Let's Design a Next Generation Anti-ship Missile

I don't know much about them, but there are folks around here that do. So what could/should a 'next generation' anti-ship missile do in terms of speed, range, accuracy, lethality, low observability, launchability, survivability, etc?

Maybe we should forward the results of this to DARPA, or the US navy, or someone...

Ted

Land-launched, air-launched, surface/sub-launched? Lightweight, strategic, jack of all trades?

I don't care. You tell me. This thread was created for you and all the incredibly knowledgeable people on this forum. I just want to learn and ask questions.

But to clarify, for the time being, lets talk about non-strategic, non-ballistic missiles: the small to medium air-launched anti-ship missiles--that might also have submarine and ship-launched versions. ---> Or, is that my first mistake?

I was looking at photos tonight of the damage done to the USS Stark, and to all those British frigates down in the Falklands, and I began wondering why the US navy seems to be oblivious to the danger posed by Exocet-sized weapons, and to the lethal advantages of a new generation of similar weapons.

Ted

CxxTxx said:

But to clarify, for the time being, lets talk about non-strategic, non-ballistic missiles: the small to medium air-launched anti-ship missiles--that might also have submarine and ship-launched versions. ---> Or, is that my first mistake?

Ted

Click to expand...

Why limit concepts? My answer to your limitation would be LRASM but faster. If you are going to ask the question they let the games begin. Now I wouldn't want to get into discussing "satellite launched hypervelocity projectiles" that might be a 'bridge too far' so to speak but why not discuss something like a large (that can fit in a VLS anyway) solid rocket booster with a HTV-2 'type' boost glide warhead on the end.

That's more fun IMHO.

bobbymike said:

Why limit concepts? My answer to your limitation would be LRASM but faster. If you are going to ask the question they let the games begin. Now I wouldn't want to get into discussing "satellite launched hypervelocity projectiles" that might be a 'bridge too far' so to speak but why not discuss something like a large (that can fit in a VLS anyway) solid rocket booster with a HTV-2 'type' boost glide warhead on the end. That's more fun IMHO.

Click to expand...

Everything is on the table. This topic fascinates me.

When talking about range, what range is "long range?" Is 200 nm a long range ASM? I'm thinking the next generation missile will need significant range, but I don't know what that is.

bobbymike said:

That's more fun IMHO.

Click to expand...

Development Of a 500,00 Watt Light Bulb would be both more fun, and more effective.

Well if we are designing one for the USA, it must be subsonic, and low risk tech but still a forever development program

Best bet would be something that's got a high terminal speed, sea skimmer, with a moderate range and warhead (100-200 miles). For ASM's, speed seems to be the best defense right now. Ideally, it'd be a joint missile so you could strap it on an aircraft in addition to surface ships and could be put in a VLS. Could be nice having a secondary land-attack function similar to the SLAM's and such.

ASM speed: I read a post from another thread that said something about how high supersonic and hypersonic speeds can sometimes be a bad thing in that the missile can arrive in a complex target environment without a proper targeting solution. In essence, a missile can out run it's sensing/processing ability to determine the correct target. Also, and this makes sense, if the missile is coming in hot, and low on the deck, it may not be able to avoid an intervening picket ship, (or innocent supertanker) when the target is in a shadow behind it.

Are these things to consider when designing a super fast, sea skimming missile?

Design it with a torpedo as a payload/terminal attack stage?

2000+ lb high altitude CM (subsonic) with LO design (top intake, IIR seeker, etc).


When it gets above the target, it dives and the payload separates into 4x 500lb LO bombs with multi-spectral seekers (from JAGM). The main CM body then uses it's internal MALD-J electronics to support jamming any CIWS defenses. It could even eject chaff & flares just for good measure.


This is obviously an expansive munition that would only be used for the most expensive targets.


For run-of-the-mill targets, just use LRASM/JSM/NSM with the occasional MALD-J for support.

Do ASM missiles incorporate a conical (steel) penetrator that precede the explosive part of the missile into a ship? (Or does the kinetic energy of an aluminum missile body allow it to penetrate deeply into the target?) And, to maximize the destructive potential of the blast, is it better to plunge a missile into a ship from a steep overhead angle or sea skim one into the side?

Thanks!

Interesting website: Damage to warships from ASMs and glider bombs, etc.

Warship Vulnerability Technical Report APA-TR-2005-0701

http://www.ausairpower.net/Warship-Hits.html

Ted

CxxTxx said:

Do ASM missiles incorporate a conical (steel) penetrator that precede the explosive part of the missile into a ship? (Or does the kinetic energy of an aluminum missile body allow it to penetrate deeply into the target?) And, to maximize the destructive potential of the blast, is it better to plunge a missile into a ship from a steep overhead angle or sea skim one into the side?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Given the low thickness of today's warship hull. The missile can penetrate inside it before exploding. No need of "armor piercing cap"


------------------------
My view on the design though it must start with reviewing size constraints.. how big the missile should be. Then range and other requirements.

Anyway for sake of fun.. Some time ago i made myself an excel spreadsheet for "my own radar guided anti ship missile" Based on E.Fleeman's book and some other papers.

It will determine range, radar seeker range and based on target properties determine if the seeker meet the minimum range requirement.


Download
http://www.mediafire.com/view/rgyd867otaqkr2a/Simple_missile_Trade.xlsx

Hmm and some filling guide :

This will help filling the L/D coloumn



As for ISP coloumn, ISP for turbojet or turbofan engine is high with over 5500 sec. Liquid and Solid propelled ramjet comes the 2nd with some 1000-2000 sec. Rocket is around 250 (Solid) or 300-400 (Liquid) Those assume hydrocarbon based propellant.

There's however a limitation, the sheet does not calculate mass for additional booster propellant. This is important for supersonic ramjet missile which use it to gain "start-up" speed for their ramjet. The propellant mass calculated is the "cruise" propellant which used for the missile to cruise. User will have to calculate or guess it, the launch weight calculated in the sheet however is the "all up weight including the booster"

Further material of interest in AsHM design.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison

So basically if one wish for small AsHM with standoff distance and difficult to detect, subsonic options seems to be technically more appealing. If one wish for AsHM that difficult to engage with missile or CIWS gun and no size constraints plus engaging Time critical fast target..Supersonic and hypersonic approach got the merit.