICA and AMRAAM I expect. Tomorrow I will check my missile sim to see if I had modeled a Peregrine before. A missile that small would do best with a low and slow burn.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

mozza

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2020, 22:46

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 05:31

Just a little add:MICA is part of the SPECTRA suite since the IR ones on the wingtips act as an IRST during the flight and their sensors are "fused" in SPECTRA, (MICA is also HOBS btw)
So maybe the EO/IR part need to be updated.
And about your debate, i don't know why you think that long fin on a missile = big drag and = less range? If it's true why Raytheon and MBDA do that ? Maybe it's more complex than that...?
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 06:53

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:AIM-132 MOTOR is 165mm, the AIM-120 BODY is 180mm. They both are a 7in, 180mm body. AIM-132 has to have a one-way datalink in order to do LOAL doesn't it?.

I think the diameter for missile body in both case, AIM-132 is visibly smaller than Meteor and Meteor and AIM-120 have the same diameter. Missiles doesn't need datalink for LOAL if they have automatic target acquisition capabilities
D3569F28-F76B-419D-900E-B5DA5839BC5F.jpeg

BA657A03-1863-45A1-9296-3F856D716ED9.jpeg
Last edited by eloise on 27 Feb 2020, 11:10, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 08:00

mozza wrote:Just a little add:MICA is part of the SPECTRA suite since the IR ones on the wingtips act as an IRST during the flight and their sensors are "fused" in SPECTRA, (MICA is also HOBS btw)
So maybe the EO/IR part need to be updated.
And about your debate, i don't know why you think that long fin on a missile = big drag and = less range? If it's true why Raytheon and MBDA do that ? Maybe it's more complex than that...?

MICA was added to Spectra because the IIR component of FSO is currently removed so the MICA sensor will provide some interim capabilities until a new IIR sensor is added to FSO, but it cant match capabilities of true IRST due to cooling and aperture limitation
Big wing add more lift, so your missile is more maneuverable at high altitude or low speed, but big wings also add more drag
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5554
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 13:33

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Peregrine (and CUDA before that) hare "HalfRAAM" missile with two thirds of the motor of an AMRAAM.

Peregrine is Raytheon. CUDA is LM. (CUDA is not dead BTW.)


sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:They are typically HTK missiles and as such replace the warhead space with more fuel.

Peregrine has a blast/frag warhead.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4785
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 15:05

sferrin wrote:Peregrine has a blast/frag warhead.

I was unaware of that, I assumed it was just like the CUDA.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 16:25

sferrin wrote:Peregrine is Raytheon. CUDA is LM. (CUDA is not dead BTW.)

I heard it become a candidate for M-Rad
1.PNG

2.PNG
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4785
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post17 Mar 2020, 20:27

Working on the thrust model for the F-16. Having low speed to max speed accelerations for ten thousand foot increments is so helpful. Matching speed, fuel, and distance for the given acceleration time within +- 2% plus getting to see where it's like "Okay, .67 to 1.83 happens pretty smoothly, 1.83 to 2.02 takes almost as long, doubles the fuel, and more than doubles the distance"

The HAF manual provides so much information. The biggest thing missing is the stores carriage/employment limits that I have only noticed on the F-15-1 so far.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
PreviousNext

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests