Concept n_n

A Ramjet or Scramjet has the advantage of any jet engine in that you can fly it in an optimal trajectory... you burn extra fuel climbing, but the reduced drag means it flys faster and further and much of the energy lost in the climb can be recovered in the dive on target... so high throttle to climb... low throttle to cruise to the target area and then high throttle again for the terminal phase for maximum terminal energy.

A Rocket can't do that exactly, but it can mimic it.

you can very well imitate the propulsion profile of the solid propelled missile as that of liquid propelled. However in the latter case as well ramjet the control over propulsion profile is very flexible (as explained by Garry in throttling mechanism)
This too can be achieved as follows:

Most of the missile including AAMs are made air to surface just by adding more solid dart in tandem..SLAMRAAM for instance.
In solid propulsion the darts are filled with specially configured shapes what we chemical engineering. call them GRAIN CONFIGURATION.

So for instance you want to have a surface to air missile demanding a high initial through put (boosting) & then maintaining specific impulse (a thrust measurement) you will have this configuration...(assuming burning from inside..missile also burn from the shell inwards)

more surface area greater rate of combustion..& then the star shape be dissolved & then you get a uniform thrust for levelling; range gain & less fuel burns...

For terminal boosting goosh it was difficult for us to simulate. you have to use very comples design such as these


so you see that when you go for different profiles in a single dart the geometry of grain becomes difficult so instead of achieving various profiles in a single dart you go for multiple darts there are easy to manufacture at mass scale with less precise geometery controls..

For example for terminal phase you can invert the grain profile & let the dart burn form shell inwards...such technique is easy & you get a very high dash but you also get a weight penalty by increasing dart number for each profile

For those of us that are not engineers what the piece nightcrawler has posted is talking about modifying the solid fuel to change how it burns.

It omits that different energy solid fuel can also be used as well.

Old rockets used to use solidly packed rocket fuel that burns from the bottom to the top like a sky rocket burns black powder.

The problem with this design in a rather more powerful rocket is that the walls of the rocket needs to be able to withstand very high pressures and high temperatures.

A solution to that was to make the solid fuel truly solid rather than just a powder and then drill a hole right up the centre. This means when the rocket ignites rather than the surface of the base of the solid rocket fuel burning and pushing against the walls of the rocket the entire core of the rocket fuel burns... generating more surface area and more pressure but it is pushing out against the remaining fuel which supports the pressure and absorbs the heat so the rocket motor walls can be made thinner and less strong... in other words lighter.

To increase thrust further instead of drilling a circle you can drill a star shape which increases surface area and therefore burning area further increasing thrust with the same fuel. Obviously there is no free ride... drilling the core and using star shaped core design to maximise surface area also dramatically reduces burn time because the fuel burns faster. The pressure is however much higher and would get a missile to a higher peak speed.

Most solid fuels are actually baked like a cake and as with most cake recipes what they often do is use different energy fuels so the first inner layer that burns first is a high energy fast burning fuel, while the second layer burns slower but much much longer. This means that when you launch a missile the first layer burns rapidly and accelerates the missile up to its max speed. When that burns up the next layer burns and it is not powerful enough to keep accelerating the missile but it burns for much longer than the first layer and helps the missile overcome drag and maintain velocity and energy till it reaches the target. In many ways the second fuel acts like a gas generator to overcome drag like base bleed ammo extends the range of artillery shells.

Anyway what I originally wanted to say is that you can shape the thrust of a solid rocket motor with different fuel types and different fuel shapes, but at the end of the day this is fixed for a solid fuelled rocket.

A solid fuelled rocket like a Phoenix might be optimised to be fired from medium to high altitude at a very long range target but any profile expected for the missile will disadvantage the missile if it is used outside of that expected flight envelope.

For instance the missile is designed to be fired from medium to high altitude and cruise for a period and then dive on the target... If launched at low level at a target that is outside Sparrow range but not by much then the missile will enter its terminal manouver flight stage with a lot of cruise fuel left... so it is over weight, and is generating enough thrust to overcome drag and the initial high energy fuel was not enough to allow it to climb to more than medium altitude so it is flying in much thicker air than was anticipated so it is flying slower on its way too.

Another problem with rocket fuel is that it is either on or off and when it is on you might find that a lot of energy is being wasted.

What I mean by that is that at very low level there are not many objects that can exceed Mach 2 no matter how powerful their rocket motors are. If you launch a Mach 4 AMRAAM at low altitude... it will not be a Mach 4 AMRAAM... it will be a Mach 2 AMRAAM, which greatly reduces its maximum range. The thing is that they both have the same rocket motor and are expending the same amount of energy... the problem is that trying to fly at mach 4 at low altitude is a waste of energy.

A Meteor is a mach 4 or 5 missile and with an engine throttle if launched at low level it will use a reduced throttle and will likely fly at mach 1.5-2 depending on the design and how efficient it is. It wont however be running its engine at full power and full fuel burn and so it should be able to fly rather further than a similar rocket powered missile. The reason is that an onboard computer can optimise the thrust and fuel burn rate to get the most efficient use of fuel.

nightcrawler wrote:

A Ramjet or Scramjet has the advantage of any jet engine in that you can fly it in an optimal trajectory... you burn extra fuel climbing, but the reduced drag means it flys faster and further and much of the energy lost in the climb can be recovered in the dive on target... so high throttle to climb... low throttle to cruise to the target area and then high throttle again for the terminal phase for maximum terminal energy.

A Rocket can't do that exactly, but it can mimic it.

you can very well imitate the propulsion profile of the solid propelled missile as that of liquid propelled. However in the latter case as well ramjet the control over propulsion profile is very flexible (as explained by Garry in throttling mechanism)
This too can be achieved as follows:

I know this well thanks.. playing with grain shape.. unfortunately it's "modulation potential" is limited , other way is to put a "pintle" in the nozzle or retractable silver wire in the grain .


Hmm Orbital Mechanics for SAM's

The graph is bit misleading... the missile is actually lying 317km from that 80 km Apogee..instead of depicted 250 km .

280 Km is the Launch range for Sub sonic target with Vt= Mach 0,85 at 12.000 m ..the 250 km is the "F-pole range" it is a distance between launcher and target where target is expected to be destroyed.

Finally i can get my RADAR Cross Section simulation program to work

so i can finally "prove" and "test" my design rules to achieve low RCS .

anyway here is the result of a measurement and comparison i did 2 days ago

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/175/9/9/aircraft_rcs_comparison_by_stealthflanker-d3ju5hn.jpg

^^Good work.

other way is to put a "pintle" in the nozzle or retractable silver wire in the grain .

can you explain little bit more..thnx

nightcrawler wrote:^^Good work.

other way is to put a "pintle" in the nozzle or retractable silver wire in the grain .

can you explain little bit more..thnx

Thanks a lot .

Well about "Pintle" it's basically a control valve, used to control burn rate by modifying the combustion chamber pressure, the pintle consist of aperture , the valve itself and actuating mechanism .

The control mechanism is work as follows :

If high propellant burn rate is desired, the valve will "close" , this will increase chamber pressure and later resulted with higher burn rate of the propellant , and contributing to higher thrust .

In the other hand if lower burn rate is desired , the valve will "open" , resulting with lower chamber pressure and lower burn rate of the propellant , therefore resulted with lower thrust .


Nozzle pintle well the over simplified stuff




The kinds of Pintle , from my AGARD research paper collection, well they're used to control fuel flow in solid rocket ramjet/ducted rocket powered missiles like MBDA Meteor, however their principles are pretty much the same .






As for the Silver wires , here is a passage from "Solid Fuel Ram Rockets"



image

And now since we have SOC in this forum

hmm what do you think on "Mobile version" of our old S-200 SAM System ...





hmm the TEL is well pretty much my own stuff..it can perform re-fueling and de-fueling operation of the mounted 5V28 missile .

This is the new engagement RADAR to replace our old .. 5N62 "square pair".. well it's completely my imagination.. again BUT i think it's the most capable solution for reducing cost.. using Reflective phased array like the 64N6 "Big Bird"

I call this thing as "Cheerubia"



Alternatively of course purchasing S-300PMU-2 would be good options since it can control S-200.. however since potential client for this scheme are being Embargoed by US and friends (except Syria maybe ?) ..my "mobile" S-200 above.. should be useful.. not against fighter jets or cruise missile.. but to kill AWACS, JSTARS , the noise making MC-130 Compass Call ... or any other aircraft having "E" initial before numbers.

From a design standpoint I find this thing to be ridiculously awesome. I want one! The only thing you're missing are some pretty solid deployable struts to brace the TEL for firing. S-300P series TELs use puny little ones because there isn't much force exerted by the cold-launched missile ejection, but this thing will be another story entirely. I do find the radar vehicle and the array design to be pretty interesting as well.

From a practical standpoint, an export nation is better off acquiring the S-300PMU-2 or waiting for the S-400. They're far more modern missiles, and can engage pretty much whatever endoatmospheric target they want as they retain far more maneuvering capability over their envelope than the S-200. You loose a little bit of range with the PMU-2, but it's worth the tradeoff. Besides, the large TELs and the all-new radar would make for an expensive upgrade, probably to the point where the other systems aren't much more expensive anyway. And then you also have to upgrade the missiles; if you do all of this work and then retain the archaic SARH seekers, you haven't really made the system any more effective. If you don't change the seekers, existing ECM systems will likely be able to defeat the new model, provided they could handle the non-mobile S-200.

SOC wrote:From a design standpoint I find this thing to be ridiculously awesome. I want one! The only thing you're missing are some pretty solid deployable struts to brace the TEL for firing. S-300P series TELs use puny little ones because there isn't much force exerted by the cold-launched missile ejection, but this thing will be another story entirely. I do find the radar vehicle and the array design to be pretty interesting as well.

Hehehe thanks , yeah i haven't put any strut XD.

As for the RADAR, well i see circular array.. with Big Bird style reflective phased array , would be cheaper and easier to manufacture , and will surely exceed those 5N62 RADAR.. in terms of resistance toward jammer and may offer some basic "LPI" capability in shape of agile beam steering , and it can provide multiple target engagement capability, no differs than MiG-31's Zaslon or the 5N63 phased array.

In the down side.. this arrangement may have lower receiver and sidelobe performance , because of the antenna feed which act as a "aperture blockage" and this scheme may have higher loss .

Oh and this is the "Wilder" version of my Mobile S-200 i call this thing Edea , the missile has new seeker .. and there's another missile with passive anti radiation seekers, with IR backup .



Might not really practical.. but well i love this words "Double the gun double the fun"

From a practical standpoint, an export nation is better off acquiring the S-300PMU-2 or waiting for the S-400. They're far more modern missiles, and can engage pretty much whatever endoatmospheric target they want as they retain far more maneuvering capability over their envelope than the S-200. You loose a little bit of range with the PMU-2, but it's worth the tradeoff. Besides, the large TELs and the all-new radar would make for an expensive upgrade, probably to the point where the other systems aren't much more expensive anyway. And then you also have to upgrade the missiles; if you do all of this work and then retain the archaic SARH seekers, you haven't really made the system any more effective. If you don't change the seekers, existing ECM systems will likely be able to defeat the new model, provided they could handle the non-mobile S-200.

Agree .. but none the less.. at least for "national pride" side being able to "mobilize" the fixed S-200 and giving it better capability would provide some deterrence .

OK, from an aesthetic viewpoint, the twin-rail TEL is awesome. Not sure how the balancing would work firing off one of those, but it looks cool as hell. Have you modeled anything in-service in 3D?

Stealthflanker, you're a boss!

SOC wrote:OK, from an aesthetic viewpoint, the twin-rail TEL is awesome. Not sure how the balancing would work firing off one of those, but it looks cool as hell. Have you modeled anything in-service in 3D?

thanks a lot

Hmm well so far i'm only make the missiles used by the systems, like the 5V21/28 family for S-200, 5V55 and 48N6 for S-300 family and 9M82 and 9M83 ..

I would like to model the complete system sometime..hmm However i'm more interested to design my own Air Defense Systems

Well it's beeen a while since my very last visit here..

hmm let's have a drawing session.

These jets aren't for fighting..but more like aerobatic purpose. Their configuration and weight is set for maximum aerobatic performance and extreme controlability, provided by delta canard configuration and 3D TVC.

Potential customers for these beauties are rich people, aerobatic teams and any other aviation enthusiasts willing to spend some U$ ~25.000.000.

Shalya Emeria
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/029/5/9/shalya_emeria_preview_by_stealthflanker-d4nzoje.png

Shalya Meritreya, twin seat version of Emeria.

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/033/a/8/shalya_meritreya_preview_by_stealthflanker-d4ogrcx.png

Anyone into Compound Helicopter ?


Alice Hawkeye.
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/125/0/e/alice_hawkeye_compound_aircraft_by_stealthflanker-d4ylix7.png

Hello, this is my first post, I hope its not necro-ing an old post ><

Something I modelled called the MAZ-365. Utilising a MAZ chassis, the command vehicle of the Russian Armed Forces come equipped with an advanced radar suite, and a turret equipped with SA-19s and twin 30mm cannons, allowing the vehicle to defend itself against infantry ambushes or aerial threats.

I know its not that realistic, but then I didnt use much references ><

Interesting.

Criticisms that I would level at the design (please don't take these personally as these are meant to be constructive and help you with future projects) is that at the front of the vehicles the crew compartment has windows but no doors for the crew to get in or out.

Also it seems to have far too many wheels. Unless this vehicle is incredibly heavy I would take off a number of wheels and spread them further apart.

The last thing I noticed straight away is that the radar itself looks featureless and too thin to actually be a radar antenna.

Otherwise I would say it was a very interesting idea.

I think if I was designing such a vehicle now I would probably use a four faced AESA design on a fixed structure. With no moving parts it will be simpler and cheaper, yet in operation you have all directions covered and can scan in any direction electronically simultaneously. To match that performance I would add a few EO ball turrets for ID purposes.

To defend the vehicle I would attach the vertical bin launchers of the SA-15 SAM system that would take target data from the main radar array and the EO turrets and give 360 degree SAM coverage. The advantage of the SA-15 over the SA-19/-22 is that the vertical launch missiles of the former are ready to engage targets from any direction without needing to turn a turret... assuming the main array can perform search, tracking and guidance functions.

Just using the main array also reduces the chances of interference in combat while searching for targets and transmitting that target data to the network while engaging threat targets close to the vehicle.

With the AESA radar LPI modes can be used to minimise risk.

Very nice model... thanks for sharing.

BTW after reading my comments how might you want to improve it?

Perhaps adding Morfei missiles in vertical launch tubes using lock on after launch fire and forget missiles would allow large numbers of threats to be dealt with more rapidly?

Thanks for the comments, I didnt do my referencing well hence many things that looked...out of place ><.

Well, atm i stopped woking on it, as I am working on something new, concept for a vehicle, maybe a variant of the T-99 Armata, and maybe with some additional elements as well

Well I don't have any hard evidence, but I suspect the frontal hull armour is of a very steep sloping angle to maximise its protection performance, the turret is unmanned with an external 125mm gun with the ammo in an autoloader below the turret ring, and I suspect an independently elevating 30mm cannon is also fitted to the turret with ammo also likely stored below the turret ring.

The turret might not actually be that small, but will have active defence systems and all sorts of sensors including MMW radar and EO sensors. It is likely that some sensors might be on arms that can be raised up and perhaps even include a UAV that can be launched and recovered by the vehicle. (perhaps rotary wing?)

All three crew will be side by side in the front hull with standard controls that allow the three crew to drive the vehicle and shoot the gun so for 24/7 operations you could have one driver and one commander/gunner and one crewman resting. Every 6 hours they could change roles without switching places... for periods of danger in serious combat of course all will be awake and working, though perhaps with the commander directing the UAV to get an aerial view other tank commanders could only dream of...

The tank will have a rear mounted engine, while the troop transport (APC and IFV) will have front mounted engines and large ramp rear doors.

Look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Well, my own intepretation of the T-99 Armata, in what I like to call the T-125 behemoth for some reason, cos its some idea which I wanted to do for some time, is essentially a lengthened chassis of the T-90, so supporting 7 road wheels instead of the 6. The unique feature will be the turret, sporting probably something similar to the T-95 turret, but maybe with a longer bustle. Possible additions include perhaps vertically launched missiles similar to that on the TOR-M1, but using iglas instead due to space restrictions.

Interesting.

With the Black Eagle upgrade of the T-80U tank they lengthened the hull to allow a more heavily sloped front hull armour arrangement, and the designers at OMSK that worked on it and its turret bustle autoloader went to UVZ with their patents.

I have read that the Burlak upgrade for the T-90 used the combination of the fully automated rear turret bustle autoloader of the Black Eagle together with the proven underfloor autoloader of the T-72 series to separate the ammo from the crew compartment while allowing main gun ammo to be 53 rounds (22 in the autoloader and 31 in the turret bustle).

AFAIK the Russian Army deemed the rear turret bustle ammo storage as too vulnerable to enemy fire and rejected it.

Having said that the idea of a drop in auto loader unit on the back of the turret with straight ramming design/operation has the benefit of rapid reload (old mechanism removed like an empty rifle magazine and replaced in a rear area using a crane to fit a full autoloader. Another advantage is longer penetrators could be used, and the purpose is just to increase ready to use ammo capacity. Its vulnerability is no longer important as if hit or if it catches fire the turret could be turned 90 degrees from the front and the autoloader could be jettisonned before the fire turns into an eruption and the vehicle still has underfloor ammo to continue the fight. The turret bustle ammo could be considered extra ammo that is still ready to use.

Regarding vertical launch SAMs you would need upgraded Iglas... there is talk of a new IIR guided MANPAD being worked on called Verba, which if made a lock on after launch weapon could do the job you envisiage. Otherwise there is always Morfei which will be a vertical launch IIR guided lock on after launch weapon used as a short range Archer replacement and also in the Army and Navy as a short range SAM and naval CIWS like SAM.

Looking forward to seeing the results...

oops, the turret i meant was the BLack Eagle turret, not the T-95.

well, this vehicle im modelling atm, sitll far from complete, well, the idea was for a need of a vehicle that was adept at fighting in the wide open plains. With the various mid eat conflicts, the russians confirmed that the greatest threat to a tank was not another tank, but shoulder mounted ATGMs as well as ground attack helicopters.

Therefore the project "T-125" was created as a continuation of the T-99 Armata. While the T-99 served as an MBT, the T-125 served more as a mobile howitzer/TD, serving the needs similar to ISU-152's in the great patriotic war, capable of absorbing damage and delivering plenty of firepower to focus on encampments as well fortifications, as well as guarding the troops from enemy heli fire.

Actually the ISU-152 was just direct fire artillery, and was not really heavily armoured. They tended to sit back a little and fire down open sights at hard points like heavy bunkers. Putting a 152mm artillery vehicle in that modern role would not really be that useful.

The modern equivalent of the ISU-152 is probably the BMP-3 with its 100mm rifled main gun for direct fire delivery of HE that most modern IFVs lack with their light automatic cannon armament.

I suspect that at some stage a 120mm version of the 100mm shell of the BMP-3 will be developed and the 120mm can be universally adopted as mortar and direct fire gun for Russian armour... such a weapon is the thing I would like to add to the BMPT design to give it direct fire HE firepower. Because the BMPT has a manned turret the 120mm rounds and mortar shells and guided missiles would need to be stored externally in a turret bustle, but an externally mounted 120mm mortar should have a much better range of angle for firing. I would replace the two 2A42 30mm cannon with a single twin barrel GSh-30K cannon taken directly from an Mi-24, as its low rate of fire would be fine for most ground targets while its high rate would also be good for use against aircraft. It is related to the twin barrel cannon used in the Tunguska/Pantsir-S1 systems.

and here comes my R-27 family




And an APC.. hmm the Greyflame

Nice work StealthFlanker... I should enlist you to model my BMPTM design...

GarryB wrote:Nice work StealthFlanker... I should enlist you to model my BMPTM design...

thanks.

Hmm and playing a bit.



This is an 6500 Ton frigate..armed with 10 P-800 missiles. The AAW suites is S-300F-M with 4 face phased array radar on topmost of the mast.. below it there is an S-band multimode Radar.

Hmm i wonder whether Russia will make use of such configuration. Cost is higher that 360 deg rotating antenna..but improved data-rate for missile guidance and reliability will likely worth the costs.