GQM-163A Coyote Target Missile

I wonder if the USN will ever adapt the GQM-163A to be mounted on a Mk-72 booster? Because that would enable it to be launched from a Mk-41 VLS which would open up possibilities.
 
Something like the HF-3 ....
HF-3_ASCM_fired_from_TEL_system-1126x750.jpg
 
TomS said:
You can see how little space is left for an actual seeker and warhead.
Click to expand...

As currently, true, but if you replace the Mk-70 booster (155" in length) with the Mk-114 VL-ASROC booster (Which is about 72" in length) which is more compact you have a shorter vehicle (Which can fit in a Mk-41 VLS cell) and if you extend the length of the GQM-163A's forward fuselage you then have room for a warhead and seeker. A further reduction in length could be achieved by using an integral launch-booster where the ramjet combustion chamber used used to contain the solid-rocket propellant (Just like in the SA-6 Gainful and ASMP) this would eliminate the need for a seperate launch booster and given how the Coyote entered service in 2005 I'm sure that Aerojet could use the advances since in design and material science to improve both the ramjet and its' solid-propellant fuel-gas generator to improve performance.
Given the GQM-163A's diameter I wonder if it could use the Harpoon's 500Lb warhead in an extended forward fuselage.

Edit: In regards to the Mk-114 booster I do know that (Courtesy of @Moose ) it has a burn time of 5s and a thrust of 11,000Lb, but aside from its diameter (14.1") I don't know its' dimensions and weight (I estimate at being 850-875Lb).
 
Last edited:
But note, you're getting 45 miles at Mach 2.6, which will only go down if you add warhead mass.

The high diver mode might be more interesting, since its range is kind of left unstated (they imply it's the same as sea-skimming, but that seems unlikely) But SM-6 is literally doing the same thing, over longer demonstrated ranges, and it exists already.
 
TomS said:
But note, you're getting 45 miles at Mach 2.6, which will only go down if you add warhead mass.
Click to expand...

True, however the GQM-163 could be upgraded to take into account the mass of warhead and seeker also given that the Coyote entered service 18 years ago I'm surprised the DoD hasn't funded an upgraded version (Call it the GQM-163B) to take into account of technological advances.
 
TomS said:
But note, you're getting 45 miles at Mach 2.6, which will only go down if you add warhead mass.

The high diver mode might be more interesting, since its range is kind of left unstated (they imply it's the same as sea-skimming, but that seems unlikely) But SM-6 is literally doing the same thing, over longer demonstrated ranges, and it exists already.
Click to expand...
Rule of thumb says range at altitude is ~3x range at sea level and that 45nmi doesn't see to account for the launch part.
 
NMaude said:
As currently, true, but if you replace the Mk-70 booster (155" in length) with the Mk-114 VL-ASROC booster (Which is about 72" in length) which is more compact you have a shorter vehicle (Which can fit in a Mk-41 VLS cell) and if you extend the length of the GQM-163A's forward fuselage you then have room for a warhead and seeker. A further reduction in length could be achieved by using an integral launch-booster where the ramjet combustion chamber used used to contain the solid-rocket propellant (Just like in the SA-6 Gainful and ASMP) this would eliminate the need for a seperate launch booster and given how the Coyote entered service in 2005 I'm sure that Aerojet could use the advances since in design and material science to improve both the ramjet and its' solid-propellant fuel-gas generator to improve performance.
Given the GQM-163A's diameter I wonder if it could use the Harpoon's 500Lb warhead in an extended forward fuselage.
Click to expand...

If you wanted to do all that, you can simply size up a VFDR motor and build a missile or new target around that. Or they can continue to buy SM-6's (1A and 1B) and pump money into HALO, HACM, and even THOR.
 
I don't understand the obsession with turning Coyote into an operational missile. The basic design has been around for over half a century and nobody has wanted a weapon derived from it.

 
sferrin said:
I don't understand the obsession with turning Coyote into an operational missile.
Click to expand...

I'm not obsessed with it just pointing out the possibilities also I do believe there has been some consideration about doing this conversion (I remember reading about this some years, though I can't remember where I read it).

sferrin said:
The basic design has been around for over half a century and nobody has wanted a weapon derived from it.

LTV ALVRJ
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that once that was proven in flight-tests it wasn't converted into an ASM it seems a highly logical choice (The same with the ASALM).

On another note it the Coyote was upgraded with the booster-stage being replaced with an integral rocket-booster inside the ramjet then an air-launched AQM-163 variant could be created, this would add a lot of flexibility to the missile-target in where it could be launched.
 
NMaude said:
sferrin said:
I don't understand the obsession with turning Coyote into an operational missile.
Click to expand...

I'm not obsessed with it just pointing out the possibilities also I do believe there has been some consideration about doing this conversion (I remember reading about this some years, though I can't remember where I read it).

sferrin said:
The basic design has been around for over half a century and nobody has wanted a weapon derived from it.

LTV ALVRJ
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that once that was proven in flight-tests it wasn't converted into an ASM it seems a highly logical choice (The same with the ASALM).

On another note it the Coyote was upgraded with the booster-stage being replaced with an integral rocket-booster inside the ramjet then an air-launched AQM-163 variant could be created, this would add a lot of flexibility to the missile-target in where it could be launched.
Click to expand...
This one was even older:

49981806057_1b67c91837_b.jpg

 
Both the ALVRJ and the LASRM designs could've been redesigned and upgraded to as a replacement for the AGM-69A SRAM.
 
NMaude said:
Both the ALVRJ and the LASRM designs could've been redesigned and upgraded to as a replacement for the AGM-69A SRAM.
Click to expand...
Redesigning them enough to carry a 200kt nuclear warhead 100 miles, while fitting in SRAMs physical envelope would have been quite a challenge. ASALM was able to do it, and more, but it was completely different, and superior design. And they didn't want it either.
 
sferrin said:
ASALM was able to do it, and more, but it was completely different, and superior design. And they didn't want it either.
Click to expand...

I still have trouble comprehending how the US DoD could be so stupid as to drop a design that was successfully tested especially given that it had three times the range of the SRAM.
 
NMaude said:
sferrin said:
ASALM was able to do it, and more, but it was completely different, and superior design. And they didn't want it either.
Click to expand...

I still have trouble comprehending how the US DoD could be so stupid as to drop a design that was successfully tested especially given that it had three times the range of the SRAM.
Click to expand...
Mach 5.2, 300 mile range, nuclear warhead, it was dual-role (AGM and AAM) and fit eight to a rotary launcher. Nah.

An Ex Rocket Man's Take On It

The ravings of a trained mind.
exrocketman.blogspot.com exrocketman.blogspot.com
 
Given Coyote's physical dimensions, and looking at what Kh-31 offers, range of about 100 miles at max is achievable ....

Coyote was probably designed only with being a target drone in mind, and the operating range was "deliberately" not maxed out .... keep in mind that the Coyote was also "exported" to other countries for drone service ....

Also, a solid fueled ramjet is definitely not as efficient as a liquid fueled one ....
 
Talking about possible ground and air launched versions of the Coyote have the USAF and/or the US Army showed any interest in using/purchasing it for their own use?
 
zjz said:
Given Coyote's physical dimensions, and looking at what Kh-31 offers, range of about 100 miles at max is achievable ....

Coyote was probably designed only with being a target drone in mind, and the operating range was "deliberately" not maxed out .... keep in mind that the Coyote was also "exported" to other countries for drone service ....

Also, a solid fueled ramjet is definitely not as efficient as a liquid fueled one ....
Click to expand...
All depends on trajectory, I mean consider the SM-2s range and size.
 
sferrin said:
Mach 5.2, 300 mile range, nuclear warhead, it was dual-role (AGM and AAM) and fit eight to a rotary launcher. Nah.

An Ex Rocket Man's Take On It

The ravings of a trained mind.
exrocketman.blogspot.com exrocketman.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
ASALM-PTV accidentally reached about Mach 6 in that runaway ramjet burn, starting from a Mach 2.5 ramjet takeover at end of rocket boost, after a 20,000 foot launch for that first test.

In the case of ASALM, at low altitudes the Mach number is rather low: around 2.5 to 3. The higher cruise Mach number of 4 takes place only in the thinner, colder air up around 80,000 feet. On a "standard day", at 20,000 feet Mach 2.5 the worst case is soakout to the recovery temperature, which is very near the stagnation temperature of 547 F (286 C). At 80,000 feet Mach 4, it is around 1211 F (655 C). These are temperatures that a Martensitic stainless steel can handle without too much loss of strength. However, at Mach 6 and 20,000 feet for the throttle runaway incident in flight test 1, these temperatures were quite unsurvivable for steady-state exposure, at 3209 F (1765 C), which neatly explains the telemetry about the skin beginning to melt during this brief transient event.
Click to expand...

Woah, that is very low altitude for Mach 6! :D

Where did the Mach 5.2 come from?
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
sferrin said:
Mach 5.2, 300 mile range, nuclear warhead, it was dual-role (AGM and AAM) and fit eight to a rotary launcher. Nah.

An Ex Rocket Man's Take On It

The ravings of a trained mind.
exrocketman.blogspot.com exrocketman.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
ASALM-PTV accidentally reached about Mach 6 in that runaway ramjet burn, starting from a Mach 2.5 ramjet takeover at end of rocket boost, after a 20,000 foot launch for that first test.

In the case of ASALM, at low altitudes the Mach number is rather low: around 2.5 to 3. The higher cruise Mach number of 4 takes place only in the thinner, colder air up around 80,000 feet. On a "standard day", at 20,000 feet Mach 2.5 the worst case is soakout to the recovery temperature, which is very near the stagnation temperature of 547 F (286 C). At 80,000 feet Mach 4, it is around 1211 F (655 C). These are temperatures that a Martensitic stainless steel can handle without too much loss of strength. However, at Mach 6 and 20,000 feet for the throttle runaway incident in flight test 1, these temperatures were quite unsurvivable for steady-state exposure, at 3209 F (1765 C), which neatly explains the telemetry about the skin beginning to melt during this brief transient event.
Click to expand...

Woah, that is very low altitude for Mach 6! :D

Where did the Mach 5.2 come from?
Click to expand...
5.2 was a typo. I meant to put 5.4. I've seen 5.4, 5.5, this 6. The 5.4 was from an old Air Force Research Laboratory web page that disappeared years ago. I figure the 5.4 is probably the accurate number, considering its source. It also stated 40,000ft rather than 20k.
 
ASALM was discussed quite a bit by Eugene Fleeman in his book / course materials on Tactical missile design when discussing on ramjet design .....

I have seen published AIAA papers on the test program as well, one by an author named Webster if my memory does not fail me ....
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
NMaude said:
sferrin said:
ASALM was able to do it, and more, but it was completely different, and superior design. And they didn't want it either.
Click to expand...

I still have trouble comprehending how the US DoD could be so stupid as to drop a design that was successfully tested especially given that it had three times the range of the SRAM.
Click to expand...
Mach 5.2, 300 mile range, nuclear warhead, it was dual-role (AGM and AAM) and fit eight to a rotary launcher. Nah.

An Ex Rocket Man's Take On It

The ravings of a trained mind.
exrocketman.blogspot.com exrocketman.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
ASALM looks like it is better than everything in US inventory nowadays.
 
Ronny said:
ASALM looks like it is better than everything in US inventory nowadays.
Click to expand...

And yet SLAT was a hot mess with five out of six flights failing in one way or another.
 
Ronny said:
Maybe ASALM was not designed for low altitude flight, that why SLAT failed?
Click to expand...
No.

Martin had some major performance deficiencies in SLAT Program Management and financial control (the program was behind the 8-ball from day one - pull that string) which then lead to material problems and major issues with the subcontractors. To say that the program was a hot steaming mess would be paying complements to an effort that was virtually unbesmirched by success.
 
aim9xray said:
Ronny said:
Maybe ASALM was not designed for low altitude flight, that why SLAT failed?
Click to expand...
No.

Martin had some major performance deficiencies in SLAT Program Management and financial control (the program was behind the 8-ball from day one - pull that string) which then lead to material problems and major issues with the subcontractors. To say that the program was a hot steaming mess would be paying complements to an effort that was virtually unbesmirched by success.
Click to expand...
Are there any good sources for the SLAT program history?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom