F-14 + AIM 54 in fleet defense

Scott Kenny said:
And that's the basics of "proportional targeting" which is very simple to implement.
Click to expand...
Well, today the engineers for guidance systems have moved beyond that. Proportional control, Cartesian or polar is no longer the go to. Today, they're using linear quadradic control theory (lots of papers online about it).
 
Dilandu said:
No. Look, constant bearing works like this:

View attachment 716925
As long as your missile seeker track the target on the same bearin, you are leading the target. You don't need precise range measurement; all you need is just to be sure that range decreasing (otherwise there are 50/50 probability that you are actually going away from target).

So even with home-on-jam, your seeker would be able to use this method.
Click to expand...
So after reading carefully about capibilities of AWG-9, it seem that HoJ allow direct path flight, to loft the missile, pilot need to estimate range with ADR
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The main reason Typhon wasn't proceeded with came down to the use of a ramjet missile, along with cost. This limited its maneuverability to somewhere around 4 to 6G at most as more severe maneuvers would or could result in loss of airflow and the engine flaming out. The ramjet was necessary at the time to get the range desired out of the missile. Solid fuel technology hadn't proceeded to a point where you could get a missile that could fly out 75+ miles on solid fuel. Technology simply needed to mature more before an effective, and cost effective, multichannel air defense missile system could be produced.
Click to expand...

That's not what I've seen. From the APL histories, it came down to the failure of SPS-59. The radar was very complex, hard to build, very hard to program, not very reliable, and suffered so much internal signal loss that it had an inadequate range.

The Typhon LR missile worked (it flew 10 times in 1961-62) but without SPG-59, the existing fleet radars could not take advantage of its range. Given that it was meant as a bomber-killer, high-g maneuvering wasn't critical, but the configuration did evolve to keep the air flowing into the ramjet at high AOA.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The main reason Typhon wasn't proceeded with came down to the use of a ramjet missile, along with cost. This limited its maneuverability to somewhere around 4 to 6G at most as more severe maneuvers would or could result in loss of airflow and the engine flaming out. The ramjet was necessary at the time to get the range desired out of the missile. Solid fuel technology hadn't proceeded to a point where you could get a missile that could fly out 75+ miles on solid fuel. Technology simply needed to mature more before an effective, and cost effective, multichannel air defense missile system could be produced.
Click to expand...
Considering that targets for Typhon-LR were supposed to be either heavy jet bombers or cruise missiles, launched from those bombers - both targets aren't exactly maneuverable - I rather doubt that maneuvering at more than 4-6 G was required.
 
The f-14 was part of a system to prevent an AS-4 from slamming into a carrier. Kill the archer. Then aegis would backstop and would also be used against ss -n-19s from Oscar class ssgns. Keep in mind both the kitchen and shipwreck missiles could carry a nuke and nuclear warfare at sea is a lot easier to manage
 
Dilandu said:
Considering that targets for Typhon-LR were supposed to be either heavy jet bombers or cruise missiles, launched from those bombers - both targets aren't exactly maneuverable - I rather doubt that maneuvering at more than 4-6 G was required.
Click to expand...
The target criteria was changing and other than the G limit on ramjets, was the altitude limit. Standard became the choice as solid fuel missiles could go exo-atmospheric.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The target criteria was changing and other than the G limit on ramjets, was the altitude limit. Standard became the choice as solid fuel missiles could go exo-atmospheric.
Click to expand...

Standard didn't even dabble with exo-atmospheric intercepts until the Terrier LEAP experiments in the early 1990s and that needed a separate third-stage motor. Standard SM2ER isn't exo-atmospheric at all (indeed, how would it steer outside an atmosphere?)
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
That's not what I've seen. From the APL histories, it came down to the failure of SPS-59. The radar was very complex, hard to build, very hard to program, not very reliable, and suffered so much internal signal loss that it had an inadequate range.

The Typhon LR missile worked (it flew 10 times in 1961-62) but without SPG-59, the existing fleet radars could not take advantage of its range. Given that it was meant as a bomber-killer, high-g maneuvering wasn't critical, but the configuration did evolve to keep the air flowing into the ramjet at high AOA.
Click to expand...
Did the Typhon LR missile fly like a Talos? Climb well above the long-range target and then dive down on top?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Did the Typhon LR missile fly like a Talos? Climb well above the long-range target and then dive down on top?
Click to expand...
Yes, that one of the ways that both Typhon missile variants (LR and MR) got improved range over their beam-riding predecessors Terrier and Tartar.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Yes, that one of the ways that both Typhon missile variants (LR and MR) got improved range over their beam-riding predecessors Terrier and Tartar.
Click to expand...

RIM-24 Tartar was homing from the very beginning. Later versions of RIM-2 Terrier (HT) were also homing missiles, not beam-riders.
 
NMaude said:
The RIM-2E was the first SARH variant.
Click to expand...
Exactly. To be exact (sorry for the tautology), the ideas of SARH Terrier circulated since early 1950s. It was suggested to equip Terrier with interferometer-based seeker, the same as on Talos - both to improve the accuracy, and as fallback measure in case there would be serious problems with beam-riding guidance.
 
NMaude said:
An interferometer type SARH seeker? I wasn't aware of that, do you have any links to information about this?
Click to expand...
Yep. It's mentioned in "The Terrier: a capsule history of missile development" by M. Kelly.

The very modest effort on an interferometer homing system that had been started in 1948 was viewed only as a possible alternative in case satisfactory beam-riding guidance should prove unattainable
Click to expand...
As I said above, it was mainly a fallback measure - there were considerable doubts about beam-riding guidance and the ability of the missile to follow the beam to fast-moving target - and interferometer seeker was a potential solution.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Did the Typhon LR missile fly like a Talos? Climb well above the long-range target and then dive down on top?
Click to expand...
Yes, and so did many long range SAMs at the time. This was done to improve range as well as avoid jamming during the midcourse flight to the target. Following a ballistic trajectory was energy efficient, while the missile and its guidance beam weren't pointed at the target.
 
TomS said:
Standard didn't even dabble with exoatmospheric intercepts until the Terrier LEAP experiments in the early 1990s and that needed a separate third-stage motor. Standard SM2ER isn't exoatmospheric at all (indeed, how would it steer outside an atmosphere?)
Click to expand...

This! The Standard Missile variant that flies exo-atmospherically is the SM-3 all other SM variants can only operate within the atmosphere (The effective operational ceiling is probably not much more than 100,000Ft).
 
NMaude said:
This! The Standard Missile variant that flies exo-atmospherically is the SM-3 all other SM variants can only operate within the atmosphere (The effective operational ceiling is probably not much more than 100,000Ft).
Click to expand...
As small as the strakes and fins are, I'd be surprised if it can maneuver much above 80kft...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Don't quote me on this, but I think the latest variants can maneuver to a limited extent using a moving exhaust nozzle on the engine.
Click to expand...
I think that you're referring to the Mk-136 ASAS's TVC nozzle, the Mk-136 is the third-stage of the SM-3 ABM.

Edit: All of the two-stage Standard missiles (SM-2/3/6) Mk-72 launch-booster use jetavator type TVC but the booster only burns for six seconds before separating (The Mk-104 DTRM has no TVC).
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
Don't quote me on this, but I think the latest variants can maneuver to a limited extent using a moving exhaust nozzle on the engine.
Click to expand...

I think there may be confusion about this.

Yes, there is a thrust-vectoring module that can be bolted onto the tail of a Standard Missile. It's basically the MR alternative to the big Mk 72 ER booster. But like it's big brother, it only really does vectoring to tip and point the missile immediately after launch. Steering during flight is done via aerodynamic tail surfaces.

Here's a solicitation that describes the combination of Thrust Vectoring Assembly and Control Actuation System that drives the fins. It dates back to when they were planning a new single split line nozzle but it also references the older jet tab assembly as well. Note that the jet tab assembly can actually be jettisoned after launch. (It's not clear when the JTA would be retained or jettisoned).

FY17-FY20 Standard Missile (SM) Steering Control Section (SCS) Redesign

Federal Contract Opportunity for FY17-FY20 Standard Missile (SM) Steering Control Section (SCS) Redesign. Posted May 17, 2016. Due Jun 3, 2016. Naval Sea Systems Command (DOD - Navy)
govtribe.com
 
TomS said:
Note that the jet tab assembly can actually be jettisoned after launch. (It's not clear when the JTA would be retained or jettisoned).
Click to expand...

If it's anything like the ESSM's TVC module it's immediately jettisoned after it has been used.
 
NMaude said:
If it's anything like the ESSM's TVC module it's immediately jettisoned after it has been used.
Click to expand...

The solicitation specifically notes that the Mk 72 is jettisoned and the JTA may be jettisoned. So it seems there are times that it is not. Given that the JTA is only for the MR versions, it might be retained in cases where the intercept happens while the motor is still burning (i.e. at very short range)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom