• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

AIM-260

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
1,390
Potential for "Have Dash III"

I'd say so. As long as the overall shape fits inside an AIM-120D "box" there's no reason you couldn't design a missile with a trapezoidal fuselage relying on body shaping for lift. Sounds like a way to get more usable volume in the same OML, at the expense of extra wetted surface and probably extra structural weight.

More usable volume is probably dependent on your propulsion system. A solid motor is always going to be cylindrical so anything outside that is going to be wasted space, more drag, more weight.

True. Thinking about advanced propellants like gels. That lets you play with throttling or even stopping and restarting motors as desired rather than according to a pre-specified schedule. There have been rumors about gels in AIM-120D already.
 

BDF

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
137
Reaction score
34
True. Thinking about advanced propellants like gels. That lets you play with throttling or even stopping and restarting motors as desired rather than according to a pre-specified schedule. There have been rumors about gels in AIM-120D already.

Gel fueled rocket motors were speculated before the -120D was introduced. I believe unclassified docs have since shown that the 'D uses the same motor as the 'C7.
 

BDF

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
137
Reaction score
34
More usable volume is probably dependent on your propulsion system. A solid motor is always going to be cylindrical so anything outside that is going to be wasted space, more drag, more weight.

One could potentially utilize the volume around the motor created by the aero-shape for packaging guidance, actuators, batteries etc. though. That way you extend the length of the motor for added range or speed.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,576
Reaction score
1,599
True. Thinking about advanced propellants like gels. That lets you play with throttling or even stopping and restarting motors as desired rather than according to a pre-specified schedule. There have been rumors about gels in AIM-120D already.

I used to have a timeline, decades ago, that showed AIM-120 planned improvements. Gels were in there but I wonder if it was a fad that has faded. To my knowledge no missile in service, anywhere, uses gel fuel. Wonder if when it's all said and done gel doesn't have enough bang for the buck.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,924
Reaction score
2,073
To my knowledge no missile in service, anywhere, uses gel fuel. Wonder if when it's all said and done gel doesn't have enough bang for the buck.

I think that it has been cost and production considerations which have held back the technology.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,576
Reaction score
1,599
To my knowledge no missile in service, anywhere, uses gel fuel. Wonder if when it's all said and done gel doesn't have enough bang for the buck.

I think that it has been cost and production considerations which have held back the technology.

Consider all the moving parts, the space and weight they take, and the cost/reliability hit they impose. And they don't really deliver a huge bump in ISP. Better than solid, sure, but not to the levels of liquid propellant. And you lose volume that could be used for propellant for the hardware to pressurize and feed the gel into the combustion chamber. . . IIRC the latest edition of Sutton's book doesn't even cover gel fuels. I had an earlier edition and bought the newest one (well, newest a year or two ago) to see what progress had been made in gel fuels and it didn't even cover them. They had been removed.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
1,390
Didn't the Meteor get a gel fuelled throttable engine from Bayer-Chemie?

The Meteor VFDR is solid-fuel. I suspect they looked at a gel option (I see a paper out there that seems to evaluate gel in a very Meteor-like missile) but I don't see anything to suggest they actually changed over.
 

Inst

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
6
Curious, what are the odds that the AIM-260 operates on cryogenic fuel? One thing I've heard about is that the new AIM-260 requires specialized bunkers and storage facilities.


That implies that the AIM-260 might require specialized storage conditions; if the thing is top-secret and highly-classified, I'm sure there's ways to set things up without having to spend 6.5 million on a bunker for them.

Alternatively, the new rocket features fuel that's otherwise unstable or highly combustable and thus requires new storage mechanisms.

This would also explain why the AIM-260 doesn't seem to be a ramjet; for instance, as with the E-2D, the Americans chose an older technology (PESA) over a newer technology (AESA). In the E-2D's case, there were potential advantages to the older technology, that is to say, since the radar energy emitted came from a magnetron in PESA, they could use a more powerful PESA to offset the efficiency losses of PESA, meaning that PESA would have been the superior choice. Using cryogenic or exotic fuels, likewise, might make it not compatible with a ramjet design, but compatible with a dual-pulse rocket motor.

===

Also, could AIM-260 simply refer to the mile range of the AIM-260 in terms of aerodynamic range? That'd put it at 420 km of range, which, if you consider the K-77M (known 200 km range) and the PL-15 (unknown, but should be longer than the K-77M given the PL-15's greater length), is superior but not by much.
 
Last edited:

Inst

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
6
I remember reading somewhere rumors about breakthroughs in American rocket propulsion technology that underlaid the next generation of American missiles. CUDA and its like, supposedly, manage their range gains by relying on sensors to achieve KK, and using the space that would have otherwise gone to explosives to fuel instead. But how much additional range could you get from that type of technology?
 

GARGEAN

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
488
Reaction score
198
Also, could AIM-260 simply refer to the mile range of the AIM-260 in terms of aerodynamic range? That'd put it at 420 km of range, which, if you consider the K-77M (known 200 km range) and the PL-15 (unknown, but should be longer than the K-77M given the PL-15's greater length), is superior but not by much.
R-77M range known from where?
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,283
Reaction score
173
There is so much talk about 'insensitive' munitions, that i can't imagine deploying a weapons system that needs to be molly-coddled. If you can't keep a missile sitting on a deck for an hour in the Indian Ocean on a hot day, then its military utility is questionable, IMHO.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
447
This would also explain why the AIM-260 doesn't seem to be a ramjet; for instance, as with the E-2D, the Americans chose an older technology (PESA) over a newer technology (AESA). In the E-2D's case, there were potential advantages to the older technology, that is to say, since the radar energy emitted came from a magnetron in PESA, they could use a more powerful PESA to offset the efficiency losses of PESA, meaning that PESA would have been the superior choice. Using cryogenic or exotic fuels, likewise, might make it not compatible with a ramjet design, but compatible with a dual-pulse rocket motor.

There were no T/R modules of suitable power density/volumetric efficiency and weight and cost in the UHF band. There still really aren't.

There's no way the Navy would ever accept cryogenic, hypergolic or any really any liquid fuels; they are all banned for shipboard use.

The only possible exception might be monopropellants like HAN (see NCADE).
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
71
Reaction score
66
This would also explain why the AIM-260 doesn't seem to be a ramjet; for instance, as with the E-2D, the Americans chose an older technology (PESA) over a newer technology (AESA). In the E-2D's case, there were potential advantages to the older technology, that is to say, since the radar energy emitted came from a magnetron in PESA, they could use a more powerful PESA to offset the efficiency losses of PESA, meaning that PESA would have been the superior choice. Using cryogenic or exotic fuels, likewise, might make it not compatible with a ramjet design, but compatible with a dual-pulse rocket motor.
There's no way the Navy would ever accept cryogenic, hypergolic or any really any liquid fuels; they are all banned for shipboard use.

The only possible exception might be monopropellants like HAN (see NCADE).
Or use what ever the missiles like the Harpoon, Tomahawk, LRASM and Naval Strike missiles to power their turbojet engines. I imagine it need to be design in such a way that the risk of leaks and the like is minimized.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
139
Reaction score
47
This would also explain why the AIM-260 doesn't seem to be a ramjet; for instance, as with the E-2D, the Americans chose an older technology (PESA) over a newer technology (AESA). In the E-2D's case, there were potential advantages to the older technology, that is to say, since the radar energy emitted came from a magnetron in PESA, they could use a more powerful PESA to offset the efficiency losses of PESA, meaning that PESA would have been the superior choice. Using cryogenic or exotic fuels, likewise, might make it not compatible with a ramjet design, but compatible with a dual-pulse rocket motor.
There's no way the Navy would ever accept cryogenic, hypergolic or any really any liquid fuels; they are all banned for shipboard use.

The only possible exception might be monopropellants like HAN (see NCADE).
Or use what ever the missiles like the Harpoon, Tomahawk, LRASM and Naval Strike missiles to power their turbojet engines. I imagine it need to be design in such a way that the risk of leaks and the like is minimized.
I would imagine zero maintenance or fueling.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
447
Or use what ever the missiles like the Harpoon, Tomahawk, LRASM and Naval Strike missiles to power their turbojet engines. I imagine it need to be design in such a way that the risk of leaks and the like is minimized.


Good point. You can't rule out hybrids; hydrogen peroxide /JP-10 or HAN/JP-10. I think both of those could meet storability and insensitivity requirements.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
193
Reaction score
110
Or use what ever the missiles like the Harpoon, Tomahawk, LRASM and Naval Strike missiles to power their turbojet engines. I imagine it need to be design in such a way that the risk of leaks and the like is minimized.


Good point. You can't rule out hybrids; hydrogen peroxide /JP-10 or HAN/JP-10. I think both of those could meet storability and insensitivity requirements.
Hydrogen Peroxide in the concentrations needed for a hybrid rocket is not something you want onboard of a ship, period. Just ask the Kursk what happens when things go pearshaped.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
71
Reaction score
66
Or use what ever the missiles like the Harpoon, Tomahawk, LRASM and Naval Strike missiles to power their turbojet engines. I imagine it need to be design in such a way that the risk of leaks and the like is minimized.


Good point. You can't rule out hybrids; hydrogen peroxide /JP-10 or HAN/JP-10. I think both of those could meet storability and insensitivity requirements.
Hydrogen Peroxide in the concentrations needed for a hybrid rocket is not something you want onboard of a ship, period. Just ask the Kursk what happens when things go pearshaped.
I was mkre point out that the navy does use liquid fuel missiles.

Besides, hydrogen peroxide is not the only game in town anymore.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
447
Hydrogen Peroxide in the concentrations needed for a hybrid rocket is not something you want onboard of a ship, period. Just ask the Kursk what happens when things go pearshaped.

I mentioned hydrogen peroxide because there was a joint Navy and Air Force effort on hydrogen peroxide + hydrocarbon
fuels in the early 2000's.

The shipboard ban dates from 1988 and even the AF has restrictions on moving liquid fueled missiles around.

But there was talk about potentially relaxing things on the shipboard side as a result of SM-3 IIB likely requiring
a liquid stage to meet the perf reqs.
 

Attachments

  • 10.1.1.547.5421.pdf
    170.1 KB · Views: 9

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
1,390
They also tolerate OTTO II monopropellant for torpedoes, because as nasty as it is, there's no good alternative.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,353
Reaction score
313
Advancing battery tech might finally kill OTTO II before long. One hopes, anyway.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
1,390

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
207
Anyone have details on this effort and whether it led to additional development work??

As the next evolution in missile agility, the Air Force is looking at integrating small but capable divert and attitude control systems (DACS) into new and existing missile systems. This will increase the agility of the missile and allow for interception of faster or maneuverable targets. During Phase I, CFDRC supported this goal by defining two miniaturized thruster designs that utilize gelled hypergolic propellants to maximize divert performance and missile maneuverability while insuring IM compliance. Each design offers different strategies for system integration.

The primary design employs an annular face shut off approach coupled with an expansion-deflection nozzle to provide an extremely compact unit. A second design that incorporates a vortex-type combustor with a conventional nozzle is slightly longer. Both possess high performance. During Phase II CFDRC will: 1) Fully assess performance associated with a range of gelled propellant combinations (ionic liquids, innovative oxidizers, etc.) relative to the baseline MON25/MMH and 2) Fabricate, hot fire test and validate both thruster concepts. CFDRC is already in negotiations with industry partners about potential follow on programs that integrate system components (i.e. propellant tanks, valves, gas generators, etc.) to perform a full scale system demonstration that paves the way for ultimate flight qualification.

BENEFIT: A paradigm shift in operational performance is possible using a DACS within an air-to-air missile airframe. Immediate applications include any Next Gen missile tailored for JSF weapons bay storage and future AIM-9X/AIM-120 Block upgrade programs. Since propellant gelation improves the IM rating of any hypergolic propellant combination numerous additional military and commercial applications exist including: 1) missile intercept kill vehicles (THAAD, EKV, GMD); 2) extraterrestrial ascent/descent engines; 3) in-space orbital maneuvering and station keeping thrusters; 4) storable upper stage liquid booster motors; 5) missile main propulsion and 6) underwater propulsion/power. Consequently the proposed Phase II miniaturization of gelled propellant thrusters possesses wide range of military and commercial opportunities.

 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
447

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,576
Reaction score
1,599
Advancing battery tech might finally kill OTTO II before long. One hopes, anyway.

SCEPS is making a comeback...

If you think putting out an OTTO II fire is fun...try burning lithium.
Thought what they're describing was so awesome in the Mk50 that they ditched it and made the Mk54 with a more traditional propulsion system.
 

Similar threads

Top