Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
22 January 2006
Messages
3,894
Reaction score
1,155
Found that profiles at my old mags. (Aviation & Marine International Sept. 1979)

The quality is awful (it can hurt your eyes) as it was a second hand magazine and I had no choice to get a better copy. Could any of our German members post decent drawings and brief data of the Bo 125? And can anybody post a better drawing of the TKF90 single tail as well?

Vielen Dank!
 

Attachments

  • MBB projects from 1979.pdf
    523.2 KB · Views: 354
I think you may be able to do something in photoshop using CMYK colour model - the problem is the page moved between colour passes and so the various colours aren't aligned. You should be able to get them all together.
 
pometablava said:
Found that profiles at my old mags. (Aviation & Marine International Sept. 1979)

The quality is awful (it can hurt your eyes) as it was a second hand magazine and I had no choice to get a better copy. Could any of our German members post decent drawings and brief data of the Bo 125? And can anybody post a better drawing of the TKF90 single tail as well?

Vielen Dank!

In the 1978 issue of the Flugzeug Katalog (published by the FLUG REVUE) these drawings of the Bo 125B were shown. Brief data? Maybe later ...
 

Attachments

  • MBB Bo 125B.gif
    MBB Bo 125B.gif
    199.7 KB · Views: 1,310
  • MBB Bo 125B.jpg
    MBB Bo 125B.jpg
    84.5 KB · Views: 1,044
Unfortunately (possibly due to being saved in RGB colourspace) its not possible to cleanly separate the 4 layers.

Would like to try with a CMYK TIF scan if you can make one.

This is the best channel - Magenta. Slightly easier to see.
 

Attachments

  • MBB-projects-from-1979.jpg
    MBB-projects-from-1979.jpg
    192 KB · Views: 1,292
While looking for info on the U.S Army's mysterious anti-tank ground drone, I came across a small bit of info on MBB's PAD [PanzerAbwehrDrohne (Anti-Tank Drone)] from the 1980s. It was intended for the Bundeswehr's KDH [Kampfdrohne des Heeres (Combat Drone of the Army)] requirement. MBB seems to have won the development contract sometime in late 1988/early 1989 for it. Dornier had been competing for the same requirement, apparently with a version of it's DAR design (somewhat ironically MBB and Dornier were partners on the then ongoing DAR [Drone Antiradar] program for the Luftwaffe).

PAD Anti-Tank Drone (PanzerAbwehrDrohne):7 (Germany)

Company: MBB

Length: 1.81 m (31:817)

Wingspan: 2.26 m (31:817)

Weight: 150 kg (31:817)

Propulsion System: Unknown

Range: 200 km

Cruising Speed: 140-250 km/h (31:817)

Endurance: Several hours

Operating/Penetration Altitude: Up to 3,000 m (31:817)

Payload: 50 kg (include fuel) (31:817)

Potential missions: Tank attack

Other characteristics: The PAD production model should have a high degree
of mobility and autonomy with low vulnerability. It is being designed to be
stored as ammunition and be transported on low loaders which would also carry
the testing and fueling equipment. Using a predetermined flight profile to a
target zone or a patrol of a predetermined line of enemy advance the sensor
would identify a target and initiate homing. The system is being designed to
neutralize battle-tanks, armored artillery, and air forces on the ground. The
PAD complements existing systems by cutting the number of manned missions
necessary to neutralize/disrupt 2nd and 3rd echelon forces.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a202092.pdf

Army Combat Drone

Far behind the KZO and DAR in its development is the
all-weather Army combat drone, at one time also called
antitank drone [Panzerabwehrdrohne (PAD)] in accordance
with its mission. A certain amount of preliminary
work was done by Dornier and MBB, a tactical requirement
has been established but not yet approved. The
introduction of this vehicle, which in its mode of operation
resembles the DAR, is planned to begin about
1998; possibly earlier, however, if the opinion—supported
primarily by the Army—prevails that the weapon
be initially introduced with lesser performance capabilities
which would be upgraded later to reach its planned
combat potential.

The combat drone is intended to destroy armored targets,
especially those beyond the range of the MLRS, that
is to say in the range between 35/40 km to about 100 km.
The combat drone, weighing about 100 kg and controlled
by a ground station, is launched into a target zone in
which approaching tanks have been noted. There, for
example, the drone flies alongside previously reconnoitered
targets on roads on which there are tanks, or it
searches the ground for targets from a meandering flight
path at an altitude of about 1,000 meters, on which it
dives (MBB concept) or against which search-fuze
ammunition (Dornier concept) is employed in overflight
(up to three targets can be attacked in this manner).
These expendable devices will be equipped with millimetric-
wave search heads for ground scanning and target
recognition, possibly supplemented by IR-CCD or laser
radar. Development costs for this device are expected to
be in the vicinity of DM300 million; requirements call
for some number above 4,000 at a cost per item of about
DM250,000.
http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA347583

The only image of the system I've been able to find is via a ETH-Bibliothek reproduction of a 1989 Allgemeine schweizerische Militärzeitschrift article.
 

Attachments

  • MBB KDH.jpg
    MBB KDH.jpg
    823.7 KB · Views: 1,255
I hadn't realised there was such a direct linkage between the PAD and the Taifun/TARES program. Good catch!
 
found a dutch article referencing the KDH and translated it using deepl
it also references HVM, FOG-M, TRIGAT and ATACMS
Zone 3 - at-drone
Germany in particular has done a lot of work on attack drones. The most advanced is the so-called Kleine Drohne Anti Radar
(KDAR) against anti-aircraft artillery and other radar installations. The antitank drone, the so-called Kampf-drohne des Heeres (KDH), is still in a preliminary phase as far as we know and will not be introduced before the mid-1990s. Two firms, MBB and Dornier, are dealing with it. MBB with a cross-wing conception and Dornier with a delta wing conception, both of which are essentially derived from the KDAR development. Although the characteristics of the KDH are not known they may not differ much from the KDAR (distance 430 km, max. altitude 5 km, flight endurance 3 hours, max. speed 250 km/h in level flight and 520 km/h in diving flight, optimum loiter speed 150 km/h). The system is pre-programmed and if a target is detected, the KDH plunges into diving flight on it, after which a combat payload provides shutdown. It is thus a fire&forget system.
Performance at-drone
Because the KDH can remain airborne for long periods of time, it can search an area until a target is found or even "wait" in a given spot until a target appears, after which the target is eliminated. Deployment in zone 2 is from
about 40 to 70 km from the punt (see Fig. 10). The system is thus much less dependent on target detection means than the previously mentioned systems in zones 2 and 3.
 
Two mbb projects that i had never heard of. From International Defense Review 1979-01
 

Attachments

  • RPV.JPG
    RPV.JPG
    31.4 KB · Views: 223
  • SOW.JPG
    SOW.JPG
    19.3 KB · Views: 211
  • MBBtext.JPG
    MBBtext.JPG
    53.4 KB · Views: 199
this is just a research project, but i think that its unique and interesting. It describes a synthetic-aperture radar for a helicopter, with the antennas being mounted at the tips of the rotor blades, achieving a 360° filed of view.
Source
 

Attachments

  • ROSARillu.JPG
    ROSARillu.JPG
    84.4 KB · Views: 147
  • ROSARdiag.JPG
    ROSARdiag.JPG
    60.9 KB · Views: 123
  • ROSARabstract.JPG
    ROSARabstract.JPG
    141.8 KB · Views: 148
  • AGARD-CP-459-pages-55-66.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 8
this is just a research project, but i think that its unique and interesting. It describes a synthetic-aperture radar for a helicopter, with the antennas being mounted at the tips of the rotor blades, achieving a 360° filed of view.
Source
I could see a lot of problems synchronizing the radar output with actual terrain being crossed. Heck, even getting the output to a display would be a big leap. And blade flexure? Oy vey!
 
If this can be done then a better option would be a Longbow type mount above the rotor head. If it can fit in a rotor tip or four, it will be more easily fitted a la Longbow.
 
this is just a research project, but i think that its unique and interesting. It describes a synthetic-aperture radar for a helicopter, with the antennas being mounted at the tips of the rotor blades, achieving a 360° filed of view.
Source
Does anyone have access to these journal articles on ROSAR through De Gruyter?
There is also one copy of a disertation on this topic available through AbeBooks lol
 

Attachments

  • ROSARbook.jpg
    ROSARbook.jpg
    127.3 KB · Views: 146
And blade flexure? Oy vey!
There is a patent from the same guy at MBB who wrote the disertation, that claims to address the distortions cause by not having a perfect circle or a constant angular velocity, but the math is far over my head.
In the ROSAR signal processing carried out so far, an ideal circular path with constant angular velocity has been assumed. Now, however, it has been shown that the blade tips during an orbit show deviations from a regular circular path which should not be underestimated and, as a result of the aerodynamic conditions, also perform stochastic movements which cause an additional Doppler modulation of the received signal. However, since the reference function is calculated for a plane rotary motion with constant angular velocity, the result of the correlation between the received signal and the reference function is degraded or "smeared". The correlation result, and thus the lateral resolution, becomes worse as the deviation from the ideal circular path becomes greater.
The invention is based on the task of creating a ROSAR device of the type mentioned above, in which the deficiencies described above are eliminated and the rotor blade movements deviating from the ideal circular path during an orbit are taken into account in the reference signal for correction.

Translated with DeepL
 

Attachments

  • ROSARmath.png
    ROSARmath.png
    50 KB · Views: 118
Last edited:
If this can be done then a better option would be a Longbow type mount above the rotor head. If it can fit in a rotor tip or four, it will be more easily fitted a la Longbow.
I think the reasoning for this proposal was, that for a synthetic aperture radar you need the antenna to move perpendicular to the the direction of the radar. This means on aircraft it only works as a side looking radar and on a helicopter it wouldnt work at all when hovering.
The Longbow is afaik a real aperture radar, this means the aperture is limited by the size of the antenna. ROSAR could therefore in theory have much finer spatial resolution, by having a larger aperture. If this higher resolution is necessary is another question.
 

Attachments

  • SALRSAR.JPG
    SALRSAR.JPG
    102.2 KB · Views: 152
Ta mate, I was talking of the mount method not operation though. Not being a trained aiviation tech I went with the little I knew. Definitely nothing worth knowing about modern radar.
 
Ta mate, I was talking of the mount method not operation though. Not being a trained aiviation tech I went with the little I knew. Definitely nothing worth knowing about modern radar.
im not very knowledgeable about radar myself, i just read up a bit about synthetic-aperture radar. So take anything i write with a grain (or maybe an entire boulder) of salt.
 
And blade flexure? Oy vey!
There is a patent from the same guy at MBB who wrote the disertation, that claims to address the distortions cause by not having a perfect circle or a constant angular velocity, but the math is far over my head.
In the ROSAR signal processing carried out so far, an ideal circular path with constant angular velocity has been assumed. Now, however, it has been shown that the blade tips during an orbit show deviations from a regular circular path which should not be underestimated and, as a result of the aerodynamic conditions, also perform stochastic movements which cause an additional Doppler modulation of the received signal. However, since the reference function is calculated for a plane rotary motion with constant angular velocity, the result of the correlation between the received signal and the reference function is degraded or "smeared". The correlation result, and thus the lateral resolution, becomes worse as the deviation from the ideal circular path becomes greater.
The invention is based on the task of creating a ROSAR device of the type mentioned above, in which the deficiencies described above are eliminated and the rotor blade movements deviating from the ideal circular path during an orbit are taken into account in the reference signal for correction.

Translated with DeepL
Looking a little at the maths (a veery leetle!) I think he might be using sensors on blade flexure to estimate blade deflection at any given point of the compass (angular position). The angular position would need sensing too.

Mathematically feasible - maybe technically - but I’d say not feasible to produce, operate or maintain.
 
Mathematically feasible - maybe technically - but I’d say not feasible to produce, operate or maintain.
Later patents from the 90s (like this one, or this one) take the perhaps more sensible approach of putting the antennas not on the rotor blades, but on arms in between them. Ofc these shorter arms would sacrifice some of the advantages of a larger synthetic aperture.
Modern Eurocopter patents still reference ROSAR, but seem to have dropped the approach infavour of just slapping 4 non-rotating AESA panels somewhere on the heli.
 

Attachments

  • ROSAR117.png
    ROSAR117.png
    40.3 KB · Views: 258
I also found 2 color versions of the MBB PAD/KDH image posted earlier in the thread. One clean and one with annotations, including performance data:

Range: >100 - 200 km
Max Altitude: 3000 - 4000 m
Flight Endurance: > 4 h
Max. Speed:
Horiz. Flight: 280 km/h
Dive: 5000 km/h
Opt. Loiter Speed: 220 km/h

But im not sure if this is the performance date of the MBB proposal or the requirements for the program.
 

Attachments

  • PADeinsatzdaten.jpg
    PADeinsatzdaten.jpg
    4.3 MB · Views: 134
  • MBBpadflugablauf.jpg
    MBBpadflugablauf.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 183
MBB helicopter projects in 1990:
EUROFAR was a European project for a tilt-rotor aircraft
ALH was a cooperation with India that would later become the HAL Dhruv

Nice drawings Voltzz,

but I know the Fancopter was one of Rhein design ?,

Rhein-Flugzeugbau was bought by VFW in 1968 which became a part of MBB in 1981.
After that MBB built and sold the Fantrainer. This drawing is the only explicite mention of interest in the Fancopter concept by MBB i know of, but if i remember correctly this configuration was also one of several explored by MBB for a composite helicopter.
 
MBB TUCAN family of drones:
KZO Brevel: Cooperation with Matra on scout drone; still in service with the Bundeswehr​
DAR: MBB proposal for an anti-radar loitering munition​
KDH: MBB proposal for a anti-tank loitering munition (also called PAD)​
The TUCAN family has its origin at VFW, where its was developed for the US-German LOCUST program. After MBB merged with VFW they abandoned their own loitering munition program in favour of VFW's. When MBB was acquired by Daimler and merged into DASA, German regulators required that its Maritime and UAV divisions be split of. They where bought by Bremer Vulkan, who merged them first into STN and then that into STN ATLAS. This company went through a series of different owners until being split into a Naval division (bought by TKMS) and a Land division (bought by Rheinmetall). The KZO is now a Rheinmetall product and recently they announced a new version of it fitted with 2 smaller loitering munition.
 

Attachments

  • TUCANderivatives.jpg
    TUCANderivatives.jpg
    3.9 MB · Views: 138
  • MBBPAD.jpg
    MBBPAD.jpg
    2.6 MB · Views: 125
Detailed Article (in German) on the KZO/KDH drone family. Also includes a KZO derivative electronic warfare drone called Mücke
 

Attachments

  • BREVELmissionprofile.jpg
    BREVELmissionprofile.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 89
  • MÜCKE.jpg
    MÜCKE.jpg
    5.6 MB · Views: 82
  • TAIFUN.jpg
    TAIFUN.jpg
    4.3 MB · Views: 78
  • TAIFUNcontrol.jpg
    TAIFUNcontrol.jpg
    4.7 MB · Views: 73
  • TAIFUNmissionprofile.jpg
    TAIFUNmissionprofile.jpg
    5.6 MB · Views: 70
  • TAIFUNstarter.jpg
    TAIFUNstarter.jpg
    4.6 MB · Views: 75
Found an article about the German maritime drone program here
It includes a project by STN, who had taken over MBBs UAV division, to build a naval drone interestingly not based on the KZO but instead on the TAIFUN loitering munition, even though for naval use it was supposed to be a recon UAV.
This was competing against the Dornier SEAMOS rotary drone (at some point i will make a thread on it)
STN at first explored a concept with the drone starting from a container and landing on the sea with a parachute, but this did not fulfill the German requirements. So they conceptualized a stabilized crane/arm to catch the drone.
 

Attachments

  • NavalTAIFUNcraneconcept.jpg
    NavalTAIFUNcraneconcept.jpg
    3.4 MB · Views: 94
  • NavalTAIFUNParachuteLanding.jpg
    NavalTAIFUNParachuteLanding.jpg
    948.6 KB · Views: 83
  • MarinedrohneTAIFUN.jpg
    MarinedrohneTAIFUN.jpg
    6 MB · Views: 87
  • NavalTAIFUN+SEAMOS.jpg
    NavalTAIFUN+SEAMOS.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 81
Last edited:
Found a small article in Soldat und Technik 1995/6 about ROSAR
All-weather capability with helicopter radar is to provide helicopters with significantly expanded operational readiness in the future. Eurocopter Germany is treading a unique path with the use of a radar with artificial antenna aperture (SAR - Systhetic-Aperture Radar). The artificial antenna aperture can only be achieved by permanently moving the antenna, e.g. satellite on orbit, aircraft on flight path. The solution for helicopters, which occasionally hover, is called ROSAR (Rotating Antennas Synthetic-Aperture Radar). Antenna elements on cross-shaped carriers sit rigidly on the rotor head. The radar signals are emitted and the modulated received signals are converted into a radar image in the helicopter by a high-performance computer and displayed on a screen.
The article also includes a picture, although im not sure if it is a prototype, a mock-up or just a photo-montage
EDIT: Found a much nicer version of the image by searching for the designation D-HBMT
 

Attachments

  • ROSARbk117.jpg
    ROSARbk117.jpg
    163.1 KB · Views: 72
  • ROSARD-HBMT.jpg
    ROSARD-HBMT.jpg
    59 KB · Views: 76
Last edited:
Researching the design proved to be very fruitful: There is much more information about this later iteration of the ROSAR proposal under the name Heliradar.
From Flight International:
HeliRadar Technologies is launching development of a rotating synthetic aperture radar (ROSAR) for helicopters, which it claims will "revolutionise" the market by giving commercial operators a true all-weather capability.

The new company has been spun-off by DaimlerChrysler Aerospace (Dasa), which was due to become part of EADS on 10 July, and its 40%-owned helicopter subsidiary Eurocopter, to take over the German manufacturer's ROSAR patents and raise the estimated DM40 million ($20 million) needed to bring the product to market.

HeliRadar founder and managing director Hans Thilo Langer claims the rotor hub-mounted radar system is designed to provide the pilot with a synthetic image of the outside world, enabling operations under "nearly every meteorological condition". To detect obstacles and highlight them on a cockpit display, "intelligent" software algorithms will be used.

"We believe that, in future, we can fly in the same way as fixed-wing aircraft under instrument flight rules [IFR]/Cat III, but you have to develop it step by step," says Langer.

"We think we will ask for certification down to 300m [980ft] visibility, or perhaps 250m, to give everybody a chance to get confident with the system," he adds.

Langer says nearly one-third of the development funds has been raised, including a German Government pledge to provide DM12.5 million from the federal aerospace research budget. Langer owns 50% of HeliRadar, while Belgian digital signal processing specialist Eonic Systems has a one-third share.

Langer expects venture capitalists to invest in the project once a working demonstrator has been produced, while EADS and Eurocopter are expected to take small stakes. The company is considering an initial public offering.

Certification of the ROSAR is set for mid-2003 and list price is expected to be DM550,000-750,000. Langer says Eurocopter has committed to become the launch customer, although he also hopes that competing manufacturers such as Bell and Sikorsky will include the system on new-build aircraft.

Potential sales are projected at DM250 million a year, mostly from the retrofit market. "We will be really penetrating the market from 2004," says Langer. He believes the project can reach break-even by 2006.

Full-scale development work is to get under way from September when the new company will establish its headquarters at Altenburg in eastern Germany.

The real-time signal processing element will require an array of processors from Eonic Systems capable of performing 14 billion operations a second (14 gigaflop), says Langer. A prototype containing 112 processors has been built.

The radar antennae, each around 1.3m in length, are mounted between each blade and rotate at the same speed as the main rotor. A mock-up has already been flight tested on a BK117 helicopter.

HeliRadar Technologies is expected to be renamed 3DRadar Vision later this year.
There are also two (paywalled) papers on Heliradar (1,2)
 

Attachments

  • HeliradarD-HMBD1.jpg
    HeliradarD-HMBD1.jpg
    167.1 KB · Views: 54
  • HeliradarD-HMBD2.jpg
    HeliradarD-HMBD2.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 55
  • HeliradarPilotingSystem.JPG
    HeliradarPilotingSystem.JPG
    66.7 KB · Views: 55
Researching the design proved to be very fruitful: There is much more information about this later iteration of the ROSAR proposal under the name Heliradar.
I could see that being very attractive for Air Ambulance operators.
 
I knew Germany got Pershing I - but WDF was MBB doing with its technology ? Techniks and Kolas ?

Late 1970s The German firm Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) designs the "Techniks" missile based on the design of the US-built Pershing 1. The Condor II design bears a striking resemblance to the German missile. According to former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, Dr. Stephen Bryen, the Techniks is designed by MBB purely for export. [Note: A knowledgeable source contacted by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) refutes this claim and states that Techniks was a "forerunner" and a modification of the Pershing 2 first stage with terminal guidance.] The principal markets for the missile are believed to be Argentina and Egypt.

Many German engineers working on the Cóndor II project are also jointly working on the German KOLAS missile, which is a short-range missile similar in design the Pershing 2. The US firm Martin Marietta, the original Pershing 2 manufacturer, collaborates with the German firm Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) on KOLAS. [Note: This collaboration leads to assertion that the Cóndor II was built using Pershing technology.]

Okay, we have a thread for Kolas



"the most successful and significant case study of missile nonproliferation is that of the Cóndor II SRBM (a.k.a. Vector and Badr 2000). This multi-billion dollar program was a direct derivative of the US Pershing 2, and was in development in Argentina, Egypt, and Iraq but had never reached the flight-test phase of development." Hardin notes that, "although the Cóndor II was designed with a solid-propellant first stage similar to that of the US Pershing 2, a liquid-propellant second-stage was designed based on an upper stage of an Ariane SLV engine. This original Cóndor II solid/liquid configuration had many of the same problems as the Indian Agni I MRBM and a solid-propellant second stage was also designed for the Cóndor II. The new solid-propellant second-stage approach significantly increased the overall system cost and development time as different staging and thrust termination technology had also to be designed or obtained and flight-tested-a phase never reached." Hardin also says, "the Cóndor II/Badr 2000 was designed as a mobile two-stage missile with a separating unitary or submunitions dispensing, re-entry vehicle that would have been more difficult to detect and intercept than the several SCUD variants actually used by Iraq. The Cóndor II was also the basis for even larger MRBM, ICBM and SLV designs. History shows that the most economical way to defend against a missile attack is to ensure that the offensive missile system never reaches the production/deployment phase." [Note: A source interviewed by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) refutes Hardin's assertion that the Cóndor II was a derivative of the Pershing 2, stating that the only similarities were "shared ideas on guidance and hardware."] —Michael Hardin, "Missile Defense and Missile Non-Proliferation: The Interactions," remarks before the Proliferation Roundtable at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 16 February 2000, www.ceip.org;

An internal Consen document identifies key firms collaborating in the Cóndor program. Based on Western intelligence and other sources, journalist Alan Friedman summarizes these as follows: "Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm of West Germany was to supply guidance systems and general missile know-how; SNIA-BPD, a subsidiary of Italy's Fiat, the rocket motors and solid fuels; MAN of West Germany the transporter erector launchers (TELs) that helped make Cóndor a mobile missile; and Sagem of France, the inertial navigation systems. Also listed as Consen/Cóndor contractors are Bofors, the Swedish arms maker, and Wegmann, a German producer of multiple-launch rocket systems." Some of these firms were subcontractors on the US Pershing 2 missile program, upon which elements of the Cóndor II are based.
 

Attachments

  • argentina_missile.pdf
    750.9 KB · Views: 15
some more finds, but no time to translate

Some more information on SOM from Jane's Weapon Systems 1981-82.

SOM (Stand-Off Missile) was a collaboration between MBB, McDonnell Douglas and BAe for a conventional air-launched cruise missile with TERCOM and dispensing a range of sub-munitions (firing sideways and downwards). It had flip out wings and a turbojet with a ventral intake - it was believed to have built on MBB's previous combat RPV work. SOM was publicly unveiled at Farnborough in 1980 but was dead by 1982 as the USA and UK went their own way with sub-munition dispensers.

MBB continued the work alone which became CWS (Container Weapon System) in 1982.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom