I always worry, as I want to be respectful of others work.overscan said:Erm, why is everyone so worried about breaking rules all of a sudden? ???
Quotes are always great...
Photographs of LTV ZBGM-110.There were two engine companies that had products of the correct small size to fit the cruise missiles (Teledyne Engines in Toledo, Ohio, and Williams Engine in Michigan). The Williams company was very small but its engine was in a more mature state of development due to work on very small turbine engines used for the Army's man maneuver unit. LTV and General Dynamics (GD) both selected the Williams engine but the Navy wanted both engine companies involved in the fly-off competition. The Navy therefore assigned the Teledyne engine to the LTV Cruise Missile, despite unofficial protests by the company.
Another difference between the LTV and GD cruise missiles was the design approaches used to survive the harsh underwater submarine launch. LTV elected to design the missile structure to be rugged enough to withstand the pressures and shocks with no protective covers. GD elected to design a conventional light missile structure and to use a protective dispensable shell for the underwater launch. The GD design approach turned out to be a real advantage during the latter days of the program when air-launched cruise missile versions became popular. For air launch, the protective shell could be eliminated, making a lighter payload than the LTV version.
If nothing else, the no-capsule torpedo-tube launch would be less well understood from the perspective of an air-breathing cruise missile than the encapsulated setup, which was quasi-developed at the time due to Harpoon development.On topic: truly fascinating. But there is one thing I don't understand... Why was the Tomahawk considered the technologically less challenging option?
Presuming the nose is 21" diameter it would have a lot less volume for things like fuel, avionics, warhead, etc. Unless you made it longer anyway but then that brings its own set of issues.SOC said:Probably didn't help torpedo tube clearance that much, unless the rest of the body is that much narrower than the other designs.
Yep - it's quite clear that the tail section begins to 'swell' back to the full diameter. Presumably the center section is noncircular in cross section, so the volume loss would not be as bad as our eyes say.AeroFranz said:I'm guessing what we see are not actually fore and aft bulges as much as middle 'dent' to make room for the folding wing
One could argue that the folding wings on all these concepts rob the airframe of internal volume to a certain extent.
Source: Boeing.comMcDonnell Douglas received a U.S. Navy contract to develop the guidance system for the Tomahawk cruise missile in 1975. Flight tests of the guidance system in 1976 required only 13 of 27 planned development flights to accomplish all its test goals. In 1982 the company won a contract to build complete missile bodies, joining General Dynamics as a dual source cruise missile producer. More than 1,000 Tomahawk missiles were produced by McDonnell Douglas between 1983 and 1995.