My guess is that the actual question was why there are eight separate fairing parts when (taking the apparently protruding cruciform fin arrangement into account) four fairing segments might have been completely sufficient (and resulted in fewer potential separation failure points and some weight savings as well).gtg947h said:
Thermal protection?Hobbes said:Or the question is why fairings along the entire rocket body, and not just on the nose and tail.
XP67_Moonbat said:So I'm almost at the end of Trimble's STRIKE FROM THE SEA. I came upon a reference to BuAer concepts thrown out toward the end of the Seamaster's career meant to show its' versatility.
In May 1957, BuAer proposed launching Regulus II missiles piggyback off the P6M-2 Seamaster. In January 1958, BuAer proposed a 14,000lb, 2-stagehypersonic boost-glide missile with 1000mi to be carried internally. range. That following Feb, it was also proposed to launch Corvus missiles from the mine bay.
It's the Regulus and BGV concepts that have my attention. Anyone else hear of either of these projects?
The book's cites The BuAer documenst Technical Feasibility and Operational Analysis of P6M-Regulus II Weapon System and A Preliminary Design Study Of an Air-To-Surface, Boost-Glide Missile System for the P6M Aircraft as a references.
PDF:Ron Downey said:History of the GAM-87 Skybolt Missile
History of the GAM-87 Skybolt Air to Surface Ballistic Missile from the Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) Historical Publication Series, No. 67-50-I. Written by Charles G. Worman and dated March 1967. This was a Douglas missile.
ebay seller claimed 'Assault Breaker' related
It is unbelievable, what the Chinese have done of the plain old Tu-16 Badger. A tribute to the goodness of that aircraft design. Tupolev was an ar$e, but he knew how to design fine aircraft.
Better to build our own. It wouldn't be difficult. ATACMS or Zombie for example.and should be bought for new DARPA Warbreaker
Maybe but just to point out the W85 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W85) of the Pershing came in at 880lbs and the Pegasus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)) can put 997lbs into LEO so...Could you hang an upgraded Pershing II under the wing of a B-52?
Speaking “same missile” LEO and surface to surface is there a basic rule of thumb for payload comparison?Maybe but just to point out the W85 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W85) of the Pershing came in at 880lbs and the Pegasus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)) can put 997lbs into LEO so...Could you hang an upgraded Pershing II under the wing of a B-52?
A basic "rule-of-thumb" is probably out there but I just 'SWAG-ed' it really It's really a matter of the "warhead" mass being a lot more than just the actual 'warhead' to be useful. (Having your ALBM burn up on reentry because you couldn't fit in a heat shield would be embarrassing to say the least ) Reentry system, payload bus, guidance and control system, pen-aids, it all adds up. At a guess your value would be closer to accurate than mine was in an actual working sense at any rate. Likely it'd work for the CPGS role though it's a bit big and IIRC wasn't the suggested first stage a segmented solid design? (The military doesn't like those except maybe for SRBs)Speaking “same missile” LEO and surface to surface is there a basic rule of thumb for payload comparison?
I think an SS-18 has a ballistic throw weight of 8800kg but puts less than 2000kg into LEO.
I ask cause ATK proposed an all solid Antares with a 25k lbs LEO and was curious if used as a CPGS missile would its payload exceed 75k lbs +
Depends on the ramjet performance characteristics; ramjet thrust increases with increasing speed, so the smallest possible ramjet would need boosting to a fairly high speed before it generated enough thrust to overcome drag. Even if it could provide enough thrust, it may have been inefficient, meaning that boosters gave better performance despite the increased weight and drag.Why would they need boosters when you have the added velocity of the aircraft carrying the missile? Boosters were required on the ground, well 'cause the missile was launched from a standing start, not near Mach 1.