This three-sentence summary provides the key details about the document: The document announces a three-day short course on tactical missile design integration that will cover fundamentals of missile configuration, propulsion, weight, performance, and integration considerations. The course, taught by experienced instructor Eugene Fleeman, will use analytical expressions and examples to illustrate the primary design drivers and tradeoffs. Attendees will learn missile design processes and parameters, participate in a small rocket design exercise, and receive course notes and a textbook on tactical missile design.

1. Professional Development Short Course On:
Tactical Missile Design - Integration
Instructor:
Eugene L. Fleeman
http://www.ATIcourses.com/schedule.htm
ATI Course Schedule:
http://www.aticourses.com/tactical_missile_design.htm
ATI's Tactical Missile Design:
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the Publisher and / or Author.
349 Berkshire Drive • Riva, Maryland 21140
888-501-2100 • 410-956-8805
Website: www.ATIcourses.com • Email: ATI@ATIcourses.com

2. Tactical Missile Design
January 12-14, 2009
Laurel, Maryland
April 13-15, 2009
Beltsville, Maryland
$1590
Summary (8:30am - 4:00pm)
This three-day short course covers the fundamentals quot;Register 3 or More & Receive $10000 each
of tactical missile design. The course provides a Off The Course Tuition.quot;
system-level, integrated method for missile
aerodynamic configuration/propulsion design and
analysis. It addresses the broad
range of alternatives in meeting
cost and performance
requirements. The methods
presented are generally simple
closed-form analytical
expressions that are physics-
based, to provide insight into the
primary driving parameters.
Configuration sizing examples are
Course Outline
presented for rocket-powered,
ramjet-powered, and turbo-jet
1. Introduction/Key Drivers in the Design Process.
powered baseline missiles.
Overview of missile design process. Unique characteristics of
Typical values of missile tactical missiles. Key aerodynamic configuration sizing
parameters and the characteristics of current parameters. Missile conceptual design synthesis process.
operational missiles are discussed as well as the Projected capability in C4ISR.
enabling subsystems and technologies for tactical
2. Aerodynamic Considerations in Tactical Missile
missiles and the current/projected state-of-the-art.
Design. Optimizing missile aerodynamics. Missile
Videos illustrate missile development activities and configuration layout (body, wing, tail) options. Selecting flight
missile performance. Finally, each attendee will design, control alternatives. Wing and tail sizing. Predicting normal
build, and fly a small air powered rocket. Attendees will force, drag, pitching moment, and hinge moment.
vote on the relative emphasis of the material to be
3. Propulsion Considerations. Turbojet, ramjet,
presented. Attendees receive course notes as well as
scramjet, ducted rocket, and rocket propulsion comparisons.
the textbook, Tactical Missile Design, 2nd edition. Turbojet engine design considerations. Selecting ramjet
engine, booster, and inlet alternatives. High density fuels.
Effective thrust magnitude control. Reducing propellant and
Instructor turbojet observables. Rocket motor prediction and sizing.
Ramjet engine prediction and sizing. Motor case and nozzle
Eugene L. Fleeman has more than 40 years of
materials.
government, industry, and academia
experience in missile system and 4. Weight Considerations. Structural design criteria
factor of safety. Structure concepts and manufacturing
technology development. Formerly a
processes. Selecting airframe materials. Loads prediction.
manager of missile programs at Georgia
Weight prediction. Motor case design. Aerodynamic heating
Tech, Boeing, Rockwell International,
prediction and insulation trades. Dome material alternatives.
and Air Force Research Laboratory, he Power supply and actuator alternatives.
is an internationally known lecturer on
5. Flight Trajectory Considerations. Aerodynamic
missiles and the author of over seventy publications
sizing-equations of motion. Maximizing flight performance.
including the AIAA textbook Tactical Missile Design. Benefits of flight trajectory shaping. Flight performance
prediction of boost, climb, cruise, coast, ballistic, maneuvering,
and homing flight.
What You Will Learn
6. Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration.
• Key drivers in the missile design process.
Achieving robustness in adverse weather. Seeker, data link,
• Critical tradeoffs, methods and technologies in and sensor alternatives. Counter-countermeasures. Warhead
subsystems, aerodynamic, propulsion, and structure alternatives and lethality prediction. Alternative guidance laws.
sizing. Proportional guidance accuracy prediction. Time constant
contributors and prediction. Maneuverability design criteria.
• Launch platform-missile integration.
Radar cross section and infrared signature prediction.
• Robustness, lethality, accuracy, observables,
Survivability considerations. Cost drivers of schedule, weight,
survivability, reliability, and cost considerations.
learning curve, and parts count. Designing within launch
• Missile sizing examples. platform constraints. Storage, carriage, launch, and separation
• Missile development process. environment. Internal vs. external carriage.
7. Sizing Examples and Sizing Tools. Trade-offs for
extended range rocket. Sizing for enhanced maneuverability.
Who Should Attend Ramjet missile sizing for range robustness. Turbojet missile
The course is oriented toward the needs of missile sizing for maximum range. Computer aided sizing tools for
engineers, analysts, marketing personnel, program conceptual design. Soda straw rocket design, build, and fly.
managers, university professors, and others working in House of quality process. Design of experiment process.
the area of missile analysts, marketing personnel and 8. Development Process. Design validation/technology
technology development. Attendees will gain an development process. New missile follow-on projections.
understanding of missile design, missile technologies, Examples of development facilities. New technologies for
launch platform integration, missile system measures tactical missiles.
of merit, and the missile system development process.
9. Summary and Lessons Learned.
Register online at www.ATIcourses.com or call ATI at 888.501.2100 or 410.956.8805
30 – Vol. 95

3. www.ATIcourses.com
Boost Your Skills 349 Berkshire Drive
Riva, Maryland 21140
with On-Site Courses Telephone 1-888-501-2100 / (410) 965-8805
Tailored to Your Needs
Fax (410) 956-5785
Email: ATI@ATIcourses.com
The Applied Technology Institute specializes in training programs for technical professionals. Our courses keep you
current in the state-of-the-art technology that is essential to keep your company on the cutting edge in today’s highly
competitive marketplace. Since 1984, ATI has earned the trust of training departments nationwide, and has presented
on-site training at the major Navy, Air Force and NASA centers, and for a large number of contractors. Our training
increases effectiveness and productivity. Learn from the proven best.
For a Free On-Site Quote Visit Us At: http://www.ATIcourses.com/free_onsite_quote.asp
For Our Current Public Course Schedule Go To: http://www.ATIcourses.com/schedule.htm

4. Outline
Introduction / Key Drivers in the Missile Design - Integration Process

Aerodynamic Considerations in Missile Design - Integration

Propulsion Considerations in Missile Design - Integration

Weight Considerations in Missile Design - Integration

Flight Performance Considerations in Missile Design - Integration

Measures of Merit and Launch Platform Integration

Sizing Examples

Missile Development Process

Summary and Lessons Learned

References and Communication

Appendices ( Homework Problems / Classroom Exercises, Example of

Request for Proposal, Nomenclature, Acronyms, Conversion Factors,
Syllabus )
3/3/2009 ELF 2

5. Missile Design Should Be Conducted in a
System-of-Systems Context
Example: Typical US Carrier Strike Group Complementary Missile Launch Platforms / Load-out
JASSM, SLAM, Harpoon, JSOW, JDAM, Maverick, HARM, GBU-10, GBU-5, Penguin, Hellfire
Air-to-Surface:
AMRAAM, Sparrow, Sidewinder
Air-to-Air:
SM-3, SM-2, Sea Sparrow, RAM
Surface-to-Air:
Tomahawk, Harpoon
Surface-to-Surface:
3/3/2009 ELF 3

6. Pareto Effect: Only a Few Parameters
Drive the Design
Example: Rocket Baseline Missile ( Sparrow ) Maximum Flight Range
Example:
•Rocket Baseline: Launch @ Altitude = 20k ft, Mach Number = 0.7;
Terminate @ Flight Range = 9.5 nm ( Mach Number = 1.5 )
•Top Four Parameters Drive 85% of Maximum Flight Range Sensitivity
3/3/2009 ELF 4

7. Missile Synthesis Is a Creative Process That
Requires Evaluation of Alternatives and Iteration
Define Mission Requirements
Alt Mission
Establish Baseline
Alt Baseline
Aerodynamics
Propulsion
Resize / Alt Config / Subsystems / Tech
Weight
Trajectory
Meet No
Performance?
Yes
No
Measures of Merit and Constraints
Yes
3/3/2009 ELF 5

8. Most Supersonic Missiles Are Wingless
Stinger FIM-92 Grouse SA-18 Grison SA-19 ( two stage ) Gopher SA-13
Starburst Mistral Kegler AS-12 Archer AA-11
Gauntlet SA-15 Magic R550 Python 4 U-Darter
Canard Control Tail Control / TVC
Python 5 Derby / R-Darter Gimlet SA-16 Sidewinder AIM-9X
ASRAAM AIM-132 Grumble SA-10 / N-6 Patriot MIM-104 Starstreak
Gladiator SA-12 PAC-3 Roland ( two stage ) Crotale
Hellfire AGM-114 ATACM MGM-140 Standard Missile 3 ( three stage ) THAAD
Permission of Missile Index. Copyright 1997©Missile.Index All Rights Reserved
3/3/2009 ELF 6

9. Subsonic Cruise Missiles Have
Relatively Large Wings
JASSM Apache Taurus
CALCM Naval Strike Missile Tomahawk
Harpoon ANAM / Gabriel 5
Permission of Missile Index. 7
3/3/2009 ELF

10. Wing, Tail, and Canard Panel Geometry Trade-off
ctip
cMAC b/2
yCP
croot
Double
Triangle Aft Swept LE
Rectangle
Swept LE
( Delta ) Bow Tie
Parameter Trapezoid
Variation xAC –
yCP ( Bending / Friction ) – –
Supersonic Drag –
RCS –
Span Constraint –
Stability & Control
Aeroelastic Stab. –
Note: Superior Good Average Poor
 = Taper ratio = ctip / croot
A = Aspect ratio = b2 / S = 2 b / [( 1 +  ) croot ] –
yCP = Outboard center-of-pressure = ( b / 6 ) ( 1 + 2  ) / ( 1 +  )
Based on equal surface area and equal span.
cMAC = Mean aerodynamic chord = ( 2 / 3 ) croot ( 1 +  +  ) / ( 1 +  )
2
Surface area often has more impact than geometry.
3/3/2009 ELF 8

11. Examples of Inlets for
Current Supersonic Air-Breathing Missiles
United Kingdom
Sea Dart GWS-30 Meteor
France
ASMP ANS
Russia
AS-17 / Kh-31 Kh-41 SS-N-22 / 3M80
SA-6 SS-N-19 SS-N-26
China
C-101 C-301
Taiwan
Hsiung Feng III
India
BrahMos
• Aft inlets have lower inlet volume and do not degrade lethality of forward located warhead.
• Nose Inlet may have higher flow capture, pressure recovery, smaller carriage envelope, and lower drag.
3/3/2009 ELF 9

12. Conventional Solid Rocket Thrust-Time Design
Alternatives - Propellant Cross Section Geometry
Example Mission Thrust Profile Example Web Cross Section Geometry / Volumetric Loading
• Cruise
Thrust ( lb ) Thrust ( lb )
Constant ~ 82% ~95% ~90%
Thrust
Burning Time ( s ) End Burner Radial Slotted Tube
•Dive at 
~ 79%
constant Regressive
dynamic Thrust
pressure
Burning Time ( s )
•Climb at 
Thrust ( lb ) Thrust ( lb )
~ 87%
constant
Progressive
dynamic
Thrust
pressure
Burning Time ( s )
•Fast launch – Extrusion Production of Star Web
 cruise ~ 85% Propellant. Photo Courtesy of BAE.
Boost-Sustain
Burning Time ( s )
•Fast launch –
Thrust ( lb )
Boost-Sustain-Boost
 cruise – high
~ 85%
speed terminal
Medium Burn Rate Propellant
Burning Time ( s )
Note: High thrust and chamber pressure require large surface burn area. High Burn Rate Propellant
3/3/2009 ELF 10

13. Missile Weight Is Driven by Body Volume
( i.e., Diameter and Length )
WL = 0.04 l d2
10000
Units: WL( lb ), l ( in ), d ( in )
WL, Missile Launch Weight, lb
1000
Example for Rocket Baseline:
100 l = 144 in
d = 8 in
WL = 0.04 ( 144 ) ( 8 )2 = 0.04 ( 9216 ) = 369 lb
10
100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
ld2, Missile Length x Diameter2, in3
FIM-92 SA-14 Javelin RBS-70 Starstreak Mistral HOT Trigat LR
LOCAAS AGM-114 Roland RIM-116 Crotale AIM-132 AIM-9M Magic 2
Mica AA-11 Python 3 AIM-120C AA-12 Skyflash Aspide AIM-9P
Super 530F Super 530D AGM-65G PAC-3 AS-12 AGM-88 Penguin III AIM-54C
Armat Sea Dart Sea Eagle Kormoran II AS34 AGM-84H MIM-23F ANS
MM40 AGM-142 AGM-86C SA-10 BGM-109C MGM-140 SSN-22 Kh-41
3/3/2009 ELF 11

14. Strength – Elasticity of
Airframe Material Alternatives
t = P / A = E 
Kevlar Fiber S-Glass Fiber Note:
w / o Matrix w / o Matrix • High strength fibers are:
400 – Very small diameter
Carbon Fiber
– Unidirectional
w / o Matrix
– High modulus of
( 400 – 800 Kpsi )
elasticity
300 – Very elastic
– No yield before failure
Very High Strength Stainless Steel
t, Tensile Stress, – Non forgiving failure
( PH 15-7 Mo, CH 900 )
103 psi • Metals:
High Strength Stainless Steel
200 – More ductile, yield s
( PH 15-7 Mo, TH 1050 )
before failure
– Allow adjacent structure
Titanium Alloy ( Ti-6Al-4V )
to absorb load
– Resist crack formation
100 – Resist impact loads
Aluminum Alloy ( 2219-T81 ) – More forgiving failure
E, Young’s modulus of elasticity, psi
0 P, Load, lb
0 1 2 3 4 5 , Strain, in / in
A, Area, in2
, Strain, 10-2 in / in Room temperature
3/3/2009 ELF 12

15. Composites Are Good Insulators for High
Temperature Structure and Propulsion ( cont )
Graphites
6,000 • Burn
Medium Density Phenolic
•  ~ 0.08 lbm / in3
Composites
• Carbon / Carbon
• Char
5,000 •  ~ 0.06 lbm / in3
Bulk Ceramics
• Nylon Phenolic, Silica
• Melt
•  ~ 0.20 lbm / in Phenolic, Glass
3
4,000 • Zirconium Ceramic, Phenolic, Carbon
Hafnium Ceramic Phenolic, Graphite
Tmax, Max Phenolic
Porous Ceramics
Low Density
• Melt
Temperature 3,000 Composites
• Resin Impregnated
Capability, •  ~ 0.12 lbm / in3
• Char
•  ~ 0.03 lbm / in3
• Carbon-Silicon
R Carbide • Micro-Quartz
2,000 Paint, Glass-
Cork-Epoxy,
Plastics
Carbon -
• Sublime Silicone Rubber,
• Depolymerizing
1,000 Kevlar-EDPM
•  ~ 0.06 lbm / in3
• Teflon
0
0 1 2 3 4
Insulation Efficiency, Minutes To Reach 300 °F at Back Wall
Assumed Weight Per Unit Area of Insulator / Ablator = 1 lb / ft2
Note:
3/3/2009 ELF 13

16. Examples of Aerodynamic Hot Spots
Nose Tip
Leading Edge
Flare
Notional Missile Aero Heating
Video of Radiometric Imagery – SM-3 Flight
3/3/2009 ELF 14

17. 3-DOF Simplified Equations of Motion Show
Drivers for Configuration Sizing
+ Normal Force + Thrust
 << 1 rad
V
+ Moment  
W

+ Axial Force
Configuration Sizing Implication
.. ..
High Control Effectiveness  Cm > Cm, Iy small
y   y α  q SRef d Cm  + q SRef d Cm 
( W small ), q large
.
Large / Fast Heading Change  CN large, W
( W / gc )   SRef  V CN  / 2 + SRef  V CN  / 2 +
small,  large ( low alt ), V large, T / V large
( T sin  ) / V – ( W / V ) cos 
.
High Speed / Long Range  Total Impulse large,
( W / gc ) V  T - CA SRef q - CN 2 SRef q - W sin 
CA small, q small
Note: Based on aerodynamic control
3/3/2009 ELF 15

18. High Missile Velocity and Target Lead Required
to Intercept High Speed Crossing Target
VM sin L = VT sin A, Constant Bearing ( L = const ) Trajectory
4
VM VT
LA
Note:
3 Constant Bearing
VM = Missile Velocity
VM / VT VT = Target Velocity
A = Target Aspect
L = Missile Lead Angle
2 Seeker Gimbal
A = 90°
Example:
A = 45°
1 L = 30 deg
A = 45 deg
VM / VT = sin ( 45 ) / sin ( 30 ) =
1.42
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
L, Lead Angle, Deg
3/3/2009 ELF 16

19. A Radar Seeker / Sensor Is More Robust in
Adverse Weather
O2, H2O
1000 Note:
EO attenuation through
cloud @ 0.1 g / m3 and 100
m visibility
100
H2O H2O EO attenuation through
ATTENUATION (dB / km)
CO2
O2 rain @ 4 mm / h
Humidity @ 7.5 g / m3
10
Millimeter wave and
H2O
O3 microwave attenuation
H2O, CO2
O2 through cloud @ 0.1
CO2
gm / m3 or rain @ 4 mm / h
1 H2O
20° C  Attenuation by absorption,
H2O 1 ATM scattering, and reflection
 EO sensors are ineffective
0.1
through cloud cover
X Ku K Ka Q V W Very Long Long Mid Short  Clouds have greater effect
RADAR on attenuation than
VISIBLE
INFRARED
SUBMILLIMETER
MILLIMETER
0.01
“greenhouse gases”, such
10 GHz 100 1 THz 10 100 1000
3 cm 3 mm 0.3 mm 30 µm 3.0 µm 0.3 µm as H2O and CO2
 Radar sensors have good to
Increasing Frequency
superior performance
Increasing Wavelength
through cloud cover and
rain
Source: Klein, L.A., Millimeter-Wave and Infrared Multisensor Design and Signal Processing, Artech House, Boston, 1997
3/3/2009 ELF 17

20. An Imaging Sensor Enhances
Target Acquisition / Discrimination
Imaging LADAR Imaging Infrared SAR
Passive Imaging mmW Video of Imaging Infrared Video of SAR Physics
3/3/2009 ELF 18

21. GPS / INS Allows Robust Seeker Lock-on in
Adverse Weather and Clutter

Target Image
480 Pixels
640 Pixels ( 300 m ) 175 m
Seeker Lock-on @ 500 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.27 m )
Seeker Lock-on @ 850 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.47 m )
3 m GPS / INS error  nM = 0.44 g,  < 0.1 m
3 m GPS / INS error  nM = 0.15 g,  < 0.1 m req
req
88 m 44 m
Seeker Lock-on @ 250 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.14 m ) Seeker Lock-on @ 125 m to go ( 1 pixel = 0.07 m )
3 m GPS / INS error  nM = 1.76 g,  < 0.1 m 3 m GPS / INS error  nM = 7.04 g,  = 0.2 m
req req
Note: = Target Aim Point and Seeker Tracking Gate, GPS / INS Accuracy = 3 m, Seeker 640 x 480 Image, Seeker
FOV = 20 deg, Proportional Guidance Navigation Ratio = 4, Velocity = 300 m / s, G&C Time Constant = 0.2 s.
3/3/2009 ELF 19

22. A Target Set Varies in Size and Hardness
Lethality
Example of Precision Strike Target Set
Air Defense ( SAMs,
Launch Platform
Robustness
Integration /
Firepower
Lethality
Cost
AAA ) Miss Distance
Reliability
Carriage and
Other
Launch
Survivability
Observables
Considerations
Armor
TBM / TELs
Artillery
C3II
Naval
Counter Air
Oil
Transportation Choke
Aircraft
Refineries
Points ( Bridges,
Railroad Yards, Truck
Parks )
Examples of Targets where Size and Hardness Drive Warhead Design
/ Technology
•Small Size, Hard Target: Tank  Small Shaped Charge, EFP, or KE
Warhead
•Deeply Buried Hard Target: Bunker  Long KE / Blast Frag Warhead
•Large Size Target: Building  Large Blast Frag Warhead
Video Examples of Precision Strike
Targets / Missiles
3/3/2009 ELF 20

23. Accurate Guidance Enhances Lethality
AIM-7 Sparrow 77.7 lb blast / frag
warhead
Typical Aircraft Target
Vulnerability
PK > 0.5 if  < 5 ft (  p > 330 psi,
fragments impact energy > 130k ft-
lb / ft2 )
PK > 0.1 if  < 25 ft ( p > 24 psi,
fragments impact energy > 5k ft-lb
/ ft2 )
Rocket Baseline Warhead ( 77.7 lb, C / M = 1 ),
Spherical Blast / Fragment Pattern, h = 20k ft,
Typical Aircraft Target
Video of AIM-7 Sparrow Warhead ( Aircraft Targets )
3/3/2009 ELF 21

24. Accurate Guidance Enhances Lethality ( cont )
BILL- Two 1.5 kg EFP warheads ….
Roland 9 kg warhead: multi-projectiles from preformed case………………
2.4 m
Hellfire 24 lb shaped charge witness
warhead ………………………….. plate
Guided MLRS 180 lb blast
fragmentation warhead Video: BILL, Roland, Hellfire, and Guided
MLRS warheads
3/3/2009 ELF 22

25. Examples of Terminal Guidance Laws
Active Seeker Transmitted Energy Miss Distance
1. Homing Active /
Launch Platform
Integration / Robustness
Firepower
Lethality
Cost
Seeker
Passive Seeker
Miss Distance
Reliability
Observables
Survivability
Target Reflected / Emitted Energy
Guidance
Launch / Midcourse Guidance
Semi-Active Seeker
2. Homing Semi-
Active Seeker
Guidance
Target Reflected Energy
Fire Control System Tracks Target
3. Command
Guidance
Rear-looking Sensor Detects
Fire Control System Energy
Fire Control System Tracks Target, Tracks Missile, and Command Guides Missile
3/3/2009 ELF 23

26. A Collision Intercept Has Constant Bearing for a
Constant Velocity, Non-maneuvering Target
Example of Collision Intercept
Example of Miss
( Line-of-Sight Angle Constant )
( Line-of-Sight Angle Diverging ) .
.
( Line-of-Sight Angle Rate L  0 ) ( Line-of-Sight Angle Rate L = 0 )
Overshoot Miss
t2
t1
( LOS t1
)1 > (
LO S
)0 ( LOS )1 = ( LOS )0
t0 t0
L
L
Seeker Line-of-Sight Seeker Line-of-Sight A
A
Missile Target Missile Target
Note: L = Missile Lead
A = Target Aspect
3/3/2009 ELF 24

27. Examples of Weapon Bay Internal Carriage and
Load-out
Center Weapon Bay Best for Ejection Launchers
F-22 Semi-Bay Load-out: 2 SDB, 1 AIM-120C F-117 Bay Load-out: 1 GBU-27, 1 GBU-10 B-1 Single Bay Load-out: 8 GBU-31
Video Side Weapon Bay Best for Rail Launchers
F-22 Carriage ( AMRAAM / JDAM / AIM-9 ) F-22 Side Bay: 1 AIM-9 in Each Side Bay RAH-66 Side Bay: 1 AGM-114, 2 FIM-
92, 4 Hydra 70 in Each Side Bay 25
3/3/2009 ELF

28. Minimum Smoke Propellant Has
Low Launch Plume Observables
Reduced Smoke Example: AIM-120 Minimum Smoke Example: Javelin
High Smoke Example: AIM-7
Contrail ( HCl from AP oxidizer ) at T < Contrail ( H2O ) at T < -35º F
Particles ( e.g., metal fuel oxide )
-10° F atmospheric temperature. atmospheric temperature.
at all atmosphere temperature.
High Smoke Motor
Reduced Smoke Motor
Minimum Smoke Motor
3/3/2009 ELF 26

29. Examples of Alternative Approaches for
Precision Strike Missile Survivability Launch Platform
Robustness
Integration /
Firepower
Lethality
Cost
1. Low Other Survivability
Miss Distance
Reliability
Observables
Survivability
Observables, Considerations
High Altitude
2. Mission Planning /
Cruise, High
Threat Avoidance /
Speed 4. High g Terminal
Lateral Offset Flight Maneuvering
3. Low Altitude Terrain Masking / Clutter
Video of Tomahawk Using Terrain Following
3/3/2009 ELF 27

30. Examples of Survivability Configured Missiles
High Speed
SS-N-27 Sizzler ( Supersonic Rocket
SS-N-22 Sunburn ( Ramjet Propulsion )
Penetrator after Subsonic Turbojet Flyout )
Low RCS
NSM ( Faceted Dome, Roll Dome with Inlet Top or Bottom, JASSM ( Flush Inlet, Window Dome, Swept
Swept Surfaces, Body Chines, Composite Structure ) Surfaces, Trapezoidal Body, Composite Structure
)
3/3/2009 ELF 28

31. High System Reliability Provided by Few Events,
High Subsystem Reliability and Low Parts Count Launch Platform
Robustness
Integration /
Firepower
Lethality
Cost
Miss Distance
Reliability
Observables
Survivability
Reliability
Rsystem  .RSubsystem1 X RSubsystem2 X …
Example: Rsystem  RArm X RLaunch X
RStruct X RAuto X RAct X RSeeker X RIn Guid
X RPS X RProp X RFuze X RW/H  0.94
Example Video of Weapon System with
Many Events: Sensor Fuzed Weapon ( SFW )
Note: Typical max reliability
Typical min reliability
3/3/2009 ELF 29

32. EMD Cost Is Driven by Schedule Duration and
Risk
CEMD = $20,000,000 tEMD1.90, ( tEMD in years )
Example:
5 year ( medium risk ) EMD program
CEMD = $20,000,000 tEMD1.90
High
Low Moderate = ( 20,000,000 ) ( 5 )1.90
Risk
Risk Risk = $426,000,000
EMD
EMD EMD
D
Note: EMD required schedule duration depends upon risk. Should not ignore risk in shorter schedule.
-- Source of data: Nicholas, T. and Rossi, R., “U.S. Missile Data Book, 1999,” Data Search Associates, 1999
– EMD cost based on 1999 US$
3/3/2009 ELF 30

33. Learning Curve and Large Production Reduce
Unit Production Cost
Cx = C1st Llog2x, C2x = L Cx , where C in U.S. 99$
1 L = 1.0
Cx / C1st, Cost of Unit x / Cost of First Unit
Javelin ( L = 0.764, C1st = $3.15M,
Y1 = 1994 )
Longbow HF ( L = 0.761, C1st =
L = 0.9
$4.31M, Y1 = 1996 )
AMRAAM ( L = 0.738, C1st =
$30.5M, Y1 = 1987 )
0.1
Example: MLRS ( L = 0.811, C1st = $0.139M,
Y1 = 1980 )
For a learning
curve coefficient HARM ( L = 0.786, C1st = $9.73M,
L = 0.8
of L = 80%, cost of Y1 = 1981 )
unit #1000 is 11% JSOW ( L = 0.812, C1st = $2.98M,
the cost of the first Y1 = 1997 )
L = 0.7
unit Tomahawk ( L = 0.817, C1st =
0.01
$13.0M, Y1 = 1980 )
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1E+06
Labor intensive learning curve: L < 0.8
Machine intensive learning curve: L > 0.8 )
x, Number of Units Produced
Contributors to the learning curve include:
• More efficient labor
• Reduced scrap
Source of data: Nicholas, T. and Rossi, R., “U.S. Missile Data Book,
• Improved processes
1999,” Data Search Associates, 1999
• New missile components fraction
3/3/2009 ELF 31

34. Missile Carriage Size, Shape, and Weight Limits
May Be Driven by Launch Platform Compatibility
Launch Platform Integration / Firepower
US Launch Platform Launcher Carriage Span / Shape Length Weight
Launch Platform
Robustness
Integration /
Firepower
Lethality
Cost
Surface Ships VLS 263” 3400 lb
Miss Distance
Reliability
~
Observables
Survivability
”
22
22
”
~
263” 3400 lb
Submarines CLS
22 “
Fighters / ~500 lb to
Rail /
Bombers / ~24” x 24” 3000 lb
~168”
Ejection
Large UCAVs
Launch
Ground Vehicles 158” 3700 lb
Pods
~
”
28
28
~
”
Helo Rail,
Helos / Small UCAVs UCAV Rail / 13” x 13”  70”  120 lb
Ejection
Tanks  40”  60 lb
Gun Barrel
120 mm
3/3/2009 ELF 32

35. Store Compatibility Wind Tunnel Tests Are
Required for Aircraft Launch Platforms
F-18 Store Compatibility Test in AEDC 16T AV-8 Store Compatibility Test in AEDC 4T
Types of Wind Tunnel Testing for Store Compatibility
- Flow field mapping with probe
- Flow field mapping with store
- Captive trajectory simulation
- Drop testing
- Carriage Loads
Example Stores with Flow Field Interaction: Kh-41 + AA-10
3/3/2009 ELF 33

36. Compressed Carriage Missiles Provide Higher
Firepower
Baseline AIM-120B AMRAAM
Compressed Carriage AIM-120C AMRAAM ( Reduced Span Wing / Tail )
Baseline AMRAAM: Load-out
of 2 AIM-120B per F-22 Semi-
Bay
17.5 in 17.5 in
Compressed Carriage
AMRAAM: Load-out of 3
AIM-120C per F-22 Semi-Bay
12.5 in 12.5 in 12.5 in
Video of Longshot Kit on CBU-87 / CEB
Note: Alternative approaches to compressed carriage include surfaces with small span, folded surfaces, wrap
around surfaces, and planar surfaces that extend ( e.g., switch blade, Diamond Back, Longshot ).
3/3/2009 ELF 34

37. Robustness Is Required for Storage, Shipping,
and Launch Platform Carriage Environment
Environmental Parameter Typical Requirement Video: Ground / Sea Environment
Surface Temperature -60° F* to 160° F
Surface Humidity 5% to 100%
Rain Rate 120 mm / h**
Surface Wind 100 km / h steady***
150 km / h gusts****
Salt fog 3 g / mm2 deposited per year
10 g rms at 1,000 Hz: MIL STD 810, 648, 1670A
Vibration
Drop height 0.5 m, half sine wave 100 g / 10 ms: MIL STD 810, 1670A
Shock
160 dB
Acoustic
Note: MIL-HDBK-310 and earlier MIL-STD-210B suggest 1% world-wide climatic extreme typical requirement.
* Lowest recorded temperature = -90° F. 20% probability temperature lower than -60° F during worst month /
location.
** Highest recorded rain rate = 436 mm / h. 0.5% probability greater than 120 mm / h during worst month / location.
*** Highest recorded steady wind = 342 km / h. 1% probability greater than 100 km / h during worst month / location.
**** Highest recorded gust = 378 km / h. 1% probability greater than 150 km / h during worst month of worst location.
3/3/2009 ELF 35
Typical external air carriage maximum hours less for aircraft (  100 h ) than for helicopter (  1000 h ).

38. House of Quality Translates Customer
Requirements into Engineering Emphasis
0
- -
Body ( Material, Tail ( Material, Number, Nose Plug ( Material,
Chamber Length ) Area, Geometry ) Length )
7 2 1
5
Flight Range
4 1 5
2
Weight
1 2 7
3
Cost
46 = 5 x 7 + 2 x 4 + 3 x 1 18 = 5 x 2 + 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 36 = 5 x 1 + 2 x 5 + 3 x 7
1 3 2
Note: Based on House of Quality, inside chamber length most important design parameter.
Note on Design Characteristics Sensitivity 1 - Customer Requirements
Matrix: ( Room 5 ):
2 – Customer Importance Rating ( Total = 10 )
++ Strong Synergy 3 – Design Characteristics
+ Synergy 4 – Design Characteristics Importance Rating ( Total = 10 )
0 Near Neutral Synergy 5 – Design Characteristics Sensitivity Matrix
6 – Design Characteristics Weighted Importance
- Anti-Synergy
7 – Design Characteristics Relative Importance
- - Strong Anti-Synergy
3/3/2009 ELF 36

39. Relationship of Design Maturity to the US
Research, Technology, and Acquisition Process
Research Technology Acquisition
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5
Engineering
Basic Exploratory Advanced Demonstration System
and Production
Research Development Development & Validation Upgrades
Manufacturing
Development
~ $0.1B ~ $0.3B ~ $0.9B ~ $0.5B ~ $1.0B ~ $6.1B ~ $1.2B
Maturity Level Conceptual Design Preliminary Design Detail Design Production Design
Drawings ( type ) < 10 ( subsystems ) < 100 ( components ) > 100 ( parts ) > 1000 ( parts )
First
Technology Prototype Full Scale 1-3 Block
Technology
Limited Block
Development Demonstration Development Upgrades
Demonstration
~ 2 Years ~ 5
~ 10 Years ~ 4 Years ~ 5 Years ~ 5-15 Years
~ 8 Years
Years
Production
Note:
Total US DoD Research and Technology for Tactical Missiles  $1.8 Billion per year
Total US DoD Acquisition ( EMD + Production + Upgrades ) for Tactical Missiles  $8.3 Billion per year
Tactical Missiles  11% of U.S. DoD RT&A budget
US Industry IR&D typically similar to US DoD 6.2 and 6.3A
3/3/2009 ELF 37

40. US Tactical Missile Follow-On Programs Occur
about Every 24 Years
Short Range ATA, AIM-9, 1949 - Raytheon AIM-9X ( maneuverability ), 1996 - Hughes
AIM-120 ( autonomous, speed,
Medium Range ATA, AIM-7,1951 - Raytheon Hypersonic Missile, > 2009
range, weight ), 1981 - Hughes
Anti-radar ATS, AGM-45, 1961 - TI AGM-88 ( speed, range ), 1983 - TI Hypersonic Missile > 2009
PAC-3 (accuracy), 1992 - Lockheed Martin
Long Range STA, MIM-104, 1966 - Raytheon
Man-portable STS, M-47, 1970 - McDonnell Douglas Javelin ( gunner survivability,
lethality, weight ), 1989 - TI
Long Range STS, BGM-109, 1972 - General Dynamics Hypersonic Missile > 2009
Long Range ATS, AGM-86, 1973 - Boeing AGM-129 ( RCS ), 1983 - General Dynamics
Medium Range ATS, AGM-130, 1983 - Rockwell JASSM ( cost, range,
observables ), 1999 - LM
1950 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 > 2000
Year Entering EMD
3/3/2009 ELF 38

41. Missile Design Validation / Technology
Development Is an Integrated Process
•Rocket Static
•Turbojet Static IM Tests
Propulsion
•Ramjet Tests
–Direct Connect
Propulsion Model
Structure Tests
–Freejet
•Static
Airframe
•Vibration
Wind Tunnel
Aero Model
Tests Hardware Flight Test Progression
In-Loop
Guidance ( Captive Carry, Jettison,
Simulation Separation, Guided
and Control Model Digital Simulation
Unpowered Flights, Guided
Powered Flights, Guided
Tower
Seeker Live Warhead Flights )
Lab Tests Tests
Actuators / Initiators
Sensors Lab Tests
Environment
Autopilot / Electronics Tests
•Vibration
Power
•Temperature
Supply
Sled Tests
Ballistic Tests
Warhead Witness / Arena Tests IM Tests
3/3/2009 ELF 39

42. Conduct Balanced, Unbiased Trade-offs
Propulsion
Aerodynamics
Production
Structures
Seeker
Guidance and
Control
Warhead – Fuze
3/3/2009 ELF 40