IPT2003 Phase3 Final Report Team3

Final Proposal: Advanced Tactical Missile (ATM)
IPT 3
Submitted By:
Night Hawks
April 24, 2003
Submitted To: Dr. Robert A. Frederick, Jr. Associate Professor Technology Hall N231 Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering University of Alabama in Huntsville Huntsville, AL 35899 frederic@eb.uah.edu Class Web Page: http://www.eb.uah.edu/ipt/
Contributors
Project Office: Systems Engineering Aerodynamics Propulsion Trajectory Weight Structures Avionics Platform Integration Sarah Paul Mike McWhorter Zackery Butler, Jessica Ipnar Jake Craft, Jacob Sterling Brian Goodson, Eric Waters James Collier, Billy McDaniel Camille Bourbon, Guillame Fouques, Thomas Gualdo TK Aderibigbe [Liason] Kenneth Smith, Ted Towry
Industrial Mentors
Project Office Systems Engineering Aerodynamics Propulsion Structures and Weight Avionics Trajectory Platform Integration Weight Jay Lilley, Christina Davis Bill Nourse Lamar Auman Mike Lyon, Guy Lengelle Roger Fischer, Andre Pfiffer, Alex Maciel Kevin Jackson, John Wells Jeff Hester Robert Burroughs Alex Maciel
Participating Agencies
Army Aviation and Missile Command The University of Alabama in Huntsville SNECMA Ecole Superieure des Techniques Aeronautiques et de Construction Sigma Services of America CLERG
Industrial Affiliates
General Dynamics Armamanet and Technical Products Alliant Techsystems Atlantic Research Corporation
The University of Alabama in Huntsville April 24, 2003
Executive Summary
English [S. Paul] The need for higher technology, precision weapons that will be easily integrated into todays armed forces has led to the development of the Hawkeye. The Hawkeye is an Advanced Tactical Missile (ATM) that is capable of being fired from the current M261 launcher found on such diverse platforms as HUMVEEs and Apaches. Its similarity to the existing missile allows for easy integration into current system since the Hawkeye not only uses the same launcher but also the same warhead, storage containers, and much more. These similarities, however, do not interfere with the Hawkeyes capabilities. Its guidance package provides increased accuracy and its modern propellant greatly extends its range, placing troops using it farther out of harms way. The relatively low cost as well as the ease of manufacturing due to the Hawkeyes use of existing guidance components and standard materials make the Hawkeye an excellent choice to add to the arsenal of the future. French [C. Bourbon] Le besoin de plus haute technologie, darmes de prcision pouvant tre facilement intgres dans les forces armes daujourd hui nous ont pouss dvelopper le Hawkeye. Le Hawkeye est un Missile Tactique Avanc (MTA) capable dtre tir depuis lactuel lancemissiles M261 que lon peut trouver sur diffrents appareils comme les HUMVEES ou les Apaches. Ses similitudes avec le missile existant lui confrent une intgration facile dans le systme courant avec non seulement lutilisation du mme lance-missiles, mais aussi lutilisation de la mme ogive, des mmes containers de stockage, et bien plus encore. Cependant, ces similitudes ninterfrent aucunement avec les capacits du Hawkeye. Sa partie guidage permet daugmenter son fficacit et son moderne bloc de propergol augmente avantageusement sa porte, plaant les troupes lutilisant loin du danger. Le prix relativement bon march, tout comme le confort de fabrication dus lutilisation de composants existants et de matriaux standards font du Hawkeye un excellent choix ajouter larsenal du futur.
iii
ATM Compliance List

The following list details the location of all specification compliances for the ATM. The list shows the location in the CDD provided by the Army of every specification and the number of the page where that specification is dealt with in this proposal. Specification Operational between 61.0 m (200 ft) below MSL and 6,096.0 m (20,000 ft) above MSL Minimum Range of 8 km (4.97 mi) when fired from Helicopter Minimum Range of 4 km (2.5 mi) when fired from Ground Maximum Platform Error of 19 milliradians Operational under Maximum Crosswind of 7.7 m/s (15 knots) Deliver M261 Warhead to Wall in Space Minimum Launcher Exit Velocity of 43 m/s (141 fps) Minimum Smoke Signature Motor Cannot Produce Damaging Ejecta Capable of being loaded in arctic gear Compatible with the M261 Launcher Compatible with the M261 Launcher Interfaces Minimal Longitudinal Force Greater than 13.5 times the Maximum System Weight Modified Fusing System for M261 MPSM Warhead Submunition Deployment Velocity 603 m/s(1978 fps) Safe and Arm device Submunition Deployment to occur at Wall in Space Maximum Acceleration of 79 g Maximum System Weight of 297 kg(654.6 lbs), ObjectiveWeight of 267.9 kg (590.0 lbs) Maximum System Length of 202.4 cm (79.7 in), Objective Length of 182.1 cm (71.7 in) Maximum Outer Diameter of 70 mm (2.794 in) Minimum Service Life of 10 years, Objective of 25 years Maximum Unit Production Cost of $15,000/unit on 10,000 units w/ Objective Cost of $10,000/unit Stowable Temperature Range from -53.8oC (-65oF) to 73.9oC (165oF) Operational Temperature Range from -45.5oC (-50oF) to 65.5oC (150oF) Operational During or After Constant 100% Humidity Minimum Hazard Classification of 1.1 with Objective of 1.3 Satisfying IM Compliance Requirements Flight Fail Safe Minimum Ballistic Trajectory of 3.5 km (2.17 mi) Objective Ballistic Trajectory of 5 km(3.11 mi) All Components of System shall be Unclassified Documentation
CDD Location Proposal Location
2.2.1.1.1 2.2.1.2.1 2.2.1.2.1 2.2.1.2.2 2.2.1.2.3 2.2.1.2.4 2.2.1.2.5 2.2.1.2.6 2.2.1.2.7 2.2.2.1 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2.1 2.2.2.2.2 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3.3 2.2.2.3.2 2.2.2.3.1 2.2.2.3.2 2.2.3.1 2.2.3.2 2.2.3.3 2.2.4.1 2.2.4.2 2.2.5.1 2.2.5.1 2.2.5.2 2.2.6.1 2.2.6.2 2.2.6.3 2.2.7 2.2.8
2.8 2.7.2.2.2 2.7.2.2.2 2.7.2.2.3 2.7.2.2.3 2.7.2.2.2 2.7.3 2.4.1.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.4.1.2 2.6.2 2.7.3 2.6.2 2.6.2 2.7.3 2.2, 2.8 1.3.2, 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.7, 2.8 2.8 2.4.1.1 2.4.1.1 2.7.2.2.1 2.7.2.2.1 2.7.2.2.1 N/A N/A
iv
Table of Contents
ATM Compliance List ........................................................................................................... iv List of Figures........................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... ix Common Terms and Acronyms List [M. McWhorter] ........................................................x Team-Specific Terms and Acronyms List ........................................................................... xi IPT 3: Feasibility of Advanced Tactical Missile (ATM).......................................................1 1.0 1.1 1.2 ATM-Advanced Tactical Missile ................................................................................1 The Need [S. Paul]....................................................................................................1 The Requirements [S. Paul] ....................................................................................1
1.3 The Solution [M. McWhorter]................................................................................2 1.3.1 Concept Overview [M. McWhorter]..................................................................2 1.3.2 Dimensional Properties [M. McWhorter] ..........................................................4 1.3.3 Operations Scenario [M. McWhorter] ...............................................................5 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.2 The Performance [M. McWhorter]........................................................................6 The Implementation [T. Towry].............................................................................7 Technical Description of Methods Used ....................................................................7 Project Office [S. Paul] ............................................................................................7 Systems Engineering [M. McWhorter] ..................................................................8
2.3 Aerodynamics [J. Ipnar] .......................................................................................11 2.3.1 Methods and Assumptions [J. Ipnar] ...............................................................11 2.3.2 Results and Discussion [J. Ipnar].....................................................................13 2.3.3 Trade Studies [J. Ipnar]....................................................................................15 2.4 Propulsion...............................................................................................................16 2.4.1 Propellant Design [J. Craft] .............................................................................16 2.4.2 Nozzle Design [J. Sterling] ..............................................................................20 2.5 Structures................................................................................................................21 2.5.1 Avionics Module Casing [Z. Butler] ...............................................................21 2.5.2 Propulsion Module Casing [Z. Butler].............................................................22 2.5.3 Thermal Analysis [Z. Butler]...........................................................................24 2.5.4 Weight/Center of Gravity Analysis [Z. Butler] ...............................................26 2.5.5 Rear Fin Deployment [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo, W. McDaniel] ..26 2.5.6 Canard Deployment [J. Collier].......................................................................27 2.6 Avionics [J. Collier] ...............................................................................................28 2.6.1 Methods and Assumptions [J. Collier].............................................................28 v
2.6.2 2.6.3 2.6.4
Implementation and Constraints. [J. Collier]...................................................28 Avionics System Cost and Weight [J. Collier] ................................................29 Results and Discussion [J. Collier] ..................................................................30
2.7 Trajectory [B. Goodson and E. Waters] ..............................................................30 2.7.1 Approach [B. Goodson and E. Waters] ...........................................................30 2.7.2 Working with AP02 [B. Goodson and E. Waters]...........................................31 2.7.3 Other Compliance Issues [B. Goodson and E. Waters] ...................................40 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 4.0 4.1 4.2 5.0 6.0 Platform Integration [K. Smith]...........................................................................40 Implementation Issues [T. Towry] ...........................................................................42 Production Cost [T. Towry] ..................................................................................42 Feasibility [T. Towry] ............................................................................................43 Company Capabilities [S. Paul]................................................................................44 Company Overview [S. Paul]................................................................................44 Personnel Description [S. Paul] ............................................................................44 Summary and Conclusions [S. Paul]........................................................................47 Recommendations [T. Towry] ..................................................................................47 Concept Description Document ..................................................................1 Electronic File Index [S. Paul] ....................................................................1 Project Office [S. Paul] ................................................................................1 Systems Engineering [M. McWhorter] ......................................................1 Aerodynamics [J. Ipnar] .............................................................................1 Propulsion [J. Craft]....................................................................................1 Structures......................................................................................................1 Avionics [J. Collier] .....................................................................................1 Trajectory [B. Goodson and E. Waters] ....................................................1
References...............................................................................................................................48 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I -
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Artist Drawing [S. Paul].............................................................................................3 Figure 2: Artist Drawing [S. Paul].............................................................................................3 Figure 3: 3D Drawing Highlighting Key Features [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo] .......4 Figure 4: Three-View Drawing [M. McWhorter]......................................................................5 Figure 5: Operations Scenario [M. McWhorter]........................................................................6 Figure 6: Information Flow Chart [M. McWhorter]..................................................................9 Figure 7: Cross Sectional Drawing of the Missile [M. McWhorter] .......................................10 Figure 8: Detail of Hawkeye Aft, Actual Geometry [J. Ipnar] ................................................12 Figure 9: Detail of Hawkeye Aft, Computer Code Model [J. Ipnar].......................................12 Figure 10: Drag Coefficient vs. Mach Number [J. Ipnar]........................................................13 Figure 11: Trim Normal Force [J. Ipnar] .................................................................................14 Figure 12: Trim Drag [J. Ipnar] ...............................................................................................14 Figure 13: Maneuverability gs available for pitch maneuver [J. Ipnar] ..............................15 Figure 14: Maneuverability Radius of turn maneuver [J. Ipnar] ..........................................15 Figure 15: Thrust vs. Time [J. Craft] .......................................................................................18 Figure 16: Pressure vs. Time [J. Craft] ....................................................................................19 Figure 17: Area of burn vs. web distance [J. Craft].................................................................19 Figure 18: Propellant Grain Cross-section [J. Craft] ...............................................................20 Figure 19: Nozzle [J. Sterling].................................................................................................21 Figure 20: Temperature at propulsion-casing interface [Z. Butler].........................................25 Figure 21: Folded Tailfins [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo] ..........................................26 Figure 22: Unfolded Tailfins [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo] ......................................26 Figure 23: Canard Hinge Detail [J. Collier].............................................................................27 Figure 24: Avionics Component Flow Diagram [J. Collier] ...................................................28 Figure 25: Failsafe Ballistic Trajectory - Ground Mission [B. Goodson and E. Waters]........32 Figure 26: Failsafe Ballistic Trajectory - Helicopter Mission [B. Goodson and E. Waters]...32 Figure 27: Dead On Ground Mission Range to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters] ...33 Figure 28: Dead On Ground Mission Velocity to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters]33 Figure 29: Dead On Helicopter Range to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters] ............34 Figure 30: Dead On Helicopter Velocity to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters].........34 Figure 31: Ground Range with crosswind and platform error to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters]..................................................................................................................35 Figure 32: Ground Velocity with crosswind and platform error to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters]..................................................................................................................36 Figure 33: Crosswind and Platform Error Recovery for Ground Mission [B. Goodson and E. Waters].............................................................................................................................36 Figure 34: Ground Mission 3D Flight Path [B. Goodson and E. Waters] ...............................37 Figure 35: Helicopter Range to wall in space with crosswind and platform error [B. Goodson and E. Waters]..................................................................................................................37 Figure 36: Helicopter Velocities to wall in space with crosswind and platform Error [B. Goodson and E. Waters] ..................................................................................................38 Figure 37: Crosswind and Platform Recovery Graph for Helicopter Mission [B. Goodson and E. Waters] ........................................................................................................................38 Figure 38: 3D Flight Path for Helicopter Mission [B. Goodson and E. Waters].....................39 vii
Figure 39: Maximum Lift/Drag Graph for both Missions [B. Goodson and E. Waters].........39 Figure 40: Maximum Achievable Helicopter Range [B. Goodson and E. Waters].................40 Figure 41: Tail End of ATM Showing Nozzle Section [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo]41
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Final Concept Evaluation [M. McWhorter].................................................................6 Table 2: Summary of Technical Parameters Calculations [M. McWhorter] ...........................10 Table 3: Vehicle Weight Statement [M. McWhorter] .............................................................10 Table 4: Propellant Properties [J. Craft] ..................................................................................17 Table 5: Temperature Sensitivity Effects on Basic Propellant Grain Parameters [J. Craft]....18 Table 6: Avionics Component Breakdown [J. Collier] ...........................................................29
ix
Common Terms and Acronyms List [M. McWhorter]

Revision 02 Acronym AHS AIAA AMCOM ATM CDD CG cm DATCOM DoF ESTACA ft fps g GPS HE HERO I/O IM in INS IPT K KCAS lbs m m/s MAE mi MIL-STD min max mils MPSM MSL N NA Ns Pa Psi UAH Vel Definition American Helicopter Society American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics US Army Aviation & Missile Command Advanced Tactical Missile Concept Description Document Center of Gravity centimeters Data Communication Degrees of Freedom Ecole Superieure des Techniques Aeronautiques et de Construction Automobile feet feet per second Gravity Units Global Positioning System High Explosive Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordinance Input/Output Document Insensitive Munitions inch Inertial Navigation System Integrated Product Team one thousand Knots Calibrated Air Speed pounds meter meters per second Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering miles Military Standard minumum maximum milliradians Multipurpose Sub-munition Mean Sea Level Newtons Not Applicable Newton seconds Pascals Pounds per square inch University of Alabama in Huntsville Velocity x
Team-Specific Terms and Acronyms List

Word or symbol a A* Ab,i ADAMS AEROLAB A0 AP02 c C* C1 CAD CATIA CD or CD Cf C.G. or CG CM CN Cn CN,TRIM d D DATCOM DES-STAR DoD dprop FOPD F0 Fmax g GRAINS2 h HC HUMVEE I IDEAS IMU Isp It Jo k L L/D Comments max acceleration or burning rate law coefficient nozzle throat area initial burning surface area CAD modeling program Rocket Drag and Stability Calculator Version 1.2.1 burn rate coefficient at Tref Aeroprediction Code, 2002 maximum distance from the centroidal axis characteristic velocity cost of first missile produced Computer Aided Design CAD modeling program coefficient of drag thrust coefficient center of gravity moment coefficient normal force cost of the nth missile trim normal force diameter drag Missile DATCOM Aerodynamics, Stability, and Control Calculation, 1997 Design Star Propellant Grain Design Program Department of Defense propellant diameter First Order Preliminary Design Program initial thrust maximum thrust gravity Propellant Grain Design Program convective heat transfer coefficient hazard classification High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (also known as HMMWV) moment of inertia CAD modeling program inertia measurement unit specific impulse total impulse polar moment of inertia Thermal conductivity total length or learning curve lift over drag xi
LAUNCH 2 LVX M Mi Mprop MS n n(gs) p P Pa Pi Pmax q q R Rturn r rinner router S Sref SST t T Tref Vprop WL x p hoop
longitudinal p
Rocket Trajectory Calculation Code version 2.01A Launch Vehicle eXpert System, Launch Vehicle Aerodynamics Module Version 4.0S maximum bending couple moment initial mass mass of propellant Microsoft burning rate law exponent or number of missiles number of gs internal pressure of the casing pressure atmospheric pressure initial position (lat,long,alt) max pressure allowed dynamic pressure heat transfer per unit area or heat flux range radius of turn radius of the casing or burn rate inside casing radius outside casing radius section modulus of the casing reference area stainless steel thickness of the casing ambient temperature reference temperature propulsion volume weight of missile in pounds material thickness angle of attack launch angle or specific heat ratio of combustion products density of propellant hoop stress longitudinal stress propellant temperature sensitivity
xii
IPT 3: Feasibility of Advanced Tactical Missile (ATM) 1.0 ATM-Advanced Tactical Missile
1.1 The Need [S. Paul]
As technology improves, all sectors of industry race to keep up-to-date on the latest advancements. The US government, and the military in particular, are not excluded from this race. Indeed, it is often the government, and the military, which are the drivers of technology advancements. Higher levels of technology allow the military to fight cleaner wars. Computer guidance allows weapons to be more accurate causing less collateral damage both to people and infrastructure. The capability for unmanned vehicles and long-range weapons allow troops to fight at greater distances from the battleground, which minimizes casualties. These advancements and their benefits are currently being showcased on the worlds stage as the US military seeks to minimize both coalition and civilian casualties and infrastructure damage in the war with Iraq. This is a dramatic daily reminder of the need for better and more efficient weapons and weapons systems. While the evening news touts the latest in precision-guided bombs, not all of the militarys technology is so new and advanced. In fact, some of it is several decades old. This older technology lacks the efficiency, precision, and autonomy demanded on todays battlefield. The current Hydra 70 missile, fired off such platforms as the Apache helicopters, is one such system. Built using 50 year old technology, some in the Army characterize its performance by saying the safest place to be is in the missiles crosshairs. Its lack of precision and range make the missile a much less useful weapon on the battlefield. AMCOM is seeking to develop an Advanced Tactical Missile (ATM) that can replace the current missile and remedy its shortcomings. AMCOM has extensive experience in the design of missiles and missile systems. They also have a variety of facilities at their disposal to help in the manufacturing and testing of prototypes. These capabilities make them the ideal customer to lead the effort to investigate an ATM. As a basic armament to common platforms such as the HUMVEE, Apache, and upcoming Comanche, it is imperative that this weapon be upgraded now to best serve future needs. 1.2 The Requirements [S. Paul]
It takes time and money to develop technology, implement it, and train troops to use it. Thus, a large portion of the requirements focuses around compatibility issues. It is much faster and cheaper to use as much existing hardware and technology as possible. Therefore, the ATM must be compatible with only a slightly modified (to accommodate for new fusing mechanisms) M261 MPSM warhead as well as the M261 launcher, which are already in use on a variety of military platforms both aerial and ground. These requirements flow down to various speed and force requirements that must either be met or avoided to ensure compliance with current systems. IPT 3:
Current as of June 20, 2003
Compatibility requirements also imply size and weight requirements. The length must be 79.7 inches or less with an outer diameter of 2.794 inches or less to ensure that the missile fits into the launch and storage tubes. The wing of a helicopter has a maximum amount of load that it can take, and thus the launcher filled with missiles has a restricted weight allowance. The total amount of weight that can be added to a 19-round M261 launcher located on a helicopter wing before there is undue stress is 296.9 kg (654.6 lbs.) This equates to 15.6 kg (34.4 lbs) per missile if the launcher is loaded to its full 19 round compliment. The compatibility related requirements are the most important and most restrictive project issues. While it is the compatibility issues that provide the skeleton for the project, the flesh comes from the enhancements that will be added to the ATM. For one, the range will be increased to at least 4 km (2.5 miles) when launched from a ground platform at a 20 inclination, and at least 8 km (4.97 miles) when launched from an aerial platform at a 15 inclination. This added range will enable troops to fire the weapon from farther away, limiting their risk to injury. A minimum smoke signature and objective hazard classification of 1.3 will also aid in soldiers safety. The missile will also contain an INS with possible GPS aid to guide the ATM. The guidance system will be capable of overcoming as much as a 19 milliradian error from the launch platform and a maximum crosswind of 7.7 m/s (15 knots.) Cost, always an important concern, is especially important when dealing with expensive computer components used in guidance and navigation. The cost for the ATM must be kept below $15K per unit for a quantity of 10,000 units. These requirements laid the framework from which the design was created and are detailed in the Concept Description Document (CDD) in Appendix A. 1.3 The Solution [M. McWhorter] 1.3.1 Concept Overview [M. McWhorter]
The Night Hawks solution, the Hawkeye, is illustrated in an artists concept shown below in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The Hawkeye was designed specifically to meet the needs of AMCOM with an emphasis on providing a accurate, cost-effective, guided missile for the Apache and Commanche helicopters as well as ground vehicles like the HUMVEE. To achieve this, one of the chief attributes of the system is the avionics section, highlighted in Figure 3. This section allows the missile to be guided through the use of canard control. Another key feature of the Night Hawks ATM is a new propellant that increases the range and thrust performance with less weight associated with the propulsion module. These ATMs are fired from a variety of military platforms, both ground and air, so emphasis was made to design the ATM such that it met range and compatibility requirements for these systems. Straight aft fins are also a key improvement over the Hydra 70 as they provide extra stability and lifting surfaces while eliminating the vorticity induced by curved fins that causes the missile to roll. As with the Hydra 70, the aft fins are spring-loaded and fold down for ease of loading into the launcher. These features make this ATM a much-needed weapon for the Armys arsenal. IPT 3:
Figure 1: Artist Drawing [S. Paul]
Figure 2: Artist Drawing [S. Paul] IPT 3:

Figure 3: 3D Drawing Highlighting Key Features [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo] 1.3.2 Dimensional Properties [M. McWhorter]
Figure 4 shows a three-view drawing of the Night Hawks ATM
IPT 3:
Figure 4: Three-View Drawing [M. McWhorter] 1.3.3 Operations Scenario [M. McWhorter]
In accordance with the CDD, our ATM is capable of performing according to the Operations Scenario as shown in Figure 5. While on the battlefield our military needs the assurance of the sound and reliable operation provided by the Hawkeye. Before a mission begins, the Hawkeye is loaded into the M261 launcher, such as one on an Apache helicopter. The ATM is relatively safe to store because of the 1.3 hazard classification of the propellant. This loading procedure is similar to the loading procedure of the Hydra 70. A pilot can carry a full load of nineteen Hawkeye ATMs giving him the opportunity to place precision munitions on nineteen different targets. When the pilot spots a target, he merely needs to aim the missiles in that direction to acquire the target location, and then push the fire button. The commands are downloaded through cables to the avionics section of the missile, which acquires the precise location of the target from a target acquisition system located on the launcher. Commands running through the umbilical also initialize the GPS on board the missile itself with information received from the GPS system on the launcher. Once the missile has received this information, it can operate in a fire and forget mode. Once the target has been specified, the igniter receives the command to start the propellant burn through the launch ring. The propellant ignites, and the Hawkeyes canards and fins deploy as the missile exits the launcher. Once airborne, the high-powered propellant quickly moves the missile out of the devastating effects of the helicopters downwash. As the missile moves out towards its target, the onboard GPS data is blended with IMU data to correct position, velocity, and attitude state estimates. The avionics module uses servomotors to control the four forward canards and guide the missile toward its target based on the positioning data it receives. A minimum smoke signature makes the missile very hard to trace back to the helicopter that launched it. Once the missile reaches the preprogrammed wall in space denoted by the on-board GPS, the warhead receives the command to deploy. The Hawkeye missile has successfully completed its mission to transport the warhead to its target.
IPT 3:
Figure 5: Operations Scenario [M. McWhorter] 1.4 The Performance [M. McWhorter] The
Table 1 summarizes the performance characteristics of the Hawkeye missile. calculations leading to these results are detailed in section 2 of the report. Table 1: Final Concept Evaluation [M. McWhorter] CDD Requirement Helicopter Mission Ground Mission Platform Error Crosswind Launcher exit Vel. Smoke Signature M261 Launcher M261 MPSM Warhead Acceleration Requirement Min. Range of 4.97 mi. (8 km) Min. Range of 2.5 mi. (4 km) Max. 19 mils. Max. 15 knots (7.7 m/s) Min. 141 fps (43 m/s) Minimum Smoke Compatible Modified Max. 79g Assessment Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Exceeds Meets Meets Minimum smoke Compatible
Remark 4-11 km (2.5-6.8 mi) 4-8+ km (2.5-5+ mi) 38 mils., based on trajectory simulation Based on trajectory simulation
Compatible with modified warhead 75.9 g <250 m/s (<820 ft/s) 287.6 kg (634 lbs) for 19 missiles 79.7 in (202.4 cm)
Velocity at wall in Max. 1978 fps (603 space m/s) System Weight Max.653.6 lbs (297 kg) System Length Max. 79.7 in. (202.4 cm) IPT 3:
Unit Production Cost Temperature
Hazards Classification 1.5
Max. $15K/unit 10,000 units Operation Conditions -50F(-45.5C)150F(65.5C) Min. 1.1 Objective 1.3
Meets Meets
$13,341 per missile
Exceeds
Meets Objective 1.3
The Implementation [T. Towry]
The implementation of the ATM can be subdivided into three basic areas. These areas are testing and preparation prior to production, production, and deployment. These three topics will be discussed below. The testing and preparation of the ATM prior to production consists of sub-several phases. The first phase is to finalize the design of the missile. Although all significant parts of the missile have been designed, a few issues should be addressed. One of the issues that must be resolved is the development of the software to run the guidance system. The next issue is that after the missile is fully designed and verified, a live-fire testing should take place. This testing will help to verify that all of the technical analysis performed is accurate and that all components work as designed. After the testing and verification has taken place, production can begin. The production of the system will require no new technology to be developed. The entire ATM is comprised of subsystems that are, for the most part either currently in production (off-the-shelf items) or else the individual parts can be produced using standard commercial practices currently in place. After the production is either in process or complete, the ATM can be deployed. The deployment of the ATM is essentially the same is the current 2.75 rocket. The current shipping containers are compatible with the new ATM. Since the launcher will have already been modified during the initial phases of the program to accommodate the GPS unit, the ATM will be compatible with the launcher as well. The storage of the ATM is identical to the storage of the current Hydra 70 system. There are no life-cycle issues that will make the ATM a high-maintenance item.
2.0 Technical Description of Methods Used

2.1 Project Office [S. Paul] The Night Hawks approach to designing the ATM involved an iterative process. The chief aerodynamicist created an initial aerodynamic layout of the missile that would meet the size requirements and provide a means for control. This outer shell was then passed on to the propulsion, avionics, and structures groups who then fit their sections into the prescribed spaces. The final version was then evaluated by the trajectory and platform integration disciplines to ensure that the ATM would meet the design specifications for compatibility IPT 3: Current as of June 20, 2003 7
and maximum range. As compatibility problems were found at various stages of the process, the design was returned to previous stages so that changes could be implemented to solve those problems. More details and specifics about the inner workings of the team are given in Appendix C, and the input/output document used to transfer information between disciplines can be found in Appendix D. The chief problem encountered during the design process was that of space. The design had to be constantly upgraded and changed to meet the size limitations imposed by the different groups. Avionics needed room for their components, but the canards also needed to be fit into that section. The nozzle needed room to expand, however, the diameter had to be small enough for the rear fins to fold around the missile body. These were all issues and trade-offs that came up that had to be addressed. The following sections detail the technical specifics behind the final design and its performance, as well as some of the trade-offs involved and the reasons for the decisions made in those trade-offs. 2.2 Systems Engineering [M. McWhorter]
The Night Hawks approach for designing the ATM first began with the customers specifications in the CDD. The goal was to use existing off the shelf components and technology to minimize production time. This allowed each discipline more time to focus on the development and integration of the ATMs subsystems. Each team member began the development process by learning about the requirements set forth in the CDD, and studying a baseline provided to test its compliance. This required running reliable codes for obtaining desired outputs, using software for obtaining some initial calculations, conversing with mentors about collecting and interpreting data, and sharing all outputs and information collected to the team as a group for the initial baseline development. After the baseline design and analysis was complete, the Night Hawks used it as a tool for making improvements for the final ATM design. The team looked at a variety of options and tradeoffs. These included more complex systems such as hybrid rocket motors, but most of these ideas were quickly ruled out due to excessive costs and complexities. Trade off studies included such analyses as determining whether the missile performed better with longer propellant and a shorter nosecone, or whether the decrease in drag gained from a longer nose cone was worth the loss in propellant length. Many of the trade studies involved in the design are discussed in the individual technical sections. After high level design issues such as these were decided, the team began focusing on more detailed analyses, such as choosing materials, ensuring platform compatibility with missile interfaces, designing propellant grains, and finalizing aerodynamic configurations. During the process of designing the ATM and ultimately arriving at the final design decision, communication between disciplines was a key element in the Night Hawks strategy. Each discipline was involved in weekly meetings with all the other members of the group to ensure compliance between the different subsystems as well as to make sure that CDD compliance was being maintained. Information flowed between disciplines in a manner similar to that shown in Figure 6 with the final check being whether the design met the CDD requirements. Showing excellent engineering skills, team members constantly sought out information from teachers, mentors, and textbooks to help them answer the questions they had. Systems IPT 3:
Engineering also provided an I/O document (found in Appendix D) for each discipline to track and provide data as needed within the team. The project leader helped assure that the team maintained a focus on the goal of meeting the CDD, and helped establish and sustain the rigorous timeline required to meet this goal. More details about the teamwork and communication involved in this project can be found in the Company Overview in Section 4.1 as well as in Appendix C.
Figure 6: Information Flow Chart [M. McWhorter] The Hawkeye was the Night Hawks concept that best fit the CDD requirements. Figure 7 shows a cross sectional view of the missile. To the right, in the rear of the missile, is the nozzle section surrounded by 4 fixed fins that deploy as the missile leaves the launch tube. These fins provide extra stability and lifting surfaces for the missile. To the left of the nozzle is the propellant grain. The length of the grain was maximized at the cost of increasing drag after a trade study showed that was the best way to achieve the longest range. The casing around the propellant and the nozzle was made out of steel so that the heavier weight would help shift the CG aft, away from the canards, and also so that the materials strength would be more resistant to heat damage from the propellant burning. The avionics section is located to the left of the propellant. This section houses the guidance circuits that command the missile on its course. Command are fed to servomotors that control four deployed canards. At the far left end of the ATM is the warhead, an integral part as the purpose of the ATM is to transport the warhead to its target.
IPT 3:
Figure 7: Cross Sectional Drawing of the Missile [M. McWhorter] Table 2 and Table 3 contain a breakdown of some of the key characteristics of the Hawkeye. Table 2: Summary of Technical Parameters Calculations [M. McWhorter] Parameter Gross Mass, lb (kg) Propellant Mass, lb (kg) Missile Length, in. (cm) Maximum Drag Coefficient Propellant Isp, sec Total Impulse, lbf-sec (N-sec) Case Thickness, in (cm) Max Pressure, psi (MPa) Ideal Change in Velocity, ft/s (m/s) Ideal Max Acceleration, ft/s2, (m/s2) Hawkeye Properties 15.14 kg (33.38 lb) 2.64 kg (5.81 lb) 202.4 cm (79.7 in) 3.0 (trim condition, at Mach=1.5, and canard deflection of 20) 224 sec 6005.85 N-sec (1350.17 lbf-sec) 0.159 cm (0.0625 in) 21.44 MPa (3110 psi) 446.22 m/s (1463.98 ft/s) 580.43 m/s (1904.31 ft/s2)
Table 3: Vehicle Weight Statement [M. McWhorter] Parameter Warhead Mass Total Avionics Module Guidance casing Battery IMU Canards (4) Other Guidance Components Guidance Mass Total IPT 3:
Value 0.73 lbs 2.00 lbs 0.80 lbs 0.24 lbs 2.23 lbs
Value 13.60 lbs
Value
6.0 lbs 10
Propulsion Assembly Motor Casing (SST) 2.79 lbs Propellant (initially) 5.81 lbs Nozzle (SST) 4.04 lbs Tail Fins (4) 0.16 lbs Motor Insulation 0.75 lbs Bulkhead 0.21 lbs Propulsion MassTotal Missile Gross Takeoff Weight A weight statement in kg can be found in Appendix D. 2.3 Aerodynamics [J. Ipnar]
13.78 lbs 33.38 lbs
2.3.1 Methods and Assumptions [J. Ipnar] The purpose of the aerodynamic analysis was to first determine the geometry of a missile that would meet the given requirements. This involved trying to maximize lift, minimize drag, and leave room for maneuvering throughout the flight regime. Several computer codes were utilized to determine the aerodynamic characteristics of the missile. As a first-order analysis, AEROLAB1 was used to determine minimum drag coefficients and its data was passed on to the trajectory specialists for estimates of the maximum mission range. Once the basic design was chosen, Missile DATCOM2 was used to obtain a wider range of aerodynamic data, including drag, lift, and moment coefficients, trim data, hinge moments, center of pressure, and pressure distributions. This data was used for the analysis of the trade studies that determined the geometry of the missile. A supporting program, LVX3, was used to visually determine the geometry inputs for DATCOM. Finally, AP024 was used in the analysis of the final Hawkeye design to compliment the DATCOM results and to provide the geometry and aerodynamic data for the trajectory simulations, as well as for the analysis of the aerodynamic bending and buckling stresses within the casings. The input and output files used in DATCOM, LVX, and AP02 can be found in Appendix B. One important calculation for the maneuverability of the missile is the number of gs available for pitch maneuvers. Equation 15 below is used to determine the available gs. Values less than zero indicate that the missile does not meet lift-over-weight requirements for level flight, and values greater than zero indicate available maneuverability. Equation 1
n( g ' s ) =
q S ref C N ,TRIM Mi g
Another important calculation for the maneuverability of the missile in the lateral plane is the radius of turn calculation, as shown below in Equation 26. This equation gives the distance required for the missile to turn based on the lifting force, weight, and velocity of the missile. Equation 2
Rturn =
M i Vel 2 q S ref C N ,TRIM
The final design of Hawkeye includes components that could not be modeled by the available computer codes. Due to limitations in the codes used, the retention ring, ignition ring, and IPT 3:
11
fin groove could not be modeled. On the advice of the aerodynamics mentor, Mr. Lamar Auman7, a shape that was close was modeled in AP02. Figure 8 below shows the actual geometry of the Hawkeye missile. Figure 9 below shows the geometry of the boattail that was used in DATCOM and AP02 to model the aft end. The same volume of material that is included in the rings and fin groove was incorporated into a boattail to capture the destabilizing effects of the area with a decreased diameter.
3.0 Rear Fins Hinge Line Actual Geometry
2.5
ACTUAL GEOMETRY
Rear fins
2.0 Height (in)
Retention groove
Ignition groove
1.5
1.0
0.5
Fin groove
74.5 75.0 75.5 76.0 76.5 77.0 77.5 Length (in) 78.0 78.5
Nozzle exit
79.0 79.5 80.0
0.0 74.0
Figure 8: Detail of Hawkeye Aft, Actual Geometry [J. Ipnar]

3.0 2.5 2.0 Rear Fins
DATCOM/AP02 GEOMETRY
DATCOM Aft
Height (in)
Rear fins
1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 74.0
Nozzle exit
74.5 75.0 75.5 76.0 76.5 77.0 77.5 78.0 78.5 79.0 79.5 80.0
Length (in)
Figure 9: Detail of Hawkeye Aft, Computer Code Model [J. Ipnar] In order to pass along correct drag values to the trajectory calculations, the geometry had to be altered to artificially increase the drag. To increase the drag in AP02, the thickness of the rear fins was increased until the total drag matched the original drag plus the additional drag of the unmodeled components. The coefficient of drag for each unmodeled component was determined by Hoerners8 correlations for the drag of surface imperfections. Equation 3 IPT 3: Current as of June 20, 2003 12
below shows how the drag of each component was determined, using the specific drag coefficient and reference area for each occurrence. More detail on determining the drag of the unmodeled components can be found in Appendix E. Equation 3
D = q C D S ref
2.3.2 Results and Discussion [J. Ipnar] Figure 10 below shows the drag calculated by AP02 as a function of Mach number for both the original configuration and the added drag geometry. Figure 11 below shows the trim normal force at the minimum and maximum Mach numbers, based on the trajectory analysis. Figure 12 below shows the trim drag. This drag data includes the drag from unmodeled components as discussed above. Both plots show points at which the missile is flying at trim conditions, and they represent expected trends for lift and drag data. Figure 13 below shows the pitch maneuverability of the missile. The Hawkeye is maneuverable at Mach 0.5 and above, which is acceptable for the trajectory being flown. Figure 14 below shows the lateral maneuverability through one of the trajectory simulations for the Hawkeye. Its calculated radius of turn at each point in the trajectory allows it to turn towards the targeted wall-inspace.
Angle of Attack = 0 deg Canard Deflection = 0 deg 2.5 2.0 1.5 CD 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 Mach Number 1.5 2.0
Boattail + Increased Fin Thickness Boattail
Figure 10: Drag Coefficient vs. Mach Number [J. Ipnar]
IPT 3:
13
Trim Normal Force M=0.5 15 10 5
d=0 d = 10 d = 20 (canard deflections)
Trim Normal Force M=1.5 15 10 5 CM 0 -5 -10 -15 0 2 4 CN
CM
0 -5 -10 -15 0 2 4 CN 6 8 10
10
Figure 11: Trim Normal Force [J. Ipnar]

Trim Drag (drag added) M=0.5 15 10 5 d=0 d = 10 d = 20 (canard deflections)
Trim Drag (drag added) M=1.5 15 10 5 CM 0 -5 -10 -15
CM
0 -5 -10 -15 0 2 4 CD 6 8 10
4 CD
10
Figure 12: Trim Drag [J. Ipnar]
IPT 3:
14
30 25 20 M = 2.0 M = 1.5 M = 1.1 M = 0.7 M = 0.5
increasing maneuverability
n(g's)
15 10 5
level flight not maintained
0 -5 0 5 Angle of Attack (deg) 10
Figure 13: Maneuverability gs available for pitch maneuver [J. Ipnar]

Radius of Turn (Based on Acutal Trajectory of Missile) 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Mach Number 0.8 1 1.2
Figure 14: Maneuverability Radius of turn maneuver [J. Ipnar] 2.3.3 Trade Studies [J. Ipnar] Many trade studies were completed for the aerodynamic analysis. In fact, 14 revisions to the Hawkeye design were made during Phase 3 as the aerodynamic model progressed. Initially, the rear fins were reduced in size so that they were able to fit completely within a boattail, thereby eliminating the need for a deployment mechanism. While this reduced the drag, further analysis showed that the fins did not provide enough lift and the missile would not be as maneuverable as desired. Fin design was then iterated upon until a design with a larger surface area was found that could be folded into a boattail. The second major revision was the change from a boattail to a fin groove for the aft section of the missile. The boattail was not practical because the propulsion system required a larger exit diameter than the boattail diameter, and the ignition ring needed to stay intact to be compatible with the launcher. Therefore, the fin groove was added, and the resulting geometry is a compromise between what is best for the aerodynamic, propulsion, and launcher systems. Additional information on the aerodynamic trade studies can be found in Appendix E. IPT 3:
Radius of Turn (km)
15
2.4 2.4.1
Propulsion Propellant Design [J. Craft]
2.4.1.1 Methods and Assumptions [J. Craft] The goal of the propellant design was to maximize thrust while keeping within pressure and temperature ranges which would minimize weight and maintain structural integrity. For an initial first order estimate, the GRAINS29 software was used. This software was useful in obtaining a low order run through, but was limited in a full analysis in part due to the fact that no exit to throat area ratio could be input. There was no accounting for temperature sensitivities or nozzle erosion, and grain geometries were also very limited. After GRAINS2, a First Order Preliminary Design (FOPD)10 program was obtained to more accurately model the average thrust and average pressure as well as calculate the throat area needed to complement the exit diameter with a given nozzle half angle. Then, using the results of FOPD, the DES-STAR11 program was used. DES-STAR is a versatile first order design program which allows the user to input grain geometry to obtain the desired thrust profile. It also gives a graphical interface showing what the grain cross-section looks like. The initial problem that needed to be solved was finding a basic grain profile that would give the optimal thrust profile and the thrust needed to get the missile from under the downwash as quickly as possible. At the same time, the pressure needed to be somewhat neutral throughout the burn so that the casing would not have to be designed to a high pressure extreme. This would have lead to an over designed missile that was heavier than it needed to be. This problem was initially solved using the GRAINS2 software, but due to the limitations mentioned above, DES-STAR was more useful in finding a solution. The attention then turned to finding a minimum smoke, meet the 1.3 hazard classification, propellant that would be feasible to manufacture and would achieve the optimum performance. A double base propellant was selected after research.12 Once this propellant was determined, the burn rate law was specified and solved. The burn rate law is as follows: Equation 413
r = a Pn
where r is the burn rate law in inches/sec, a is the burn rate coefficient, P is pressure in psia, and n is the burn rate exponent. After solving this equation for the burn rate coefficient with a given P, r, and n, a propellant chemist, Mr. Larry Warren14 was consulted for a propellant formulation meeting this burn rate law in the minimum smoke and 1.3 propellant hazard class. While it is impossible to determine the IM compliance of this propellant without actually testing it, the fact that it is a 1.3 HC indicates that it would mostly likely be compliant. The next property that needed to be estimated was total impulse, which is governed by the following equation: Equation 5
I t = I sp M prop g
IPT 3:
16
where It is total impulse, Isp is specific impulse in sec, Mprop is mass of propellant in lbm, and g is the acceleration due to the gravity of the earth, or 9.80 m/sec2 (32.2 ft/sec2.) This equation was solved to attain an input for total impulse in the DES-STAR program. This equation is also based on the assumption of a constant mass flow rate and Isp. It is not an exact solution for total impulse, though it was useful in providing a starting point in the design of the propellant grain. The nozzle exit diameter came out of the constraints given by the aerodynamics team. The exit diameter was determined to be 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) After these inputs were determined, the average thrust, pressure, and total impulse were iterated upon to give the optimal combination. It was determined through numerous iterations with the trajectory team that the final design met the objectives since it gave the maximum thrust necessary without exceeding the 79g limit specified in the CDD, and met the ballistic 3.5 km failsafe criteria. 2.4.1.2 Results [J. Craft] Table 4: Propellant Properties [J. Craft] Symbol Isp (ideal) Isp It a n F0 Fmax Fmax Pmax Pmax p C* Propellant Properties [T = 70F unless otherwise noted] Parameter Value Specific Impulse (ideal) [Pc/Pa 233.93 sec = 190.5, Ae/A* = 3.41] Specific Impulse (delivered) 224 sec Total Impulse 5782.7 N-s (1300 lbf-sec) Burning Rate Coefficient .05 in/s/psi-n Burning Rate Exponent .3 Initial Thrust [T= 70F] 8,266.6 N (1858.4 lbf ) Average Thrust 8229.2 N (1850 lbf) Average Pressure 19.3 MPa (2800 psia) Max Thrust [T = 70 F] 9120.6 N (2050.4 lbf ) Max Thrust [T = 150F] 10,022.73 N (2253.2 lbf ) Max Pressure [T = 70 F] 21.4 MPa (3110 psia) Max Pressure [T = 150 F] 23.5 MPa (3406 psia) Density 1,521.8 kg/m3 (0.05498 lbm/in3) Characteristic Velocity 1478 m/s (4848 fps) Propellant Temperature Sensitivity Length Diameter Specific Heat Ratio of Combustion Products [chamber] Number of Burning Ends 390.7*10-6%/K (.1%/F) 91.029 cm (35.838 in) 6.35 cm (2.5 in) 1.22 2 17
p
L dprop
IPT 3:
Propellant Volume 1,732.1 cc (105.7 in3) Mass of Propellant 2.63 kg (5.81 lbm) Initial Propellant Burning 0.1719 m2 (66.38 in2) Surface Area A* Initial Nozzle Throat Area 278.8*10-6 m2 (0.4231 in2) HC Hazard Classification 1.3 Table 4 above shows a summary table of propellant properties of the selected grain as well as some dimensions of the grain.
Vprop Mprop Ab, i
Table 5: Temperature Sensitivity Effects on Basic Propellant Grain Parameters [J. Craft] Parameter
227.6 K (-50F)
Temperature
294.3 K (70F) 0.703 sec 8229.2 N (1850.0 lbf) 19.3 MPa (2800.0 psia) 1.552 5783 N-sec (1300 lbf-sec) 338.7 K (150F) 0.641 sec 9090.8 N (2043.7 lbf) 21.3 MPa (3082.1 psia) 1.558 5827 N-sec (1310 lbf-sec) 0.807 sec 7082.5 N (1592.2 lbf) 16.7 MPa (2424.5 psia) 1.543 5712 N-sec (1284 lbf-sec)
Web time Thrust Pressure Cf It
Isp 231.12 sec 233.93 sec 235.70 sec The items in Table 5 that are shaded are inputs for the DES-STAR program. Table 5 shows how temperature sensitivities affect the basic propellant grain parameters. The pressures shown in the table are average pressures and are thus slightly lower than the maximum pressures stated in Table 4. Thrust vs Time
2500 2000 Thrust (lbf) 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.5 time (sec) 1 1.5 70 -50 150
Figure 15: Thrust vs. Time [J. Craft] As can be seen in Figure 15, the thrust profile is neutral as was desired. The maximum thrust at 70 F is 9120.6 N (2050.4 lbf), which is much greater than the force of 2000 N (450 lbf) IPT 3:
18
required to exit the launcher. In order to trick the DES-STAR program Equation 6 was used to obtain the pressure and thrust profiles at the temperature extremes. Equation 6
a = a0 e
( p (T Tref ))
In Equation 6, a is the burn rate coefficient that is plugged into Equation 4, a0 is the burn rate coefficient at Tref, p is the temperature sensitivity factor, T is the temperature at which a is being evaluated and Tref is the reference temperature.
Pressure vs Time
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 time (sec)
Pressure (psia)
-50 deg F 70 deg F 150 deg F
Figure 16: Pressure vs. Time [J. Craft] Figure 16 shows the pressure versus time trace. The pressure profile, like the thrust profile, remains neutral throughout the burn; this was preferred to a boost sustained because the mission could be accomplished without the drawback of having more case weight to support the pressure spike from the intense boost stage. Surface Area 300 200 100 0 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 Tau, web distance (in) Figure 17: Area of burn vs. web distance [J. Craft]
IPT 3:
19
Figure 18: Propellant Grain Cross-section [J. Craft] Figure 18 above shows the propellant grain cross-section derived using the DES-STAR program. 2.4.2 Nozzle Design [J. Sterling] The original nozzle was designed to fit inside a boat tail that was 5 in long and went from a diameter of 2.75 in to 1.5 in. This restricted the exit diameter to 1.25 in and the throat diameter to 0.5 in. This throat resulted in a chamber pressure that was much too high for the casing that was being designed. Also, this nozzle was too under expanded. A new aft section was designed so that the aerodynamics discipline could still have the fin surface area that they needed and a suitable nozzle could be designed. The redesign originally had similar dimensions to the baseline nozzle (a throat diameter of 1.0 in and an exit diameter of 2.5 in). Through an iterative process with Jake Craft using software he obtained from Mr. Lyon, the throat diameter was reduced to give the desired thrust profile for the designed chamber pressure and exit diameter. The final nozzle design has a throat diameter of 1.9 cm (0.75 in), an exit diameter of 6.35 cm (2.5 in), and a nozzle half angle of 20. The nozzle design is pictured in Figure 19. The casing of the nozzle shall be made of low carbon stainless steel. This was chosen instead of aluminum in order to add weight to the rear of the rocket and move the CG back from the canards for additional aerodynamic control. The nozzle insulation shall be made of pyrolytic graphite. The pyrolytic graphite insulation will be bonded to the stainless steel shell. This will alleviate the possibility of a gas path forming between the insulation and the shell as well as being an optimal method of fastening the insert to the case. IPT 3:
20
Figure 19: Nozzle [J. Sterling] 2.5 Structures
2.5.1 Avionics Module Casing [Z. Butler] The avionics module casing serves two purposes: (1) to provide structural rigidity for support of the internal avionics components, and (2) protection of the internal components. The external avionics module casing shall have an outer diameter of 69.9 mm (2.75 in.) In analyzing the casing performance with regard to the two purposes, the following attributes must be considered: (1) Material of composition. (2) Thickness of material. (3) Length of material. (4) Mechanical buckling and bending stresses within the material. For a comparison of the projected costs, weights, and volumes of the casing alternatives, see Appendix G.1. This appendix also has a compilation of the equations used in analyzing the casing material mechanics. The guidance casing shall consist of aluminum alloy 7075-T6. The thickness of the cylindrical shell shall be 0.318 cm (0.125 in.) and the length shall be 27.69 cm (10.9 in.) A bulkhead of thickness 0.635 cm (0.25 in) shall be welded to the aft end of the avionics module to insulate it from the stresses of the propulsion module as well as for the ease of connection to the two modules. The warhead is mated to the avionics section of the missile using 2.400-6 stub acme special thread blunt start with a pitch diameter of 2.355. The thread length from base to shoulder is 6.35 cm (2.5 in.) The following considerations were involved in casing specification: (1) Bending and buckling analysis of aerodynamic loads. (2) Materials selection and alternatives. IPT 3:
21
2.5.1.1 Bending and Buckling Analysis [Z. Butler] The analysis of the buckling and bending of the casing involved the aerodynamics information from AP02 and the location of the centers of pressure and gravity of the ATM. A Microsoft Excel file containing the input information and the output information is available (in Appendix B). This was also done on the canards and fins to ensure that the thickness specifications were adequate. The ESTACA members of the team were instrumental in ensuring that the canards and fins were strong enough. They estimated the forces associated with a 9 g turn using the CATIA model they developed, and a materials change from aluminum to steel for the canards was recommended as a result of their analysis. The analysis indicated that aluminum would provide enough support for the aft fins and thus it was chosen. Appendix G.2 contains a summary of this analysis. The maximum bending moment within the avionics module casing is 1,330 N-m (10,930 lbfin.) The stress resulting from this moment is 50.4 MPa (8.5 ksi) with a casing thickness of 3.18 mm (0.125 in.) For a chart showing the results of this analysis and the pertinent equations see Appendix G.2. 2.5.1.2 Materials Trade Studies [Z. Butler] Three different materials were considered for the guidance casing: (1) Aluminum Alclad Alloy 7075-T6. This is the strongest aluminum alloy currently available and the lightest metallic alloy used in these applications. It has the lowest cost to volume ratio of the materials considered. Although high operating temperatures can be hazardous, the temperature within the avionics module is within safe limits for the use of this material15,16. Its relatively low weight among metallic alloys and high specific strength make it the best selection among our considerations. Most missiles currently in use by DoD entail aluminum guidance casings.17 (2) Stainless Steel SAE 301, Full Hard. This low-carbon stainless steel is the strongest stainless steel alloy currently available. It is more dense, however, than aluminum, although it has a higher strength to volume ratio. This additional weight and expense is not desirable if the strength is not needed and the internal components can be placed in the aluminum alloy casing. (3) Graphite Fibers in Epoxy Matrix. This composite material is much stronger than the two metallic materials considered with respect to both volume and density. However, because of its high cost and the lack of need for such strength based on stress analyses, this material was not the most attractive choice for the avionics module casing. 2.5.2 Propulsion Module Casing [Z. Butler] The propulsion casing shall consist of a composite material comprised of SAE 301 Full Hard Stainless Steel. It shall be 1.6 mm (0.063 in.) thick and 914 mm (36.0 in.) long. The outer diameter shall be 69.9 mm (2.75 in.). A dome-shaped bulkhead consisting of the same material and conforming to the design envision by Sutton18 shall be welded to the forward IPT 3:
22
end of the propulsion module casing for stress stabilization. The nozzle shall be welded to the aft end. The specification of the propulsion casing took the following considerations into account: (1) Bending and buckling analysis of aerodynamic loadings. (2) Stresses resulting from internal motor chamber pressure. (3) Materials alternatives. (4) Heat transfer resulting from internal motor chamber temperature. 2.5.2.1 Bending and Buckling Analysis [Z. Butler] The analysis of the buckling and bending of the casing involved the aerodynamics information from AP02 and the location of the centers of pressure and gravity of the ATM. For the Microsoft Excel file containing the input information and the output information, see Appendix B, and for a chart summarizing this data, see Appendix G.2. See Appendix G.2 for the results of the bending and buckling analysis for both the avionics and propulsion modules. The maximum moment within the rocket motor casing is 6,090 N-m (50,000 lbf-in.) The stress resulting from this moment is 429 MPa (72.2 ksi) with a casing thickness of 1.6 mm (0.063 in) for the given material. For the pertinent equations to this analysis, see Appendix G.2. 2.5.2.2 Stresses Resulting from Internal Motor Pressure [Z. Butler] The rocket motor casing is exposed to the internal pressure of the rocket motor during operation. At an internal pressure of approximately 4000 psi (17.9 MPa), the stress exerted by the internal fluid is related by Equation 7
hoop =
pr , t
where p is the internal pressure exerted by a fluid on the casing pressure vessel, r is the radius of the casing, and t is the thickness of the casing. Note that this stress is the stress along the circumference of the casing cross-section. The longitudinal stress, which is in the same direction as the bending stress, is: Equation 8
longitudinal =
pr , 2t
or half of the hoop stress.19 2.5.2.3 Materials Trade Studies [Z. Butler] Three different materials were considered for the rocket motor casing: (1) Aluminum Alclad Alloy 7075-T6. Its relatively low weight among metallic alloys and high specific strength make it a viable alternative for the rocket casing. However, because the strength of aluminum is significantly affected by the high temperatures to which a rocket motor casing is exposed, and because weight savings of 0.94 kg (1.5 lbs) were realized with another option, the use of another material is recommended. IPT 3: Current as of June 20, 2003 23
(2) Stainless Steel SAE 301 Full Hard. It is not affected as significantly as aluminum by temperature, and at an operating temperature of greater than 232 C (450 F), it becomes lighter than aluminum for a given quantity of stress. (3) Graphite Fibers in Epoxy Matrix (graphite-epoxy). This composite material is much stronger than the two metallic materials considered with respect to both volume and density. Although it is much more expensive than the other two alternatives considered, the weight savings (which increased the range significantly) and volume reduction (which leaves more space for insulation and propellant) outweigh the cost considerations, especially for the low weight requirement of 0.36 kg (0.58 lbs) for the rocket motor casing. The precedent of many other missiles that use this casing material, such as the Lockheed-Martin PAC-3, the THAAD, and various other missile systems17, initially led to the conclusion that performance specifications are best satisfied with a graphite-epoxy casing. However, the thermal problems associated with its low melting point,20 and the decrease in room available for the propellant resulting from the increase in insulation thickness led us to the use of Stainless Steel instead. An additional consideration that made stainless steel the final materials choice for the propulsion module was ease of attachment to other parts of the system. Because the nozzle is also stainless steel, the propulsion modules motor casing can be welded to the nozzle casing. This eliminated the problem of determining a way to connect a composite motor casing to a metallic nozzle. The propulsion module casing can be brazed to the aluminum avionics module casing, rather than by the traditional methods of winding composite fibers around an aluminum bulkhead to bolt the avionics onto. This also is significantly stronger than a bolt-on attachment. 2.5.3 Thermal Analysis [Z. Butler] For the motor casing and insulation, a Finite-Difference thermal analysis was performed (with a time step of 0.0025 seconds and a distance step of 1/20 of the material thickness) to determine the time required for the material to reach a temperature at which operation becomes hazardous. Dimensional analysis by the use of the Nusselt, Reynolds, and Prandtl numbers (Nu, Re, and Pr respectively) was used to determine the amount of heat transfer possible by external convection. The equations and methods used in the analysis of the heat transfer through the insulation and casing are in Appendix G.4. 2.5.3.1 Convection [Z. Butler] By Newtons Law of Cooling, the heat flux transferred out of a medium is given as Equation 9 q" = h(Tsurface Tambient ) ,
where h is the convective heat transfer coefficient, Tsurface is the surface temperature, and Tambient is the temperature of the medium through which the surface is moving. This equation is used to determine the minimum amount of heat that can be dissipated into the air in flight to prevent overheating of the structural motor casing as well as the insulation itself.
IPT 3:
24
For the purposes of this analysis, the convection heat transfer was approximated as flow over a flat plate. Because the cylindrical casing is generally parallel to the flow, this approximation is accurate enough (on the order of 25%) for the purposes of this design. In the event that the flow is normal to the casing (characterized by a flight path angle of 90), the flat plate approximation would not be accurate enough and flow over a cylinder approximations would be necessary. However, given that a vertical flight path is not likely to occur during the burn time of the motor, the correlations for that will be omitted. Dimensional analysis must be performed to obtain the value of the heat transfer coefficient h as shown in Appendix G.4. 2.5.3.2 Conduction [Z. Butler] Equation 10
q" = k (Tsurface1 Tsurface 2 ) x
where q is the heat flux (in Btu/s-in2 or W/m2), k is the thermal conductivity of the material (or medium) through which the heat is transferred, and x is the thickness of the material. The values of Tsurface1 and Tsurface2 are the temperatures on each side of the material. In this analysis, the system was assumed to be one-dimensional (as a plane wall) to simplify the analysis. This assumption is valid because the thickness is much less than the diameter of the cylinder. Figure 20 shows the temperature at the propulsion sections external casing interface with the chamber insulation as a function of time. This is for the worst-case scenario characterized by the maximum operational temperature scenario.
800
700
600
Temperature [Kelvins]
500
400
300
200
100
0 0 0.5 1 Time [sec] 1.5 2 2.5
Figure 20: Temperature at propulsion-casing interface [Z. Butler] IPT 3:

25
For the thermal analysis of the motor insulation and casing, please refer to the Microsoft Excel file in Appendix B. 2.5.3.3 Thermal Considerations [Z. Butler] The following considerations were associated with the thermal analysis: (1) Strength deterioration of considered external casing materials with temperature.1516 (2) Thermal conductivity of considered insulation materials.21,22 2.5.4 Weight/Center of Gravity Analysis [Z. Butler] The weight and center of gravity analysis was essential to the trajectory and trim stability analyses of the ATM. Some values, such as the mass and center of gravity position of the warhead, were given in the CDD. Other weights were tabulated from the volume and densities of the materials of which parts are composed23,24, or from online catalogs25 or the responsible team member if the part is specified to be purchased. A simple moment sum equation was used to determine the longitudinal position (from the nose) of the center of gravity of the entire ATM. For the weight and center of gravity analysis, see Appendix G.3. 2.5.5 Rear Fin Deployment [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo, W. McDaniel] The ATM has four non-controllable tailfins that are able to fold around the casing of the nozzle and remain inside of the 2.75-inch outer diameter of the missile while the missile is stored as shown in Figure 21. When the ATM is launched the tailfins, which are springloaded, will move into the in-flight position as shown in Figure 22. The aluminum tailfins are able do to this by means of rotating around the four individual steel rods that are anchored to the nozzle casing. Once the tailfins have rotated perpendicular to the body of the missile they will slide aft on the rods they are mounted to and lock into place in the nozzle casing. A spring with a 3 N/mm spring constant and a 3 N-mm/degree strength in rotation was chosen so that the fins would move quickly and with adequate force to deploy. An animation of this deployment can be viewed by opening the rear fin deployment file referenced in Appendix B. A detailed diagram of spring and its placement can be found in the Appendix G.5.
Figure 21: Folded Tailfins [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo] IPT 3:

Figure 22: Unfolded Tailfins [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo] 26
2.5.6 Canard Deployment [J. Collier] The ATM incorporates a fold out type canard design. The canard aspect ratio was chosen such that the canards, in zero angle of attack position, could be folded into the avionics section and still fit side by side within the max outer diameter of 2.75 inches. The mechanism for folding the fins utilizes a sliding tray to which two of the four servomotors are mounted, and is connected to two of the canard hinges via a rack and pinion gear joint. The hinges are anchored to the avionics casing with a revolute joint at each end, allowing rotation about either the vertical or horizontal axis depending on the orientation of its associated canard. At each end of the hinge is a spiral cut bevel gear, which connects all four hinges together causing a simultaneous rotation. The hinge pins are inserted into the hinge externally through the casing once the hinge is in place. The canards are attached to the hinges through another revolute joint (bushing) with its axis of revolution oriented perpendicular to the hinge axis. The canards are held in the bushing by cir-clips (snap-rings) on each side of the hinge. To activate two of the canards for control, the canard shaft is connected by a Hookes joint to a geared shaft. The geared shaft rotates on the sliding tray and is driven by the servo motor output gear. The other two canards are activated by servo motors mounted directly to the canard hinge and activated by direct gear drive. The folding mechanism is set into motion by a spring connected to the sliding servo tray and the avionics section casing, which is assisted by the rearward inertia of the sliding tray and servo motors. Figure 23 below shows a detailed view of the canard hinges. A video clip named canard_section_cutaway.avi.mpg showing an animation of the entire canard folding mechanism in action is also available on the supplemental material CD (see Appendix B.) More pictures of the canards section can be found in Appendix H.
Figure 23: Canard Hinge Detail [J. Collier]
IPT 3:
27
2.6
Avionics [J. Collier]
2.6.1 Methods and Assumptions [J. Collier] The avionics system was designed under the assumptions that an autopilot algorithm exists and is working and that the autopilot reads acceleration and roll commands. Another assumption is that the launcher interface is capable of transferring digital signals for both GPS initialization as well as launch commands and targeting data. A GPS unit is to be mounted externally on the launcher to give the autopilot the initial position and heading of the ATM. This decision was made due to the fact that the slow warm up rate of a missile mounted GPS system would not give it time to read initial flight values. 2.6.2 Implementation and Constraints. [J. Collier] The avionics section components were selected based on compatibility, size and weight. These components include the Inertial Measurement Unit, the thermal battery, a printed circuit board, a microprocessor, and four servomotors. Figure 24 below shows the configuration of all of these components.
Figure 24: Avionics Component Flow Diagram [Z. Butler] The CPU handles all computations, and controls the other components. Following a specific, preprogrammed guidance algorithm, the computer determines where the targeted wall-inspace is and then controls the canards to guide the missile there effectively. A launch message is delivered from the launch platform to the missile through the umbilical right before deployment. During flight, the IMU works continuously to monitor the missiles performance, and the computer uses this data to make adjustments to the canards. The CPU also uses initial position and range to target data, along with acceleration information from IPT 3:
28
the IMU to determine time to target. With this, the CPU determines the correct time to arm and deploy the warhead. The electronics in the avionics module provide a safe and arm capability for the warhead. Using the acceleration and distance traveled calculated by the integrated avionics unit, the computer on board sends a signal to activate the warhead after a predefined acceleration and distance away from the launch point are reached. Likewise, the computer on board also exerts a similar signal to the warheads interfacing wire in order to deploy the munitions once the rocket has reached the wall-in-space target. Thus, the computer itself effectively acts as the fusing device as it sends the signal at the correct time for deployment. The canards are each actuated by a small analog proportional servomotor, delivering 17 oz-in of torque, and rotating at 545 degrees/sec at 4.8 volts. These units are off-the-shelf components designed for use in radio controlled models, but are capable of delivering more than the amount of torque required to control the canards and are small enough to fit within the restricted space available in the avionics section. In addition to being compatible with the design and requirements, they are also relatively inexpensive and readily available. In the event of a complete avionics system failure, the canards will still deploy. The deployment mechanism is driven by a spring, which is assisted by the rearward inertia of two servomotors and the sliding tray to which they are attached. Various battery options were considered, but the thermal battery was found to be far superior in meeting program requirements. This battery provides 6Vdc with up to 8A for a lifetime of 5 minutes. 2.6.3 Avionics System Cost and Weight [J. Collier] As stated previously, the avionics components were selected using weight and size as a factor. Table 6 below shows a breakdown of the avionics components. Table 6: Avionics Component Breakdown [J. Collier]
Component Case Fixture PCB IMU Battery Servo Motors(4) Canards Wiring Warhead Wiring Internal Wiring Total Avionics Module Design Team Weight (lbs) Weight 1 Avionics 0.5 Avionics 0.5 Avionics 0.8 Avionics 2 Avionics .09 Weight 0.5 N/A N/A Avionics 0.1 Avionics 0.1 5.6 lbs. Dimension (in) 2.6 x 0.2 x 8.66 N/A 2.5x 2x1.2 custom to fit 0.9 x 0.8 x 0.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Price ($) N/A N/A 1000 6,000 800 120 N/A N/A N/A N/A 7920
IPT 3:
29
Although Table 6 shows that the avionics section has exceeded its overall weight budget of 5 lbs, it was decided that any extra weight not used on other parts of the missile would be devoted to the avionics section. In addition, the weight table contains conservative estimates, which may decrease after a more detailed analysis. The weight saved by electronically replacing the warhead safe/arm and fuse can also be used in the avionics to make up the difference. Also, the Night Hawks budgeted up to 6 lbs for the avionics unit to account for any contingencies that might arise. 2.6.4 Results and Discussion [J. Collier] A GPS system onboard each individual missile was originally dismissed as unnecessary and too expensive to be practical. However, it has been found that the IMU is not accurate enough to be used as a stand-alone system. To solve this problem, it is recommended that each missile have its own internal GPS (Xfactor GPS from Interstate Electronics25) in addition to the externally mounted GPS to achieve more accurate flight patterns, which are not possible with the IMU alone because of its random walk error. The GPS will be mounted onto the circuit board and shall correct IMU uncertainties and drift by providing exact locations. The unit will be initialized during the launch sequence through the umbilical by the GPS unit mounted on the launcher. Although this internal GPS unit was not designed into the current avionics system, the avionics section of the Hawkeye has both extra volume and weight for contingency purposes, such as this. Thus, the Hawkeye is capable of being adapted with little trouble to add this new component. For more detailed information on the ATM avionics section, please review Final Proposal: Advanced Tactical Missile IPT 4, submitted by Avionics, Inc.26
2.7 Trajectory [B. Goodson and E. Waters]
2.7.1 Approach [B. Goodson and E. Waters] For trajectory analysis, three codes were available for use. One is LAUNCH 227, a 2 DOF (degree of freedom) program. It takes thrust and drag and computes ballistic trajectories. The second code was written by the Night Hawks trajectory team and was based on an Excel format established in Chins Missile Configuration Design book.6 The third was AP02 (Aerodynamic Prediction Code, 2002 edition). LAUNCH is a 2 dimensional trajectory tool that was used for the first analysis of the missile. It takes inputs of rocket and grad data to determine trajectory outputs. Launch is good for calculating purely ballistic flight trajectory and it should be noted that it does not take into account lift or any type of guidance such as GPS. Chins book goes into a detailed description of a sample Boost Glide Trajectory and it establishes a spreadsheet style iteration method to determine the final range.6 The Chin code also takes into account lift but the lift is simplified in this case since it is set to counteract the weight of the missile and does not account for lifting surface lift. Also some initial assumptions have to be made by the programmer as to what the initial velocity is and what the instantaneous acceleration is out of the launch tube. It proved to be a decent sanity check but for the analysis required, it fell short. IPT 3:
30
The trajectory analysis in AP02 was the most advanced code that the team had available. AP02 was the first true 3 DOF program that could map the missiles trajectories. With this code, the team was capable of running ballistic ranges, maximum lift-over-drag ranges, moving target-seeker ranges, and point in space ranges. The code also allowed the user to set up the platform error. With the aerodynamics package built into the software as well, there was heavier reliance on AP02 than Launch 2. 2.7.2 Working with AP02 [B. Goodson and E. Waters] 2.7.2.1 Inputs There are six primary inputs into AP02 as described below. (1) Weights and CG setup. This can either be constant during the missile flight, or it can be input as a file to indicate the weight change as the propellant burns and the CG moves toward the nose of the missile. There are ten data points available to describe the weight and the CG profile data for the missile. (2) Guidance setup. This determines what type of flight path will be used. The choices are a pure ballistic trajectory, proportional navigation, explicit, user defined and max lift/drag. These will be further elaborated on in the outputs sections as per which was chosen for each CDD requirement. (3) Thrust profile. The thrust profile is mapped out using twenty data points. The nozzle exit area is also entered at this point, with care being taken that it is entered in the appropriate units (which can be found at the bottom of the AP02 screen.) (4) Control setup. Here, the control surface is chosen as either the canard or tail, and the maximum deflection that the user will allow the control surfaces to deflect is entered. Also, there is the option for instantaneous response of the control surfaces, or to have first order lag, and the structural g limit is entered. (5) Initial launch conditions setup. The most important items here are the initial altitude, elevation angle, and the azimuth angle, which is used to set up the platform error of 19 milli-radians. (6) Trajectory analysis options. At this point the user defines the time step for the program to run, whether the simulation requires a rotating or non-rotating earth model, and if all, most, or just the critical points will be written to the output file. 2.7.2.2 Outputs 2.7.2.2.1 Ballistic Output The first output to discuss is the easily obtainable ballistic output. The results of the ballistic trajectory analysis ensure that the Hawkeye meets the failsafe ballistic range requirement. The ground mission has a ballistic trajectory of 5.113 kilometers (16,777 feet) as the worstcase scenario of a 50 degree Fahrenheit launch temperature, which is shown in Figure 25. This exceeds the objective ballistic trajectory requirement listed. The helicopter mission has a final ballistic range of 4.255 kilometers (13,960 feet) with a 50F burn temperature, as shown in Figure 26. This is under the objective range of 5 kilometers but does exceed the minimum range of 3.5 kilometers. The fail-safe requirements are met for all flight scenarios. IPT 3: Current as of June 20, 2003 31
Ballistic Trajectory for Ground 600 500 400 Altitude (m) 70 deg burn 300 200 100 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Range (m ) 4000 5000 6000 -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 25: Failsafe Ballistic Trajectory - Ground Mission [B. Goodson and E. Waters]
Ballistic Trajectories from Helicopter 450 400 350 300 Altitude (m) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Range (m ) 70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 26: Failsafe Ballistic Trajectory - Helicopter Mission [B. Goodson and E. Waters] 2.7.2.2.2 Dead On Output (Line of Sight) The second run set used was a proportional navigation system to determine if the missile could reach the wall in space. This was a dead on run, meaning no platform error and no crosswind factors were taken into account. The missile followed a pure line of site to the target. For the ground mission, a launch angle of 20 degrees was used and the wall in space IPT 3: Current as of June 20, 2003 32
was 4 kilometers (13,123 feet) down range and 150 meters (500 feet) above the launch plane. The ground mission run can be seen in Figure 27. The total flight time for this ground mission is around 15 seconds with the missile achieving a max velocity of around 400 m/s (1312.33 ft/s), as shown in Figure 28.
Dead on Range 300 250 200 Altitude (m) 70 deg burn 150 100 50 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Range (m ) -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 27: Dead On Ground Mission Range to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters]
Dead On Ground Velocities 450 400 350 Velocity (m/s) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 Tim e (s) 10 12 14 16 70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 28: Dead On Ground Mission Velocity to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters]
IPT 3:
33
The Helicopter mission had the longest range requirement of 8 kilometers (26,246 feet). Using the same method of inputs for the ground mission but increasing the down range wall in space placement to 8 km instead of 4 km. As a result, the max ceiling was lifted to 500 meters (1640 feet), as shown in Figure 29. This time the flight took around 36 seconds and the max velocity for the hot burn was around 400 m/s (1312.33 ft/s), as shown in Figure 30 .
Dead on Helicopter Range 600 500 400 Altitude (m) 70 deg burn 300 200 100 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Range (m ) -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 29: Dead On Helicopter Range to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters]
Helicopter Velocities 450 400 350 Velocity (m/s) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 Tim e (s) 25 30 35 40 70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 30: Dead On Helicopter Velocity to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters] IPT 3:
34
2.7.2.2.3 Crosswind and Platform Error The next run of data used the line of sight firing concept and incorporated the platform error of 19 milli-radians (1.089 degrees). This was entered as the azimuth angle. Also in this run, the software was set to follow a moving target to simulate the 15-knot crosswind. The missile position throughout the trajectory was later subtracted from the target position so that actual missile movement could be garnered. The first of the error runs was with the ground mission. Figure 31 shows that the missile stills makes the wall in space requirement and Figure 32 shows that the velocity data is still close to what it was for line of sight. Figure 33 is an important graph, showing the platform error and the recovery by the missile to deal with the crosswind. It is to be noted that the missile does not return to the line of sight launch axis. It is off by a maximum 1.7 meters (5.5 feet) on the hot burn. However, this is still acceptable for the wall in space requirement. Figure 34 is a three-dimensional model of what a sample flight path for the ground missile looks like.
Ground Range w ith platform error and crossw ind 300 250 200 Altitude (m) 70 deg burn 150 100 50 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Range (m ) -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 31: Ground Range with crosswind and platform error to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters]
IPT 3:
35
Ground Velocity Graph 450 400 350 Velocity (m/s) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 Tim e (s) 15 20 70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 32: Ground Velocity with crosswind and platform error to wall in space [B. Goodson and E. Waters]
Flat Earth Model 30 25 20 Recovery (m) 15 10 5 0 0 -5 Range (m ) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 33: Crosswind and Platform Error Recovery for Ground Mission [B. Goodson and E. Waters]
IPT 3:
36
( X( r) , Y( r) , Z( r)
Figure 34: Ground Mission 3D Flight Path [B. Goodson and E. Waters] The same analysis was done for the Helicopter mission, moving the wall in space back to 8 kilometers (26,246 feet). All graphs are presented in the same manner as described above. Figure 35 is the range, Figure 36 is the velocity and time, and Figure 37 is the missiles recovery from crosswind and platform error. In Figure 35, note the lower altitude for the colder launch. The missile still reaches the wall in space but any colder and the flight profile could be too flat to make range. Once again in Figure 37 the missile overshoots the return to the x-axis by 1.2 meters (3.93 feet) which is still within wall in space criteria. For illustrative purposes Figure 38 is a three-dimensional view of the flight path.
Crosswind Range
600 500 Altitude (m) 400 70 deg brun 300 200 100 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Range (m) -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 35: Helicopter Range to wall in space with crosswind and platform error [B. Goodson and E. Waters] IPT 3: Current as of June 20, 2003 37
Helicopter Velocities 450 400 350 Velocity (m/s) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 Tim e (s) 25 30 35 40 70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 36: Helicopter Velocities to wall in space with crosswind and platform Error [B. Goodson and E. Waters]
Crossw ind Range w ith Platform Error 70 60 Crosswind (side) Movement (m) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 -10 Range (m ) 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure 37: Crosswind and Platform Recovery Graph for Helicopter Mission [B. Goodson and E. Waters]
IPT 3:
38
( X( r) , Y( r) , Z( r)
Figure 38: 3D Flight Path for Helicopter Mission [B. Goodson and E. Waters] 2.7.2.2.4 Max L/D and Max Range Two final trajectory runs were performed. They were the maximum lift versus drag ratio run and a proportional navigation run where the wall in space was set at 14 kilometers (45,931.75 ft) down range. These were run to see what the maximum possible range for the missile could be and what would happen if more weight was added to the missile. Figure 39 is the maximum lift per drag graph for both the ground mission and the helicopter mission run on the 70-degree propellant profile.
Max L/D Range 1800 1600 1400 1200 Altitude (m) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Range (m ) Copter Ground
Figure 39: Maximum Lift/Drag Graph for both Missions [B. Goodson and E. Waters] IPT 3:
39
The issue arises that for the Helicopter Mission the max range for lift/drag is only around 8.3 kilometers, which could indicate a future problem. To check if this was the case, a proportional navigation wall in space run was setup. By pushing the wall in space far enough back that the missile could not possibly hit it the navigation system would try its best to make the furthest range. Figure 40 shows the improvement of range.
Max Copter Range 1800 1600 1400 Altitude (m) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 Range (m) 8000 10000 12000 MAX L/D PROP NAV
Figure 40: Maximum Achievable Helicopter Range [B. Goodson and E. Waters] 2.7.3 Other Compliance Issues [B. Goodson and E. Waters] The maximum acceleration of the missile was calculated using the LAUNCH 2 ballistic trajectory code. This is due to the fact that the AP02 code takes time steps for the thrust vs. time profile that are too large and it misses the maximum acceleration of the missile. The Launch code takes into account the entire thrust vs. time profile and is able to compute the true maximum acceleration of the missile. This approach was used to obtain maximum accelerations for the helicopter and ground missions with drag and temperature variations taken into account. The highest overall acceleration out of all the missions was approximately 76 gs, which is under the CDD requirement specification of 79 gs. Using LAUNCH 2 the minimum launcher exit velocity was found to be at least 48.6 m/s (159.45 ft/s) for the cold launch. This indicates that the missile is able to overcome the minimum 43 m/s (141 ft/s) launcher exit velocity for all mission scenarios. The maximum velocity reached during any flight simulation was on the hot thrust profile launch, which was found to be 405 m/s (1328 ft/s.) Thus the velocity at the wall in space is always below the 603 m/s maximum, and there will be no problem with submunition deployment.
2.8 Platform Integration [K. Smith] Platform integration was responsible for making sure the ATM was compatible with the M261 launcher. The compatibility with the launcher is addressed in two areas. First, the
IPT 3:
40
ATM must be physically compatible with the launcher adhering to limits such as size, weight and length. Second, the missile must be compatible with the launcher interfaces. The previous interfaces associated with the M261 launcher can be divided into two categories, mechanical and electrical. In order for the ATM to physically be compatible with the M261 launcher, the rocket had to meet size limits. These limits are a maximum length of 79.7 inches, a maximum diameter of 2.794 inches, and a maximum weight of 34.4 lbs. The Hawkeye meets the physical limitations in order to properly integrate with the M261 launcher. For the ATM to meet compatibility issues with the launcher interfaces, the missile must be compatible with both electrical and mechanical interfaces. The mechanical interfaces are the detent retainer and ignition ring, which are pictured below in Figure 41. The electrical interfaces are the ignition ring, the igniter, and the 1760 umbilical, which transmits data to the ATM. The Hawkeye has a retention groove in order to interface with the detent retainer and an ignition ring in order to receive the firing signal. These mechanical interfaces are properly placed and incorporated into the aft of the ATM. The warhead is unchanged, so the umbilical connection shall be unchanged. The igniter that is currently being used on the MK66/Hydra 70 may be used with the Hawkeye. The igniter is grounded to the case of the ATM and the positive lead is connected to the launch ring.
Retention Groove
Ignition Groove Rear fin
Fin groove Nozzle Exit
0.287 in 0.2 in 0.437 in 4 in
Figure 41: Tail End of ATM Showing Nozzle Section [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo]
IPT 3:
41
One of the limitations of the missile is that the motor shall not produce damaging ejecta that could cause damage to the launch platform, equipment, or adjacent aircraft. The Hawkeye motor uses propellant that produces no ejecta, and items used to ignite the propellant are currently used in the MK66 motor, therefore the Hawkeye will not produce any damaging ejecta. A restriction that is set by human performance limitations is that the ATM should be capable of being loaded in arctic gear. The Hawkeye falls within weight limitations, and the aft fins can be fitted with the rear fin cover that is currently being used by the Hydra 70 system. The Hawkeye is capable of being loaded and reloaded in a launcher with military issue arctic mittens, in addition to gloved hands removed from the arctic warming mittens. Platform integration was also responsible for ensuring that the ATM adhered to certain environmental conditions and the ATM fall within all environmental condition limits. The environmental conditions are: 1. The ATM shall be capable of being stored in -65F to 165F. The Hawkeye includes no components that will deteriorate in extreme temperature during storage. 2. The ATM shall also be capable of operation in -50F to 150F. The Hawkeyes propellant and avionics section is capable of operation within the set temperature limits, and will not degrade within the set limits. 3. The ATM shall be capable of operation during or after exposure to a constant 100% humidity at 75F. The ATMs components and guidance electronics are capable of operating at 100% humidity at 75 F and the components and guidance will not be affected at these conditions. 4. There are no known issues with being able to fire the missile at any altitude between 61 m (200 ft) below MSL and 6,096 m (20,000 ft) above MSL. Platform integration was again responsible for making sure the ATM fell within certain storage conditions and restraints. Service life was also addressed within this section. The ATM shall be capable of being transported and stored within military standard fast packs. Since the ATM meets physical requirements, the Hawkeye will be capable of being stored within fast packs. Service life shall be a minimum of 10 years with a desired target goal of 25 years. The Hawkeye propellant has a service life of at least ten years and the avionics section service life is determined by the battery, which has a service life of at least ten years as well. Therefore the Hawkeye falls within limits set by the CDD for service life and storage requirements. In conclusion, The Hawkeye missile meets all requirements set by the CDD regarding platform integration.
3.0 Implementation Issues [T. Towry]

3.1 Production Cost [T. Towry]
The cost analysis of the ATM was performed using a weight based analysis formulation obtained from Tactical Missile Design by Fleeman.28This analysis essentially uses two IPT 3: Current as of June 20, 2003 42
equations to obtain a cost based on weight, production quantity, and a learning curve factor. The equation used to obtain the first-item cost is Equation 11. The WL, the weight of the missile, is entered in pounds. The overall weight of the missile is 33.4 pounds. Therefore, the first-item cost was determined to be $45,890. The equation used to find the average cost of the first 10,000 units is Equation 12. The learning curve, L, was set at 0.90 in accordance with the available documentation. The number of units to be built was set at 10,000. Since Cn is the cost of just the nth unit, the individual cost of any one missile within the 10,000 was determined using Equation 13. When the cost on the first 10,000 units was calculated and averaged, the average cost per unit for 10,000 units was $13,341. Equation 11: Equation 12:
C1 = $6,900 WL C n = C1 Llog 2 n
10 , 000
.54
Equation 13:
3.2
Cost per missle =
C
n =1
10,000
Feasibility [T. Towry]
Due to the simplified design of the ATM, the production of the ATM is extremely feasible for the following reasons: 1. The production of the ATM uses currently technology that is used in many environments around the globe. 2. All of the materials used in building the parts of the ATM are standard materials that are readily available. 3. The avionics and electrical components in the system are standard off-the-shelf items that can be readily obtained. Next, the deployment of the ATM is essentially the same as the current 2.75 Hydra 70 rocket. 1. The shipping crates, known as fast-packs, are the same crates used with the current rocket. 2. The ammunition personnel loading the ATM into the launcher will not have to be trained in the handling or operation of the ATM. 3. The operator will not have to be trained in any new areas. 4. The storage and life-span of the ATM will not require any changes from the existing rocket. The only change that will have to be made is due to a need for the avionics section to have an initial reading of the missiles position. To do this, the launcher will have to be modified which simply requires mounting a GPS system to the launcher. Based on the current missile analysis, a fully loaded launcher with 19 missiles will weight 287.6 kg out of the total of 297 kg allowed leaving almost 10 kg (22 lbs) that can be used to mount a launcher based GPS. IPT 3:
43
Basically, after production and initial deployment, the ATM can be treated as a standard 2.75 rocket. However, in actual usage and performance, the target in question will realize that the round being used is not a standard 2.75 rocket. These various factors make the ATM a very favorable system in terms of feasibility.
4.0 Company Capabilities [S. Paul]

4.1 Company Overview [S. Paul]
The Night Hawks Corporation has combined the assets of a large, diverse work force into a directed effort toward a specific goal, the design of an ATM for AMCOM. The company itself is comprised of a group of skilled engineers from various disciplines and backgrounds. Several members of the team are based at ESTACA located near Paris, France, while the rest have collected at UAH from various places around the United States. A chief partner has been the Avionics team with whom we have worked closely to integrate all aspects of the ATM. This varied group has also combined their energy and expertise with that of other mentors and teachers to produce a superior integrated team. The Night Hawks have utilized varied forms of communication to network this vast number of people together. Communications ranging from face-to-face meetings to email and teleconferences with team members in Huntsville and Paris have all proven effective as the Night Hawks have shared information. The utilization of common information hubs has allowed all members of the team easy access to any information and resources they need at any time. Regular meetings between all local team members insured that all disciplines could report on their progress, request aid and information, and ensure that they were complying with other systems needs. During early phases of the project, team members met regularly with other members of their disciplines as well as with expert mentors who could point them in the right direction. This allowed the Night Hawks to easily learn the technical specifics of their project areas and to become proficient quickly. The team leader also took this opportunity to meet with and question the customer to ensure clarification and understanding of the projects requirements. Assistance from the French division was also crucial during most of the early and middle phases of the development. They provided all the initial sketches and CAD drawings as well as initial estimates for moments, CG movement, and also materials studies. Their work was later fleshed out and finalized by the UAH team towards the end of the project. Throughout later phases of the project, the team members continued to seek the advice and expertise of mentors and teachers who could direct them as new issues and questions arose. Through excellence in teamwork, communication, and technical expertise, the Night Hawks were able to complete their work quickly, efficiently, and competently.
4.2 Personnel Description [S. Paul]
Below is a list of the core members of the Night Hawks team, highlighting their individual skills and accomplishments. IPT 3:
44
Mr. Camille Bourbon Nights Hawks Modeling Mr. Bourbon, as the chief member of the teams French division, has been instrumental in establishing communications. He showed great willingness to provide all information requested and worked very hard to incorporate changes as they occurred. His excellent, detailed work and quick responses make him a valued member of the team. Mr. Zackery Butler Night Hawks Structural Analysis Mr. Butlers chief work was in structural analysis and mass properties calculations. However, he was always eager to help out in any area he could, providing numerous calculations and research information to the team. Mr. Butlers efforts and resources were of great benefit to the team. Mr. James Collier Nights Hawks Avionics Liaison Mr. Collier showed a willingness to take on anything, as he became the teams avionics liaison. He worked closely with the Avionics group to ensure compatibility between the teams ATM and the guidance package being developed separately. His extensive efforts on a complicated subsystem helped ensure compliance to a critical design requirement. Mr. Jake Craft Night Hawks Propulsion Division Mr. Craft has shown an excellent command of propulsion as the sole designer of the propellant grain used in the ATM. Information he was not able to glean from his propulsion classes he learned from countless communications with propulsion mentors. Mr. Crafts many hours of design refinement served the team well as he was able to optimize the propellants performance to meet the needs of the team. Mr. Guillame Fouques Night Hawks Modeling Mr. Fouques was an integral part of the French division. His willingness to accept tasks greatly aided the CAD modeling efforts. Mr. Brian Goodson Night Hawks Trajectory and Simulation Mr. Goodson was instrumental in running the trajectory calculations during design iterations as well as documenting parts of the process. His efforts also involved communications to establish outside help. He was an irreplaceable member of the team. Mr. Thomas Gualdo Night Hawks Modeling Mr. Gualdo was an invaluable member of the French division. His research results were delivered promptly and were very informative. He also made great contributions to the CAD modeling effort. Ms. Jessica Ipnar Night Hawks Aerodynamicist Ms. Ipnar did an excellent job on the aerodynamic analysis and design of the ATM. She spent many hours running codes and refining the aerodynamics design to optimize the missiles performance. In addition to her extensive aerodynamics work, Ms. Ipnar was
IPT 3:
45
also eager to lend her skills to other areas of the project and did so by designing the teams logo and ensuring file transfer abilities.
Mr. William McDaniel Nights Hawks French Liaison Mr. McDaniel has been essential as a liaison to the ESTACA team members. He has made extra efforts to make them feel welcome and included during the teams brief meetings with the French division members as well as helping to ensure timely and thorough communication. Mr. McDaniel has also been helpful in documenting the teams results. Mr. Mike McWhorter Night Hawks Systems Engineer Mr. McWhorters previous experience with the design process has made in invaluable to the team. His extensive research efforts provided many ideas and his organizational efforts have helped keep the Night Hawks on top of the process. Mr. McWhorter has also been quick to offer extra assistance when possible. Ms. Sarah Paul Night Hawks Project Manager Ms. Paul has provided leadership and direction to the team. Her organizational efforts and knowledge of the requirements has enabled to team to successfully work toward a final design. Mr. Kenneth Smith Night Hawks Platform Integration Mr. Smith has provided many services to the team through his role in platform integrations. Not only has he ensured compatibility, he has also been active in design discussions. His ideas and comments have been very useful to the team in evaluating their options. Mr. Jacob Sterling Night Hawks Propulsion Division Mr. Sterling has been instrumental in the propulsion system design and implementation. He has worked to design a nozzle that will meet the teams specifications and has spent time iterating his design with the aerodynamics aspects of the project to ensure compliance. Mr. Ted Towry Night Hawks Platform Integration Mr. Towry has shown great determination in his efforts to ensure platform compatibility. He has worked with the main team, as well as the partner avionics team to make sure that all issues are addressed and resolved. Mr. Eric Waters Night Hawks Trajectory and Simulation Mr. Waters has been extensively involved in the design process through his role in trajectory and simulation. He has constantly been determining the best design options to use to meet maximum performance and has been working diligently through the process to determine working models.
IPT 3:
46
5.0 Summary and Conclusions [S. Paul]

The projects demand for precision guided, long range tactical weapons that will work with existing technology has lead the Night Hawks team to the Hawkeye design detailed in this paper. The Hawkeye is compatible not only with current launching systems, but also with existing warheads, storage containers and more. This new ATM employs off-the-shelf guidance components and parts as well as easily found and manufactured materials so that it can be quickly prototyped and brought into use in an economical manner. The Hawkeyes performance characteristics certainly make it worth the effort. The range attained by this vehicle is greatly extended over previous systems enabling troops using the missile to remain farther away from the battle. The guidance package and canard control allows the missile to be guided accurately to its target. To conclude, the Hawkeye meets the specification in every category of the CDD and is an excellent candidate for future development.
6.0
Recommendations [T. Towry]
As with any design, several compromises are necessary due to schedule and available resources. As discussed in other sections of this report, the current design is a very feasible design. However if future schedule and resources allowed, the following recommendations should be considered to possibly improve the design. The available resources did not allow the aerodynamics and trajectory disciplines to analyze the design with 6-DOF software. For a complete analysis of the system, this analysis may be considered necessary. These calculations would help to verify that the current software used had a level of accuracy sufficient to verify the design. The proposed designs length approaches the maximum length. This design parameter remains due to the need to have additional propellant in the motor. However, after the detailed analysis by the trajectory discipline, the additional propellant may have not been as critical as first expected. If a future modification of the design is considered, decreasing the length may be an option to pursue. However, when pursuing this option, the CG will have an undesirable shift towards the control surfaces. Still, with more analysis, a shorter length may be an option. Also, further analysis of the entire system, including the avionics section, could be useful in a more accurate determination of the systems true accuracy. The addition of a GPS by the avionics team near the end of the design process made it impossible to evaluate the accuracy by a full uncertainty analysis. The Night Hawks Hawkeye will aid the military by providing them with a precision-guided missile thus greatly improving the chances of striking a targeted sites and minimizing the chances of striking non-targeted sites or civilian areas. It is compatible with a variety of systems both ground and aerial. While there are still some additional studies that could be done, the work presented in this report clearly shows that the Hawkeye is the best solution to the requirements.
IPT 3:
47
References
Toft, H.O., AEROLAB: Rocket Drag and Stability Calculator, Version 1.2.1, Copyright 2001, http://inet.uni2.dk/~dark/. 2 Blake, W. B., Missile DATCOM Users Manual 1997 Fortran 90 Revision, AFRL-VA-WP-TR-19983009, February 1998. 3 Nielson Engineering and Research, Launch Vehicle eXpert System, Version 4.0S, Student Edition, July 2001. 4 Moore, F.G., and Hymer, T.C., The 2002 Version of the Aeroprediction Code: Part II Users Guide, NSWCDD/TR-02/34, May 2002. 5 Kreeger, Roberts, Auman, and Stumpe, KRAS Configuration, MAE 659 Team Assignment, UAH, Huntsville, AL, December 4, 2002. 6 Chin, S S., Missile Configuration Design, McGraw Hill, New York, 1961. 7 Auman, L., private communication, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Huntsville, AL, March 2003. 8 Hoerner, S.F., Fluid-Dynamic Drag, 2nd ed., New Jersey, 1965. 9 GRAINS2 computer code, Excel Format, available from AIAA Tactical Missile Design Symposium CD, www.soundcell.com, January 14, 2003. 10 FOPD (First Order Preliminary Design) computer code, Excel Format, developed by and available from M. Lyon, AMSAM-RD-PS, Redstone Arsenal, AL 11 DES-STAR computer code, Excel Format, developed by and available from M. Lyon, AMSAM-RD-PS, Redstone Arsenal, AL 12 Sutton, George P., Biblarz, Oscar, Rocket Propulsion Elements, 7th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2001 pp 417-578. 13 Lyon, J. Michael, Introduction to Rocket Propulsion, U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 35898-5000, Dec. 1991 14 Warren, Larry, private communication, U. S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Huntsville, AL, March 2003. 15 NACA-TN-3462. 16 Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures, MIL-HDBK-5G. 17 Butler, J. L., private communication, SYColeman Corp., Huntsville, AL, February April 2003. 18 Sutton, George P., Biblarz, Oscar, Rocket Propulsion Elements, 7th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2001 pp 417-578. 19 Beer, F. P., E. R. Johnston Jr., and J. T. DeWolf, Mechanics of Materials, Third ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 7, 462-470, 2001. 20 Incropera, F. P., and D. P. DeWitt. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, Fifth ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, A.2, pp. 909, 2002. 21 Sutton George P., Biblarz, Oscar, Rocket Propulsion Elements, 7th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2001 pp 558-559 22 Incropera, F. P., and D. P. DeWitt. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, Fifth ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, A.2, 909, 2002. 23 DeGarmo, E.P. et. al., Materials and Processes in Manufacturing, Eighth ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999 24 FibreGlast Website, www.fibreglast.com, 6 March 2003. 25 Interstate Electronics Website, www.iechome.com, 3 March 2003. 26 Final Proposal: Advanced Tactical Missile; IPT 4, submitted by Avionics, Inc; University of Alabama in Hutnsville, 2003. 27 Launch : 2D Rocket Trajectory Calculation Code, version 2.01A, 1999 28 Fleeman, Eugene L., Tactical Missile Design., AIAA, 2001, pg. 168-175.
1
IPT 3:
48
Appendix A - Concept Description Document

1.0 Scope 1.1 Identification: This document establishes the requirements for the Advanced Tactical Missile System. 1.2 System Overview: The purpose of the Advanced Tactical Missile (ATM) is to employ commercial off the shelf technology for an INS guided and/or GPS aided 2.75-inch weapon that could be flight-testing in the summer 2003 time frame. 1.3 Document Overview 1.3.1 This document specifies the characteristic, performance, design, logistic, environmental, and developmental requirements of the ATM. 2.0 System Requirements 2.1 Description 2.1.1 The ATM is a fire and forget GPS aided 2.75-inch weapon. The ATM shall consist of a rocket motor, a GPS aided guidance system, and a modified M261 MPSM warhead. The ATM shall be designed to be compatible with current 2.75-inch storage, transportation, and launch containers. The ATM shall be designed to be compatible with the following rotary and fixed wing aircraft, and ground launch platforms: UH-1, AH-64, AH-64D Apache, RAH-66 Comanche, LAV, Avenger, and HUMVEE. 2.2 Characteristics 2.2.1 Performance Characteristics 2.2.1.1 Weapon Ready 2.2.1.1.1 Firing Envelope: The ATM shall be capable of being fired from altitudes ranging from 200 ft (61.0 m) below MSL to 20,000 feet (6,096.0 m) above MSL. 2.2.1.2 Weapon Deployment
A-1
Mission Profiles: The ATM shall be capable of performing the mission profiles described in appendix 1 2.2.1.2.1 at the required maximum operating conditions described below. (App. 1) 2.2.1.2.2 Platform Error: The ATM shall be capable of overcoming a maximum error of 19 milliradians from all launch platforms. (Fig. 1) 2.2.1.2.3 Crosswind: The ATM shall be capable of overcoming a maximum crosswind of 15 knots (7.7 m/s). 2.2.1.2.4 Range: The ATM shall be capable of delivering a M261 Warhead to a predefined wall in space that is dependent on range. (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) 2.2.1.2.5 Velocity: The ATM shall have a minimum allowable launcher exit velocity of 141 fps (43 m/s). 2.2.1.2.6 Smoke Signature: The ATM shall have a minimum smoke signature. 2.2.1.2.7 Ejecta: The motor shall not produce exhaust or ejecta that would cause damage to the launch platform, other stores, any other attached equipment, or other aircraft. 2.2.2 System Capability Relationships 2.2.2.1 Human Performance/Human Engineering: The ATM shall be capable of being handled by personnel wearing military issue arctic clothing and mittens, as well as being loaded and reloaded in a launcher with their gloved hands removed from the arctic warming mittens. 2.2.2.2 M261 Launcher: The ATM shall be compatible with the M261 Launcher and its interfaces. (App. 2) 2.2.2.2.1 Launcher Interfaces: The ATM shall be compatible with all current M261 Launcher interfaces. 2.2.2.2.2 Longitudinal Force: The ATM shall be required to have a minimal longitudinal force greater than 13.5
A-2
times the maximum total system weight (detent release requirement). 2.2.2.3 Modified M261 MPSM Warhead: The M261 MPSM Warhead fusing system shall be modified for compatibility with the ATM. (App. 3) 2.2.2.3.1 Submunition Deployment: The ATM shall send the fire signal to the warhead to allow deployment of the sub munitions to occur at the instant the warhead reaches the wall in space. 2.2.2.3.2 Safe and Arm: The ATM shall in corporate a safe and arm device to prevent premature warhead ignition. 2.2.2.3.3 Acceleration: acceleration. The ATM shall not exceed 79 g
2.2.2.3.4 Velocity: The ATM shall not exceed 1978 fps (603 m/s) at sub munition deployment. 2.2.3 Physical Characteristics 2.2.3.1 Weight: The maximum additional weight that the ATM missiles can add to the 19-round M261 Launcher (for helicopter launch) is 654.6 lbs (297 kg) and an objective weight of 590.0 lbs (267.9 kg). 2.2.3.2 Length: The ATM shall have a threshold length of 79.7 inches (202.4 cm), and an objective length of 71.7 inches (182.1 cm). 2.2.3.3 Outer Diameter: The ATM shall have a maximum outer diameter of 2.794 inches (70 mm). 2.2.4 System Quality Factors 2.2.4.1 Service Life: The ATM shall have a minimum 10-year service life with a design goal of a 25-year service life. 2.2.4.2 Unit Production Cost: The ATM shall have a threshold unit production cost of $15K per unit, and an objective unit production cost of $10K per unit with a unit production quantity of 10,000 units. (unit with warhead) 2.2.5 Environmental Conditions
A-3
2.2.5.1 Temperature: The ATM shall be capable of being stored in 65F (-53.8C) to 165F (73.9C). The ATM shall be capable of operation in -50F (-45.5C) to 150F (65.5C). 2.2.5.2 Humidity: The ATM shall be capable of operation during or after exposure to a constant 100% relative humidity at 75F (24C). 2.2.6 Safety 2.2.6.1 Hazards Classification: The ATM shall have a threshold hazard classification of 1.1 with an objective hazard classification of 1.3. 2.2.6.2 Safety/IM: The ATM shall incorporate solutions for satisfying IM compliance requirements. 2.2.6.3 Flight Fail Safe: In the case of a guidance failure or malfunction the ATM shall be capable of achieving a ballistic trajectory with a threshold range of 3.5km and an objective range of 5km. 2.2.7 System Security: The ATM, including all component parts, shall be unclassified. 2.2.8 Documentation: Documentation, including specifications, drawings, technical manuals, charts and procedures shall be prepared. All units must be presented in Metric with English in Parenthesis.
A-4
2.2.9
Fig 1. Platform Error
M261 MPSM
Fig 2. MPSM Warhead Accuracy Requirement - Wall in Space Definition
M261
A-5
Where center of wall is 492 ft (150 m) above target and 984 ft (300 m) prior to target in range.
A-6
Table 1. Contract Data Requirements
CDD Requirement 2.2.1.2.1 Helicopter Mission 2.2.1.2.1 Ground Mission 2.2.1.2.2 Platform Error 2.2.1.2.3 Crosswind 2.2.1.2.5 Launcher exit Vel. 2.2.1.2.6 Smoke Signature 2.2.2.2 M261 Launcher 2.2.2.3 M261MPSM Warhead 2.2.2.3.2 Acceleration 2.2.2.3.3 Velocity at wall in space 2.2.3.1 System Weight 2.2.3.2 System Length 2.2.4.2 Unit Production Cost 2.2.5.1 Temperature 2.2.6.1 Hazards Classification
Requirement Min. Range of 4.97 mi. (8 km) Min. Range of 2.5 mi. (4 km) Max. 19 mils. Max. 15 knots (7.7 m/s) Min. 141 fps (43 m/s) Minimum Smoke Compatible Modified
Assessment
Remark
Max. 79g Max. 1978 fps (603 m/s) Max.653.6 lbs (297 kg) Max. 79.7 in. (202.4 cm) Max. $15K/unit 10,000 units Operation Conditions -50F(-45.5C)150F(65.5C) Min. 1.1 Objective 1.3
A-7
Directions: In the assessment column mark the CDD requirement as fails, meets, or exceeds. If the system fails or exceeds the CDD requirement, in the remark column insert the amount that the ATM can achieve. Appendix 1 Mission Profiles
A-8
Appendix 2 M261 Launcher
The M261 Launcher, shown below, is a lightweight, nineteen tube, reusable launcher with a detent retention system. The M261 Launcher has the capability of remotely setting warhead fuses through the umbilical connection in the warhead. The aft end of each tube is fitted with a detent retention system. This detent retention system is composed of the detent retainer, launcher contact spring, and contact arm blast paddle. When the motor is inserted into the launcher tube the detent retainer locks onto the motor nozzle, the launcher contact spring sits on the nozzle contact band, and the contact arm blast paddle is in the closed position. To fire the motor a current is sent through the launcher contact spring to the nozzle contact band. When the motor is fired the blast from the thrust moves the contact arm blast paddle to the open position, which through mechanical linkage releases the detent retainer.
A-9
Appendix 3 M261 MPSM Warhead
CG Location from nose 16.8 inches (42.7 cm) Weight 13.6 lbs (6.17 kg) Length 26.8 inches (68.0 cm) Thread Type 2.400-6 STUB ACME SPECIAL THREAD A-10
BLUNT START 2.4100.010 Major Diameter 2.2900.008 Minor Diameter 2.3550.005 Pitch Diameter Thread Length from warhead base 2.5 inches (6.35 cm)
M261 Warhead Fusing
The current M261 contains 9-submunitions, which are expelled at a certain wall in space. The position in which this expulsion occurs is based on the rockets/missiles time of flight to the specified location. The fuse currently used in the M261 MPSM Warhead is the M439 fuse. The M439 Fuse consists of an electronic module and a safe and arming device. The safe and arming device contains the M84 electric detonator in a shorted condition, disconnected from the electric firing circuit, and mechanically out of line with the expulsion charge. The rotor containing the detonator is locked in the out of line condition by a springloaded setback weight. Acceleration of 12 g is required to unlatch the rotor. Rotor motion is controlled by a run-away escapement which requires sustained acceleration greater than 24 g for more than 0.6 seconds in order to bring the detonator into the armed condition, i.e., unshorted, mechanically in line, and connected to the electric firing circuit. In the armed condition, the detonator may be fired by an electric impulse from the electronic module. However, in order to produce a firing pulse, the fuse must have had its power supply and firing capacitor charged from an external power source through the co-axial fuse charge line, which extends from the ogive of the warhead.
A-11
Acronyms App appendix ATM- Advanced Tactical Missile cm centimeter ft feet fps feet per second g Gravity Units GPS- Global Positioning System HERO Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordinance IM Insensitive Munitions in. - inch INS inertial navigation system K thousand KCAS Knots Calibrated Air Speed m meter m/s meter per second mi. miles Min. minimum Max. Maximum mils. - Milliradians MPSM- Multipurpose Sub-munition MSL Mean Sea Level Vel. Velocity HE High Explosive Definitions Crosswind wind 90 from the launch heading. Range horizontal distance from launcher to the target. Reduced Smoke Produces secondary smoke. ATM Weight includes propulsion, igniter, warhead, (anything you slide into the launch tube). Secondary Smoke Smoke resulting from the condensation of normally gaseous products through cooling or interaction with the ambient environment or a secondary reaction external to the combustion chamber. Minimum Smoke Exhaust produces a secondary smoke trail composed of water vapor/ice crystals only. Occurs only at temperatures below 20 F (-28.9 C).
A-12
Service Life Service life is defined as the period of time the ATM may remain in operational use or storage. The service life starts with the date of manufacture. Threshold the minimum acceptable value, supported by analysis, to the user for a system capability. Anything less than this may not satisfy the mission need. Objective the desired value better than the threshold, which results in an operationally meaningful, cost-effective, and affordable improvement in capability. Quadrant Elevation launch angle with 0 parallel to MSL Wall in Space A Wall 300 ft before the target. Hazard Classification Department of Defense and Department of Transportation classifications for explosives. Division 1.1 (Mass Detonation or Blast Hazard) This explosive material and explosive items containing this material are expected to mass detonate. If one of these devices detonates all others placed close to it will detonate practically simultaneously. Division 1.3 (Mass Fire Hazard) This explosive material, and devices in which it is loaded, will burn with intense heat and violence. Some explosions may occur, but high blast pressures are not expected. The degree of hazard is dependent on the amount of material at the location.
A-13
Appendix B - Electronic File Index [S. Paul]

This table contains a list and description of all supplementary files submitted with the report.
Software Required to Run or View the File Aero_Configuration_Cases.xls Aerodynamic data on early iterations Microsoft Excel of the Hawkeye design Analysis.xls Launch 2 output file MS Excel ATM_team3_rev01.exe Animation of missile design none ATMOS.xls Boundary layer and atmosphere Microsoft Excel calculation worksheet by Lamar Auman, Aerodynamics Mentor avionique.CATPart Model of part that allows canards and CATIA axis to be placed in a good position in French model axe.CATPart Axis to hold canards in place in CATIA French model axe_tuyere.CATPart Axis of fins in French model CATIA Boattail.xls Spreadsheet documenting rear fin Microsoft Excel and boattail sizing boattail_3.CATProduct Assembly file of the nozzle, its CATIA protection, 4 fins, and 4 axis in the French model Boattail_closed1.jpg Picture of boattail with folded fins MS Internet Explorer Boattail_closed2.jpg Picture of boattail with folded fins MS Internet Explorer Boattail_closed3.jpg Picture of boattail with folded fins MS Internet Explorer boattail_open2.jpg Picture of boattail with open fins MS Internet Explorer boattail_open3.jpg Picture of boattail with open fins MS Internet Explorer boattail_open4.jpg Picture of boattail with open fins MS Internet Explorer canard.CATPart Canard in French model CATIA Canard_Section.avi.mpg Canard animation Windows Media Player Canard_section.cmd Canard animation ADAMS 12 View Canard_Section_cutaway.avi. Canard animation windows media player mpg Canard_Section_with_skin.avi. Canard animation windows media player mpg Canard_section_with_skin.cm Canard animation ADAMS 12 View d Canard_Section_with_skin2.av Canard animation windows media player i.mpg Canard_Section_with_sking.av Canard animation windows media player i.mpg Canard_section2.avi.mpg Canard animation windows media player canard_stowed_looking_forwa Avionics Section Pictures MS Internet Explorer rd.jpg canard_stowed_with_servo_tra Avionics Section Pictures MS Internet Explorer Filename Description of Contents
B-1
y.jpg CATMaterial2.CATMaterial Cold.tpr Concepts.lvx coupe_warhead_rev01.pdf Crosswind 2.avi Des-Star_Epsilon_rev_04.xls Final_cg.cpr Final_wt.wpr fins1.jpg fins.CATPart fins.pdf fire.zip fire_1.jpg fire_2.jpg fire_3.jpg fire_4.jpg fire_5.jpg fire_6.jpg FOPD.xls for005.dat for006.dat Gamma propellant.xls Grains2.xls Ground.mcd Ground mission to wall in space.avi H14A_aero.txt H14_aero.txt Hawk_14A.exp Hawk_14.exp
Material file for French model Cold Thrust Profile LVX file including list of .lvd files relating to the Hawkeye design Warhead schematic from French model Flight path movie First Order Grain Profile Design program CG Profile Thrust Profile Picture of a rear fin in French model Fin part for French model Schematic of rear fin from French model Contains ".avi" file animation of Hawkeye exiting launch tube and deploying Picture in firing animation sequence from French model Picture in firing animation sequence from French model Picture in firing animation sequence from French model Picture in firing animation sequence from French model Picture in firing animation sequence from French model Picture in firing animation sequence from French model First Order Thrust model software DATCOM Input File DATCOM Output File Thrust profile Thrust model software Ground mission flight path Flight path animation AP02 Output File (added drag version) AP02 Output File (original version) AP02 Input Files (added drag version) AP02 Input File (original version)
CATIA Notepad LVX Adobe Acrobat Reader Windows Media Player Microsoft Excel Notepad Notepad MS Internet Explorer CATIA Adobe Acrobat Reader WinZip and Windows Media Player MS Internet Explorer MS Internet Explorer MS Internet Explorer MS Internet Explorer MS Internet Explorer MS Internet Explorer Microsoft Excel DATCOM (run), Notepad (view) Notepad Microsoft Excel Microsoft Excel MathCad Windows Media player Notepad Notepad AP02 AP02 B-2
Hawkeye_drawings.mf1 Hawkeye_drawings.mf2 hawkeye_launch_2.CATProdu ct Hawkeye03.lvd Hawkeye04.lvd Hawkeye06.lvd Hawkeye08.lvd Hawkeye09.lvd Hawkeye10.lvd Hawkeye11.lvd Hawkeye12.lvd Hawkeye14.lvd Hawkeye14_AP02_Drag_Traj ectory.xls hawkeye14_bending_Data_rev _03.xls
Hawkeye14_DATCOM.xls Hawkeye14_Geom.xls Helicopter in cosswind.avi hinge_section_looking_back.jp g hinge_section_looking_forwar d.jpg Hot.tpr I_O_document_rev_03.xls insulation data.xls
Canard Model for animation Associated model file for canard animation Assembly file of the missile and launch tube in French model Hawkeye 03 aerodynamic configuration Hawkeye 04 aerodynamic configuration Hawkeye 06 aerodynamic configuration Hawkeye 08 aerodynamic configuration Hawkeye 09 aerodynamic configuration Hawkeye 10 aerodynamic configuration Hawkeye 11 aerodynamic configuration Hawkeye 12 aerodynamic configuration Hawkeye 14 aerodynamic configuration Spreadsheet comparing AP02 trajectories for estimated drag increase This is the bending analysis for the entire casing, including the AP02 data from Jessica and the moments about the longitudinal axis and the stresses resulting from those moments. Hawkeye 14 data from DATCOM in evaluation spreadsheet Spreadsheet documenting Aero configuration and actual configuration changes Flight path animation Avionics Section Pictures Avionics Section Pictures Hot thrust profile Input/Output document for team 3 This is the info with the thermal conductivities and the dimensional
IDEAS 8 IDEAS 8 CATIA LVX LVX LVX LVX LVX LVX LVX LVX LVX Microsoft Excel Microsoft Excel
Microsoft Excel Microsoft Excel Windows Media Player MS Internet Explorer MS Internet Explorer Notepad Microsoft Excel Microsoft Excel
B-3
analysis leading to the heat transfer coefficients. insulation_data_rev_02.xls This is the Finite Difference Heat Transfer analysis on the motor casing and insulation. KRAS.ppt Baseline presentation Kras-ap02-DEMO.ppt Baseline presentation Launch.mpg Animation of Hawkeye exiting launch tube and deploying launch.zip Contains ".avi" file animation of Hawkeye exiting launch tube and deploying with detailed steps launcher.CATPart Basic picture of launch tube in French modelfor illustration and animation purposes only, not detailed or exact Launch.exe Launch trajectory tool looking_back_canard_swept.jp Avionics Section Pictures g looking_back_iso.jpg Avionics Section Pictures looking_back_iso_fore_remov Avionics Section Pictures ed.jpg looking_forward_perspective.j Avionics Section Pictures pg mass_motor.CATPart Model of steel cylinder used to represent mass of canards' motors in the avionics section in French model mid.tpr Mid-temperature thrust profile motor_skin.CATPart Model of propellant casing in French model Open close.mpg Animation of Hawkeyes fins and canards opening and closing open_close_movie.zip Contains ".avi" file animation of Hawkeye's fins and canards opening and closing based on the French model pic_warhead1_rev01.jpg Picture of warhead from French model pic_warhead2_rev01.jpg Picture of warhead from French model pressure_distributions_rev02.x Buckling analysis from the Cp ls (Pressure Coefficient) used to get the compressive moments and forces on the casing. The moments and forces are calculated as well. Prop_hand_calc_1.pdf Hand calculations for propulsion
Microsoft Excel MS Power Point MS Power Point Windows Media Player WinZip and Windows Media Player CATIA
none MS Internet Explorer MS Internet Explorer MS Internet Explorer MS Internet Explorer CATIA Notepad CATIA Windows Media Player WinZip and Windows Media Player MS Internet Explorer MS Internet Explorer Microsoft Excel
Adobe Acrobat Reader
B-4
Propellant.dwg propellant.CATPart protection_tuyere.CATPart Rear.mpg rear_fin_open.zip
skin.CATPart spring.pdf spring_bended.CATPart spring_on_the_nozzle.pdf spring_on_the_nozzle2.pdf Thrust_profile_final.xls Trajone.mcd tuyere2.CATPart warhead.CATPart X1.txt X2.txt
section Drawing of propellant grain Model of propellant block in French model Model of nozzle protection layer in French model Animation of Hawkeyes rear fins opening and sliding back into their locked position Contains ".avi" file animation of Hawkeye's rear fins opening and sliding back into their locked position based on the French model Model of skin for avionic's section in French model Schematic of spring used with rear fins from French model Model of spring used with rear fins in French model Picture of the spring on the rear fins from the French model Picture of the spring on the rear fins from the French model Thrust and Pressure profiles obtained from DES-STAR Trajectory flight path Model of nozzle from French model (does not reflect final design, used for illustration purposes only) French model of warhead Input for Morton Thiokol Thermochemistry program Output for Morton Thiokol Thermochemistry program
Autocad 2000 CATIA CATIA Windows Media Player WinZip and Windows Media Player CATIA Adobe Acrobat Reader CATIA Adobe Acrobat Reader Adobe Acrobat Reader Microsoft Excel MathCAD CATIA CATIA Notepad Notepad
**Note that French CATIA files not related to the nozzle exterior and rear fins (and their deployment) do not reflect the final details of the design. They are there for illustration purposes only for the overall missile picture and animations.
B-5
Appendix C - Project Office [S. Paul]

This appendix describes some of the processes and methods that the Night Hawks team used to promote teamwork, communication, and ultimately the successful design of an ATM. The Night Hawks had weekly progress briefings during in class team meetings. It was at this time that all the different disciplines could share with the team what they had been working on, what information they needed, and what technical challenges they were facing. This group sharing allowed all the team members to interact and contribute to all the missiles systems, not just the one that they were designing. Team members could not only contribute ideas, but also detect possible problems and compatibility issues with other systems. These issues, once identified, could be discussed as a group with all disciplines being present to offer suggestions and ensure that the solution was beneficial (or at least possible) for everyone to work with. Team meetings also allowed to the various aspects of the project to be delegated to the various team members. A master list of tasks and outstanding issues was kept on the white board in the team meeting room. A specific team member was assigned to each to be in charge of solving the issue or performing the analysis. This ensured that everything was addressed and that important issues didnt fall through the cracks. Team members were very diligent about keeping up with their assigned tasks and bringing them up for discussion as needed. In a similar fashion to specific assignments, the various CDD requirements were also assigned to specific disciplines. These disciplines were responsible for ensuring that the information was calculated or determined, and that this data and the support for it was placed in the final report. The table below shows the breakdown of the CDD requirements:
Specification Operational between 61.0 m (200 ft) below MSL and 6,096.0 m(20,000 ft) above MSL Minimum Range of 8 km (4.97 mi) when fired from Helicopter Minimum Range of 4 km (2.5 mi) when fired from Ground Maximum Platform Error of 19 milliradians Operational under Maximum Crosswind of 7.7 m/s (15 knots) Deliver M261 Warhead to Wall in Space Minimum Launcher Exit Velocity of 43 m/s (141 fps) Minimum Smoke Signature Motor Cannot Produce Damaging Ejecta Capable of being loaded in arctic gear Compatible with the M261 Launcher Compatible with the M261 Launcher Interfaces Minimal Longitudinal Force Greater than 13.5 times the Maximum System Weight Modified Fusing System for M261 MPSM Warhead Submunition Deployment Velocity 603 m/s(1978 fps) Discipline Trajectory
Trajectory Trajectory Trajectory/Avionics Trajectory/Avionics Trajectory Trajectory Propulsion Platform Platform Platform Platform Trajectory Avionics Trajectory C-1
Safe and Arm device Submunition Deployment to occur at Wallin Space Maximum Acceleration of 79 g Maximum System Weight of 297 kg(654.6 lbs), ObjectiveWeight of 267.9 kg (590.0 lbs) Maximum System Length of 202.4 cm (79.1 in), Objective Length of 182.1 cm (71.7 in) Maximum Outer Diameter of 70 mm (2.794 in) Minimum Service Life of 10 years, Objective of 25 years Maximum Unit Production Cost of $15,000/unit on 10,000 units w/ Objective Cost of $10,000/unit Stowable Temperature Range from -53.8oC (-65oF) to 73.9oC (165oF) Operational Temperature Range from -45.5oC (-50oF) to 65.5oC (150oF) Operational During or After Constant 100% Humidity Minimum Hazard Classification of 1.1 with Objective of 1.3 Satisfying IM Compliance Requirements Flight Fail Safe Minimum Ballistic Trajectory of 3.5 km (2.17 mi) Objective Ballistic Trajectory of 5 km(3.11 mi) All Components of System shall be Unclassified Documentation
Avioncics Avionics Trajectory Weights Weights Weights Platforms Platforms Platforms Trajectory Platforms Propulsion Platforms Trajectory Trajectory Trajectory N/A N/A
Information flow was also monitored by weekly team meetings. A list was kept on the board of information that various people needed, especially the French and avionics divisions who could not actively participate in the group meetings. People were assigned to determine and report back any information that was outstanding. A key factor in the success of the Night Hawks was the specific delegation of assignments to people who were then held accountable for the completion of those assignments. An additional aid to the transfer of information was the I/O document shown in Appendix D that details which disciplines information should be going to and coming from. Another key feature to success was the ability of team members to function outside their discipline. Members of the propulsion discipline did CAD drawings; a member of the aerodynamics group essentially moved out of his discipline to provide support in the needed area of structures and did a lot of great analysis for materials, and stresses, and thermal analysis. The breadth of knowledge that each team member had allowed them to work in the area in which the team was most lacking and be flexible to move around throughout the project to assist where needed. While a lot of the final sections have the names of members of the UAH team associated with them, the French students provided invaluable behind the scenes work. They did obvious tasks like translating abstracts in to French. They also did numerous first order calculations and models. The provided the teams first estimates of CG, weight, and moments of inertia. It was by building on and comparing to their work that the Night Hawks were able to do such a thorough analysis. The French were also the primary CAD artists for the team. They drew initial sketches of the missile, and continued to provide more and more
C-2
levels of detail. Without their help, many of the detailed pictures and animations found with this report would not have been possible. The French also used their CAD models to perform stress and force analyses on the missile that enabled better material selection. They were able to model the forces the missile would encounter on high g maneuvers so that the missile would be strong enough to be as agile as needed.
C-3
Appendix D - Systems Engineering [M. McWhorter]

Weight Statement in kg
Parameter Warhead Mass Total Guidance Assembly Guidance casing Battery IMU Canards (4) Other Guidance Components Guidance Mass Total Propulsion Assembly Motor Casing (SST) Propellant (initially) Nozzle (SST) Tail Fins (4) Motor Insulation Bulkhead Propulsion MassTotal Missile Gross Takeoff Weight Value Value 3.2 kg Value
0.33 kg 0.91 kg 0.36 kg 0.11 kg 0.99 kg 2.7 kg 1.27 kg 2.64 kg 1.83 kg 0.073 kg 0.34 kg 0.095 kg 6.25 kg
15.1 kgs
Sample Input/Output Document

Disciplines
Platform Integration Weights/Structures Aerodynamics Project Office Systems Engineering Propulsion Trajectory
Input Nomenclature coefficient of Cl lift coefficient of CD drag coefficient of Cy yaw coefficient of CRm roll (y) coefficient of CRn roll (z) coefficient of CRl roll (x)
Units
CDD
Value I I I I I I O O O O O O Aerodynamics Aerodynamics Aerodynamics Aerodynamics Aerodynamics Aerodynamics
Avionics
D-1
center of pressure control algorithm Initial mass altitude of fire launch angle initial position (lat,long,alt) angle of attack moment coefficients max. dia. Initial mass max velocity total length propellant type altitude material external components avionics thrust vectoring (?) exit velocity range max acceleration shelf life cost volume allowed propulsion volume mass of propellant max pressure allowed grain type grain shape ignition system thrust profile mass allowed IM restrictions (?) component locations
Cp
I I
O O O O O O I I
Aerodynamics Avionics CDD/Systems CDD/Systems CDD/Systems CDD/Systems Aerodynamics Aerodynamics O CDD/Systems CDD/Systems CDD/Systems CDD/Systems Propulsion Trajectory O Weights
Mi hplatform Pi CR d Mi U L
kg km deg,deg, km deg.
I I I I
m kg m/s m
O O O
I I I I I O
hmissile
I I I I O
Avionics Trajectory Trajectory Trajectory
Ue R a
m/s km g's yrs. $
O O O
I I I I I O I I I I I I I O O
Platform Integration Platform Integration CDD/Systems Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion
Vmax V M Pmax
m3 m3 kg Pa
Mmax
kg
I I I O O O O O
Propulsion Weights
All
D-2
max diameter max length max weight warhead parameters propellant volume propellant density propellant cg max chamber pressure actual component weights max diameter max length max weight exit velocity position as a function of time velocity as a function of time roll rates as a function of time accelerations as a function of time impact point lift drag fin configuration packaging no. of conards location of conards grain size grain type nozzle dimensions thrust profile max internal pressure component weights location of center of
O O O O O O O O
I I I I I I I I I
CDD/Systems CDD/Systems CDD/Systems CDD/Systems Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Weights/Structures I I I I CDD/Systems CDD/Systems CDD/Systems CDD/Systems Trajectory Trajectory Trajectory Trajectory Trajectory Aerodynamics Aerodynamics Aerodynamics Aerodynamics Aerodynamics Aerodynamics
D L W Ue x(t) v(t) Rates(t) a(t)
m m kg m/s km m/s deg/s m/s2 m N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
FL FD
m m m N Pa kg m
O O O O O O O O
Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Weights Weights
D-3
gravity movement of CG component sizes component locations interface mechanical electrical initial velocity of platform initial acceleration of platform downwash rate at which Cg of propellant moves thrust total burn time specific impulse mass flow rate center of gravity, initial center of gravity, Final final mass error sources Firing Envelope below MSL Firing Envelope above MSL Platform error Crosswind Range ground to wall Range air to wall Velocity (exit) Acceleration Velocity Weight Length OD
m m m
O O O O O O
Weights Weights Weights Platform Integration Platform Integration Platform Integration CDD/Systems CDD/Systems CDD/Systems
Vi Ai D dCg/dt F(t) Tb Isp M (dot) Cg,I Cg,f Mf
m/s m/s2 m/s m/s N s
I I I I I I I
O O O O O O O O O O O O
Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Weights Weights Weights/Propulsion
kg/s m m kg
I I I I I
m x m mrad m/s m x m m/s g's m/s kg cm mm x x x x x x x 3700 7700 43 79 603 15.7 79.7 70 x x x 6096 19 7.7 61
D-4
Service life Unit production cost Temerature (storage) low Temerature (storage) high Humidity (@ 24 C) Hazard classification Safety compliance Security
yrs. US $
x x
10 15000 -53.8 73.9 100 1.1
C C
x x
x x
IM Unclassifi ed
x x
D-5
Appendix E - Aerodynamics [J. Ipnar]

DRAG INCREASE ESTIMATION
e h x delta e/x e/delta h/e in in in in
(width) (height) (x-station, LE) (BL thickness from ATMOS.xls)
Retention Ring Ignition Ring Fin Groove 0.197 0.4375 0.197 0.25 74.78 78.98 0.873 0.952 0.0026 0.0055 0.226 0.460 1.00 0.57 (good assumption) (good assumption) (flat plate drag)
Cd_0 b Sref Mach 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
(from plots in Hoerner)
in in^2 q (psi) 0.926 1.646 2.572 3.704 5.041 6.584 8.333 10.288 12.448 14.814 17.386 20.164 23.147 26.336 29.731 33.332 37.138 41.150
(0 ft)
0.014 2.75 0.542 Drag (lbf) 0.007 0.012 0.019 0.028 0.038 0.050 0.063 0.078 0.094 0.112 0.131 0.152 0.175 0.199 0.225 0.252 0.280 0.311
0.016 2.75 1.203 Drag (lbf) 0.018 0.032 0.050 0.073 0.099 0.129 0.164 0.202 0.244 0.291 0.341 0.396 0.454 0.517 0.584 0.654 0.729 0.808
1.2 2.75 1.719 Drag (lbf) 1.910 3.395 5.304 7.638 10.397 13.580 17.187 21.218 25.674 30.554 35.858 41.587 47.740 54.318 61.320 68.746 76.597 84.872 Total Incr (lbf) 1.935 3.440 5.374 7.739 10.534 13.758 17.413 21.498 26.012 30.957 36.331 42.135 48.370 55.034 62.128 69.652 77.607 85.991
5.94 CD Incr 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
From: Hoerner, S.F., Fluid-Dynamic Drag, 2nd ed., New Jersey, 1965.
E-1
DRAG INCREASE COMPARISON

CD ALPHA MACH NO. ADD 0 1.5 2.058 2 1.5 2.082 4 1.5 2.139 6 1.5 2.219 8 1.5 2.334 10 1.5 2.485 12 1.5 2.675 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.158 2.186 2.251 2.35 2.478 2.647 2.852 0.366 0.39 0.448 0.536 0.656 0.811 1.004 0.378 0.399 0.451 0.533 0.651 0.805 0.998 CD ORIG 0.783 0.808 0.867 0.951 1.072 1.23 1.428 0.888 0.916 0.983 1.087 1.22 1.396 1.609 0.365 0.389 0.447 0.535 0.654 0.81 1.002 0.376 0.398 0.449 0.532 0.65 0.804 0.997 CD CALC 1.133 1.158 1.217 1.301 1.422 1.58 1.778 1.238 1.266 1.333 1.437 1.57 1.746 1.959 0.715 0.739 0.797 0.885 1.004 1.16 1.352 0.726 0.748 0.799 0.882 1 1.154 1.347 CD DIFF 0.925 0.924 0.922 0.918 0.912 0.905 0.897 0.92 0.92 0.918 0.913 0.908 0.901 0.893 -0.349 -0.349 -0.349 -0.349 -0.348 -0.349 -0.348 -0.348 -0.349 -0.348 -0.349 -0.349 -0.349 -0.349 q(0 ft) (psi) 23.147 23.147 23.147 23.147 23.147 23.147 23.147 16.074 16.074 16.074 16.074 16.074 16.074 16.074 5.041 5.041 5.041 5.041 5.041 5.041 5.041 2.572 2.572 2.572 2.572 2.572 2.572 2.572
Sref DRAG ADD (lbf) 282.94 286.24 294.08 305.07 320.88 341.64 367.77 206.03 208.71 214.91 224.36 236.58 252.72 272.29 10.958 11.677 13.413 16.048 19.641 24.282 30.06 5.7743 6.0951 6.8894 8.142 9.9446 12.297 15.245
5.9396 DRAG ORIG (lbf) 107.65 111.09 119.2 130.75 147.38 169.1 196.33 84.781 87.454 93.851 103.78 116.48 133.28 153.62 10.928 11.647 13.383 16.018 19.581 24.252 30.001 5.7437 6.0798 6.8589 8.1267 9.9293 12.282 15.23
in^2 DRAG CALC (lbf) 156.019 159.456 167.567 179.116 195.751 217.473 244.695 149.38 152.06 158.45 168.38 181.08 197.88 218.22 21.462 22.181 23.917 26.552 30.115 34.786 40.534 11.118 11.454 12.233 13.501 15.304 17.656 20.604 DRAG DIFF (lbf) 126.92 126.78 126.51 125.96 125.13 124.17 123.07 56.65 56.65 56.46 55.98 55.51 54.84 54.07 -10.50 -10.50 -10.50 -10.50 -10.47 -10.50 -10.47 -5.34 -5.36 -5.34 -5.36 -5.36 -5.36 -5.36
The CD ADD and DRAG ADD data comes from altering the rear fin thickness to equal 3 inches. Although the drag increase gained from increasing the thickness is not great enough at subsonic speeds, the increase is above what is expected at transonic/supersonic speeds, and therefore the overall drag of the missile has been increased to the best of the ability provided by AP02.
E-2
Drag Increase Trajectory Comparison
Crosswind + Platform Error Test Trajectory Hawkeye 14 Ground Launch - COLD THRUST 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Missile Missile (added drag) Missile - Ballistic (added drag)
Altitude (m)
7.0
8.0
9.0
Range (km)
The above figure shows a sample trajectory demonstrating the missiles ability to perform as the original configuration and as the added drag configuration (which incorporates all components). Even with the extra drag, the trajectories are similar, with the largest difference in the purely ballistic trajectory. Therefore it was recommended to the team members in the trajectory discipline that all calculations be based on the added drag model for the most accurate results. Calculations and data supporting the above figure can be found in Appendix B in Hawkeye14_AP02_Drag_Trajectory.xls.
E-3
Aerodynamic Trade Studies and Design Iterations

(Units in inches)
Modification to previous
Hawkeye01
Phase 2 Design
Hawkeye02
Fixed Rear Fins
Hawkeye03
4 Canards
Hawkeye04
Increase Chord
Hawkeye05
No Rear Fins
Nose Shape Nose Length Body Diameter Body Length Boattail Length Boattail end diameter Canard LE position Tail fin LE position Total length
Tangent Ogive Tangent Ogive Tangent Ogive Tangent Ogive Tangent Ogive 4.07 2.75 70.63 5.00 1.50 28.00 75.70 79.70 4.07 2.75 70.63 5.00 1.50 28.00 74.70 79.70 4.07 2.75 70.63 5.00 1.50 27.00 74.70 79.70 4.07 2.75 70.63 5.00 1.50 27.00 74.70 79.70 4.07 2.75 70.63 5.00 1.50 27.00 74.70 79.70
Number of canards Shape Root Chord Tip Chord Sweep Span % Left Width Root % Left Width Tip % Thickness Root % Thickness Tip Number of tail fins Shape Root Chord Tip Chord Sweep Span (mid) % Left Width Root % Left Width Tip % Thickness Root % Thickness Tip
2 Hex 3.083 2.000 19.85 1.500 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050 4 Hex 3.083 2.000 19.85 1.500 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050
FIN DIMENSIONS 2 4 Hex Hex 3.083 3.083 2.000 2.000 19.85 19.85 1.500 1.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 4 4 Hex Hex 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 0.00 0.00 0.625 0.625 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050
4 Hex 6.000 4.000 33.70 1.500 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050 4 Hex 5.000 5.000 0.00 0.625 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050
4 Hex 3.083 2.000 19.85 1.500 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E-4
Aerodynamic Trade Studies and Design Iterations, continued

Hawkeye06
Increase Span
Hawkeye07
C=1
Hawkeye08
Lg Rear Fins
Hawkeye10
Lg Rear Fins 3
Hawkeye14
AERO DESIGN
Nose Shape Nose Length Body Diameter Body Length Boattail Length Boattail end diameter Canard LE position Tail fin LE position Total length
Tangent Ogive 4.07 2.75 70.63 5.00 1.50 27.00 74.70 79.70
Tangent Ogive 4.07 2.75 70.63 5.00 1.50 27.00 74.70 79.70
Tangent Ogive 4.07 2.75 70.63 5.00 1.50 27.00 77.70 79.70 FIN DIMENSIONS 4 Hex 1.000 1.000 0 3.000 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050 4 Hex 2.000 2.000 0.00 1.015 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050
Tangent Ogive 4.07 2.75 70.63 5.00 1.50 27.00 76.70 79.70
Tangent Ogive 4.07 2.75 70.63 5.00 1.43 28.55 75.70 79.70
Number of canards Shape Root Chord Tip Chord Sweep Span % Left Width Root % Left Width Tip % Thickness Root % Thickness Tip Number of tail fins Shape Root Chord Tip Chord Sweep Span (mid) % Left Width Root % Left Width Tip % Thickness Root % Thickness Tip
4 Hex 2.000 2.000 0 3.000 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050 4 Hex 5.000 5.000 0.00 0.625 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050
4 Hex 1.000 1.000 0 3.000 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050 4 Hex 5.000 5.000 0.00 0.625 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050
4 Hex 1.000 1.000 0 3.000 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050 4 Hex 3.000 2.000 23.70 1.138 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050
4 Hex 1.000 1.000 0 4.000 0.500 0.500 0.100 0.100 4 Hex 3.000 1.000 39.81 1.200 0.500 0.500 0.050 0.050
Aerodynamic data supporting the analysis of these cases can be found in Appendix B in Aero_Configuration_Cases.xls.
E-5
LVX Drawings of Selected Aerodynamic Configurations
Hawkeye 03
Hawkeye 04
Hawkeye 06
Hawkeye 08
Hawkeye 09
Hawkeye 10
Hawkeye 11
Hawkeye 14
LVX files can be found in Appendix B under Concepts.lvx. Sizing details for the boattail can be found in Boattail.xls. The geometry comparisons for the final design can be found in Hawkeye14_Geom.xls.
E-6
Appendix F - Propulsion [J. Craft]

Thrust(N) / Time(sec)
10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 Tim e(sec)
Figure F1: Original Thrust profile from GRAINS2 [J. Craft] Table F1: Inputs and Outputs of DES-STAR [J. Craft] Note: inputs are shaded in green
STAR Design program Parameter -50 Web time Thrust Pressure Cf Itot Isp Cstar rb coef Dti De Wfw Pa Cm 4848 0.05 0.734 2.500 5.56 14.7 0.95 0.807 1592.2 2424.5 1.543 1284 231.12 Delf n K00 Alpha Vfw r1000 Pik Pe Ep. tol. FOPD Temperature 70 0.703 1850.0 2800.0 1.552 1300 233.93 0.05498 0.3 0.00001 20.0 101.1 0.40 0.0012 27.46 0 Fuel radius Web thickness No. points Star tip height Tip radius Tip angle Fillet radius Grain length No. ends burning 1.22 0.54 0.7 11.53 0.38 266 0.001 Integrated web volume Integrated fuel volume Sliver fraction (vol) Aft end port area (in2) 100.88 105.7 4.54 1.96 1.25 0.38 4 0.4 0.1 15 0.1 35.838 2
150 0.641 2043.7 3082.1 1.558 1310 235.70 Gamma rb K01 Epson Tauw Asbar Sik
inert wt Vbo
8.00 3970
lbs ft/sec
Blue fuel volumes should be close (If not, MANUALLY change grain
F-1
Propellant properties Cstar C* Delf - propellant density Gamma - ratio of specific heats rb coeff - burn rate coefficient n - burn rate exponent rb - burn rate at design pressure r1000 - burn rate at 1000 psi Pik - temperature sensitivity parameter Sik - temperature sensitivity parameter Nozzle parameters Dti - initial throat diameter K00 - nozzle erosion coefficient K01 - nozzle erosion exponent De - nozzle exit diameter Alpha - nozzle exit half angle Epson - nozzle expansion ratio Pe - nozzle exit pressure Grain geometry Wfw - required propellant weight (to web) Vfw - required propellant volume (to web) Tauw - required web thickness Asbar - required average surface area Miscellaneous Pa - ambient pressure Cm - combustion efficiency 5.81
length above, but remember to change it back before you exit.)
Note: this spreadsheed is set for MANUAL calculation (F9)
F-2
Grain cross section
Figure F2: Grain Cross-section from DES-STAR [J. Craft]
Performance
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.2 0.4 time 0.6 0.8 pressure thrust
Figure F3: Performance profile from DES-STAR [J. Craft]
F-3
Hand Calculations
F-4
F-5
F-6
Appendix G - Structures
Appendix G.1 [Z. Butler] Table G1: Casing parameters based on internal pressure analysis for the motor casing [Z. Butler] Includes weight, volume, and materials cost.
Rocket Casing All Thicknesses are to the nearest 1/16 of an inch for an internal design pressure of at least 4000 psi. Material Density Yeild (lb/in^3) Strength (ksi) Aluminum 7075-T6 Stainless Steel 301 Full Hard Graphite Epoxy Composite 0.100 0.270 0.055 66 135 280
Ultimate Strength (ksi) 77 185 280
Elastic Modulus (Msi) 10.4 27 19
Cost ($/lb)
Thickness (in.)
$1.814 $3.630 $25.000
0.125 0.0625 0.0625
Volume (in^3) @ (38.84 in. length) 20.4955 10.3669 10.3669
Casing Weight (lb) 2.0495 2.7991 0.5702
Casing Materials Cost ($) $3.718 $10.161 $14.254
Table G2: Casing parameters based on external stress analysis for the guidance casing [Z. Butler] Includes weight, volume, and materials cost
Guidance Casing Material Density (lb/in^3) 0.100 0.270 0.055 Yeild Strength (ksi) 66 135 280 Ultimate Strength (ksi) 77 185 280 Elastic Modulus (Msi) 10.4 27 19 Cost ($/lb) $1.814 $3.630 $25.000 Thickness (in.) 0.125 0.0625 0.0625 Volume (in^3) 6.0547 3.0873 3.0873 Casing Weight (lb) 0.6055 0.8336 0.1698 Casing Materials Cost ($) $1.098 $3.026 $4.245
Aluminum 7075-T6 Stainless Steel 301 Full Hard Graphite Epoxy Composite
G-1
Table G3: Total weight of guidance and motor casings with the possible combinations of the materials considered [Z. Butler]
Guidance Casing Material Weight Combinations (lb) Rocket Aluminum Stainless Graphite Casing 7075-T6 Steel 301 Full Epoxy Material Hard Composite Aluminum 7075-T6 Stainless Steel 301 Full Hard Graphite Epoxy Composite 2.66 3.40 1.18 2.88 3.63 1.40 2.22 2.97 0.74
NOTE: The number in bold represents the choice we made.
Table G4: Total costs of guidance and motor casings with the possible combinations of the materials considered [Z. Butler]
Guidance Casing Material Weight Combinations (lb) Rocket Aluminum Stainless Graphite Casing 7075-T6 Steel 301 Full Epoxy Material Hard Composite Aluminum 7075-T6 Stainless Steel 301 Full Hard Graphite Epoxy Composite $4.82 $11.26 $15.35 $6.74 $13.19 $17.28 $7.96 $14.41 $18.50
NOTE: The number in bold represents the choice we made.
G-2
Appendix G.2 [Z. Butler] Bending and Buckling Analysis Summary.

Equations Used in Casing Analysis:
Bending Stress: Equation G1
max =
M S
where M is the maximum bending couple (moment) in the casing and S is the section modulus of the casing. Section Modulus: Equation G2
S= I , c
where I is the moment of inertia of the casing cross section at a plane perpendicular to the bending couple and c is the maximum distance from the neutral centroidal axis. In this situation, since the centroidal axis is through the centerline of the casing, I is the same as the polar moment of inertia JO. Polar Moment of Inertia: Equation G3
JO =
(r
4 outer
4 rinner ,
where router is half the outside casing diameter and rinner is the difference of router and the casing thickness.
G-3
Total Moment vs. Axial Distance

60000
50000
40000 Total Moment [in-lbf]
30000
20000
10000
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Axial Distance from Nose [in.]
Figure G1: Bending Moment Diagram with Axial Distance measured from the nose [Z. Butler]
G-4
Stress vs. Axial Position

80
Thousands Stress [psi]
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Axial Position [in]
Figure G2: Bending Stress Diagram with Axial Distance measured from the nose [Z. Butler]
G-5
Appendix G.3 [Z. Butler] Table G5: Center of Gravity Position and Weight for ATM Components and Entire ATM at Launch and after Propellant Burnout (SST Nozzle, SST Motor Casing) [Z. Butler]
Center of Gravity (in Moment from Length of from nose) Weight (lb) Nose (in-lbf) Module (in) Warhead 16.800 13.60 228.480 26.8 Guidance Casing 32.550 0.73 23.762 (Al) Battery 38.753 2.00 77.506 IMU 32.047 0.80 25.638 Canards (4) 29.050 0.24 29.492 Other Guidance 32.550 2.23 47.354 Components Guidance Module 33.958 6.00 203.750 10.9 Propellant (initially) 56.7 Motor Casing 56.7 (SST) Bulkhead 38.35 Motor Insulation 56.7 Tail Fins (4) 77.200 Nozzle (SST) 77.123 Propulsion 62.647 13.78 Module Total, Full Propellant Total, No Propellant 38.809 35.018 33.38 27.54 5.81 2.79 0.21 0.75 0.16 4.04 330.844 158.193 7.900 42.525 12.352 311.268 863.083 42.0 1295.313 964.469 79.7 79.7 Starting Position of Module (in) 0.0
26.8
37.7 79.7 79.7
G-6
Appendix G.4 [Z. Butler]

Equations Used in Insulation and Heat Transfer Analysis:
Conduction: Equation G4
q" =
k (Tsurface1 Tsurface 2 ) x
where q is the heat flux (in Btu/s-in2), k is the thermal conductivity of the material (or medium) through which the heat is transferred, and x is the thickness of the material. The values of Tsurface1 and Tsurface2 are the temperatures on each side of the material. Convection: Equation G5
q" = h(Tsurface Tambient ) ,
where h is the convective heat transfer coefficient, Tsurface is the surface temperature, and Tambient is the temperature of the medium through which the surface is moving. This equation is used to determine the minimum amount of heat that can be dissipated into the air in flight to prevent overheating of the structural motor casing as well as the insulation itself. Dimensional analysis must also be performed to obtain the value of the heat transfer coefficient h. The following nondimensional parameters are used in order to provide a reasonably accurate value of h: For the purposes of this analysis, the convection heat transfer was approximated as flow over a flat plate. Because the cylindrical casing is generally parallel to the flow, this approximation is accurate enough (on the order of 25%) for the purposes of this design. In the event that the flow is normal to the casing (characterized by a flight path angle of 90), the flat plate approximation would not be accurate enough and flow over a cylinder approximations would be necessary. However, given that a vertical flight path is not likely to occur during the burn time of the motor, the correlations for that will be omitted. Reynolds Number: Equation G6 Re x =
Vx
where V is the flow velocity, x is the distance of the measured location from the leading edge (or nose) of the missile, and is the kinematic viscosity of the flow medium (air) at the highest ambient temperature of operation to ensure that the casing can safely dissipate the heat created by the motor. Nusselt Number: Equation G7
/5 Nu x = 0.0308 Re 4 Pr 1 / 3 , x
where Rex is the Reynolds number, Pr is the Prandtl number (which is 0.700 for air), and Nux is the Nusselt number. G-7
Equation G8
Nu x =
Nu x k hx , or h = , k x
where h is the convection heat transfer coefficient, x is the distance from the leading edge (in this case, the position at which the motor casing begins measured from the nose), and k is the thermal conductivity of the casing material. From this, the heat transfer coefficient can be determined and used in conjunction with Finite Difference methods to determine the heat transfer rate through the casing and insulation by transient heat transfer assumptions. The Finite Difference Method: In this analysis, the system was assumed to be one-dimensional (as a plane wall) to simplify the analysis. This assumption is valid because the thickness is much less than the diameter of the cylinder. First, a finite-difference form of the Biot number Bi is obtained by Equation G9
Bi = hx , k
where a distance step of x is introduced for accuracy. Then, a time step of t is chosen in order to compute a Fourier number Fo: Equation G10
Fo =
(x )2
The factor is the thermal diffusivity, Equation G11
k , c
where c is the specific heat (at constant pressure) and is the material density.
G-8
The following Finite-Difference equations are derived in Incropera & DeWitt (Incropera, F. P., and D. P. DeWitt. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, Fifth ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 7, 386-399, 2002.): For an interior node within the conducting (or insulating) material, Equation G12
Tmp +1 = Fo Tmp+1 + Tmp1 + (1 2 Fo )Tmp ,
where m is the position of the temperature node into the material and p is the time interval being evaluated. For an exterior node exposed to convection, Equation G13
T0p +1 = 2 Fo T1 p + BiT + (1 2 Fo 2 BiFo )T0p ,
where the same superscripts apply as in Equation 15, and the subscript 0 refers to the exterior node for which the temperature is being evaluated and 1 refers to the node next to it into the conducting material.
G-9
Appendix G.5 [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo] Rear Fin Deployment and Spring Drawings
G-10
G-11
Appendix G.6 [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo] Additional images of French models
G-12
G-13
Appendix H - Avionics [J. Collier]

Additional drawing of canards and controlling servomotors and supports by J. Collier
H-1
H-2
Appendix I - Trajectory [B. Goodson and E. Waters]

Launch 2 Trajectory Outputs Note** the filenames denote the following in this order Name of Rocket, Temperature conditions at launch, Best and worst Case drag scenarios with MAX being the worst case original being the best case, and finally which mission either helicopter or ground. Project: Initial Settings: Hawkeye Cold Max Ground
Tower Length [m]: 2.00 Tower Elevation [Deg]: 20.00 Flight Heading [Deg]: 270.00 Tower Position above Sea Level [m]: 0.00 Geographical Latitude of Tower Position [Deg]: 56.00 Stages: Stage 1 Empty Weight [kg]: Stage 1 Rocket Diameter [mm]: Stage 1 Drag Coefficient: Motor 1 Burning Time [s]: Motor 1 Propellant Weight [kg]: Motor 1 Specific Impulse [s]: Motor 1 Remanence [%]: Motor 1 Total Impulse [Ns]: 12.50 63.50 0.77 1.40 2.64 231.76 5.00 6005.85
Trajectory Data: Time (s) Altitude (m) Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) Ignition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.10 0.82 48.60 500.50 Burnout 1.40 132.76 445.70 10.00 Apogee 10.74 668.37 224.41 15.26 Touchdown 23.50 -0.76 160.30 7.86 Extreme Values: Velocity 445.8532m/s Acceleration 580.0098m/s2 Nominal Touchdown Position: 5425.49m at 270.00deg
Project: Initial Settings: Tower Length [m]: Tower Elevation [Deg]:
Hawkeye Cold Max Helicopter 2.00 15.00 I-1
Flight Heading [Deg]: 270.00 Tower Position above Sea Level [m]: 0.00 Geographical Latitude of Tower Position [Deg]: 56.00 Stages: Stage 1 Empty Weight [kg]: Stage 1 Rocket Diameter [mm]: Stage 1 Drag Coefficient: Motor 1 Burning Time [s]: Motor 1 Propellant Weight [kg]: Motor 1 Specific Impulse [s]: Motor 1 Remanence [%]: Motor 1 Total Impulse [Ns]: Trajectory Data: Time (s) Altitude (m) Ignition 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.10 0.62 Burnout 1.40 96.38 Apogee 8.56 399.11 Touchdown 18.32 -0.75 12.50 63.50 0.77 1.40 2.64 231.76 5.00 6005.85 Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) 0.00 0.00 48.68 501.32 446.84 9.96 256.94 18.24 174.88 9.51
Extreme Values: Velocity 446.9398m/s Acceleration 580.8274m/s2 Nominal Touchdown Position: 4760.96m at 270.00deg
Project:
Hawkeye Cold Original Ground
Initial Settings: Tower Length [m]: 2.00 Tower Elevation [Deg]: 20.00 Flight Heading [Deg]: 270.00 Tower Position above Sea Level [m]: 0.00 Geographical Latitude of Tower Position [Deg]: 56.00 Stages: Stage 1 Empty Weight [kg]: Stage 1 Rocket Diameter [mm]: Stage 1 Drag Coefficient: Motor 1 Burning Time [s]: Motor 1 Propellant Weight [kg]: Motor 1 Specific Impulse [s]: Motor 1 Remanence [%]: Motor 1 Total Impulse [Ns]: 12.50 63.50 0.54 1.40 2.64 231.76 5.00 6005.85
I-2
Trajectory Data: Time (s) Altitude (m) Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) Ignition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.10 0.82 48.60 500.51 Burnout 1.40 132.82 446.10 9.86 Apogee 12.79 836.03 316.92 11.44 Touchdown 26.32 -0.42 281.13 8.89 Extreme Values: Velocity 446.2221m/s Acceleration 580.4292m/s2 Nominal Touchdown Position: 8372.99m at 270.00deg Project: Hawkeye Cold Original Helicopter Initial Settings: Tower Length [m]: 2.00 Tower Elevation [Deg]: 15.00 Flight Heading [Deg]: 270.00 Tower Position above Sea Level [m]: 0.00 Geographical Latitude of Tower Position [Deg]: 56.00 Stages: Stage 1 Empty Weight [kg]: Stage 1 Rocket Diameter [mm]: Stage 1 Drag Coefficient: Motor 1 Burning Time [s]: Motor 1 Propellant Weight [kg]: Motor 1 Specific Impulse [s]: Motor 1 Remanence [%]: Motor 1 Total Impulse [Ns]: Trajectory Data: Time (s) Altitude (m) Ignition 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.10 0.62 Burnout 1.40 96.49 Apogee 9.81 473.89 Touchdown 19.96 -0.20 12.49 63.50 0.54 1.40 2.64 231.76 5.00 6005.85 Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) 0.00 0.00 48.70 501.60 447.50 9.86 342.47 12.45 296.17 9.59
Project: Initial Settings: Tower Length [m]:
Hawkeye Hot Max Ground 2.00
I-3
Tower Elevation [Deg]: 20.00 Flight Heading [Deg]: 270.00 Tower Position above Sea Level [m]: 0.00 Geographical Latitude of Tower Position [Deg]: 56.00 Stages: Stage 1 Empty Weight [kg]: Stage 1 Rocket Diameter [mm]: Stage 1 Drag Coefficient: Motor 1 Burning Time [s]: Motor 1 Propellant Weight [kg]: Motor 1 Specific Impulse [s]: Motor 1 Remanence [%]: Motor 1 Total Impulse [Ns]: 12.50 63.50 0.77 1.10 2.64 236.65 5.00 6132.67
Trajectory Data: Time (s) Altitude (m) Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) Ignition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.09 0.86 56.30 646.12 Burnout 1.10 110.08 459.89 9.90 Apogee 10.91 708.61 222.56 15.09 Touchdown 24.07 -0.63 159.80 7.71 Extreme Values: Velocity 459.9242m/s Acceleration 742.4527m/s2 Nominal Touchdown Position: 5549.06m at 270.00deg Project: Hawkeye Hot Max Helicopter
Initial Settings: Tower Length [m]: 2.00 Tower Elevation [Deg]: 15.00 Flight Heading [Deg]: 270.00 Tower Position above Sea Level [m]: 0.00 Geographical Latitude of Tower Position [Deg]: 56.00 Stages: Stage 1 Empty Weight [kg]: Stage 1 Rocket Diameter [mm]: Stage 1 Drag Coefficient: Motor 1 Burning Time [s]: Motor 1 Propellant Weight [kg]: Motor 1 Specific Impulse [s]: Motor 1 Remanence [%]: Motor 1 Total Impulse [Ns]: Trajectory Data: 12.50 63.50 0.77 1.10 2.64 236.65 5.00 6132.67
I-4
Time (s) Altitude (m) Ignition 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.09 0.65 Burnout 1.10 80.96 Apogee 8.75 431.44 Touchdown 18.91 -0.11
Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) 0.00 0.00 56.37 646.94 460.78 9.89 254.18 17.95 172.77 9.28
Extreme Values: Velocity 460.8017m/s Acceleration 743.2684m/s2 Nominal Touchdown Position: 4905.05m at 270.00deg Project: Hawkeye Hot Original Ground
Trajectory Data: Time (s) Altitude (m) Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) Ignition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.09 0.86 56.30 646.14 Burnout 1.10 110.12 460.20 9.77 Apogee 13.14 902.48 317.48 11.44 Touchdown 27.22 -0.96 281.55 8.81 Extreme Values: Velocity 460.2314m/s Acceleration 742.8811m/s2 Nominal Touchdown Position: 8725.55m at 270.00deg Project: Initial Settings: Tower Length [m]: Hawkeye Hot Original Helicopter 2.00
I-5
Tower Elevation [Deg]: 15.00 Flight Heading [Deg]: 270.00 Tower Position above Sea Level [m]: 0.00 Geographical Latitude of Tower Position [Deg]: 56.00 Stages: Stage 1 Empty Weight [kg]: Stage 1 Rocket Diameter [mm]: Stage 1 Drag Coefficient: Motor 1 Burning Time [s]: Motor 1 Propellant Weight [kg]: Motor 1 Specific Impulse [s]: Motor 1 Remanence [%]: Motor 1 Total Impulse [Ns]: Trajectory Data: Time (s) Altitude (m) Ignition 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.09 0.65 Burnout 1.10 81.04 Apogee 10.16 522.38 Touchdown 20.83 -0.51 12.49 63.50 0.54 1.10 2.64 236.65 5.00 6132.67 Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) 0.00 0.00 56.40 647.30 461.37 9.79 342.99 12.46 295.56 9.50
Project:
Hawkeye Medium Max Ground
Initial Settings: Tower Length [m]: 2.00 Tower Elevation [Deg]: 20.00 Flight Heading [Deg]: 270.00 Tower Position above Sea Level [m]: 0.00 Geographical Latitude of Tower Position [Deg]: 56.00 Stages: Stage 1 Empty Weight [kg]: Stage 1 Rocket Diameter [mm]: Stage 1 Drag Coefficient: Motor 1 Burning Time [s]: Motor 1 Propellant Weight [kg]: Motor 1 Specific Impulse [s]: Motor 1 Remanence [%]: 12.50 63.50 0.77 1.20 2.64 234.40 5.00
I-6
Motor 1 Total Impulse [Ns]:
6074.22
Trajectory Data: Time (s) Altitude (m) Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) Ignition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.09 0.77 50.85 582.84 Burnout 1.20 117.04 453.88 10.01 Apogee 10.82 689.76 223.21 15.15 Touchdown 23.79 -0.25 159.96 7.78 Extreme Values: Velocity 454.0423m/s Acceleration 684.4092m/s2 Nominal Touchdown Position: 5485.81m at 270.00deg Project: Hawkeye Medium Max Helicopter Initial Settings: Tower Length [m]: 2.00 Tower Elevation [Deg]: 15.00 Flight Heading [Deg]: 270.00 Tower Position above Sea Level [m]: 0.00 Geographical Latitude of Tower Position [Deg]: 56.00 Stages: Stage 1 Empty Weight [kg]: Stage 1 Rocket Diameter [mm]: Stage 1 Drag Coefficient: Motor 1 Burning Time [s]: Motor 1 Propellant Weight [kg]: Motor 1 Specific Impulse [s]: Motor 1 Remanence [%]: Motor 1 Total Impulse [Ns]: Trajectory Data: Time (s) Altitude (m) Ignition 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.09 0.59 Burnout 1.20 85.64 Apogee 8.65 416.53 Touchdown 18.63 -0.32 12.50 63.50 0.77 1.20 2.64 234.40 5.00 6074.22 Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) 0.00 0.00 50.92 583.66 454.86 9.98 255.21 18.06 173.61 9.38
Project:
Hawkeye Medium Original Ground
I-7
Trajectory Data: Time (s) Altitude (m) Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) Ignition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.09 0.77 50.85 582.85 Burnout 1.20 117.09 454.23 9.87 Apogee 12.98 872.90 317.16 11.44 Touchdown 26.82 -1.11 281.33 8.85 Extreme Values: Velocity 454.3560m/s Acceleration 684.8350m/s2 Nominal Touchdown Position: 8568.89m at 270.00deg Project: Hawkeye Medium Original Helicopter Initial Settings: Tower Length [m]: 2.00 Tower Elevation [Deg]: 15.00 Flight Heading [Deg]: 270.00 Tower Position above Sea Level [m]: 0.00 Geographical Latitude of Tower Position [Deg]: 56.00 Stages: Stage 1 Empty Weight [kg]: Stage 1 Rocket Diameter [mm]: Stage 1 Drag Coefficient: Motor 1 Burning Time [s]: Motor 1 Propellant Weight [kg]: Motor 1 Specific Impulse [s]: Motor 1 Remanence [%]: Motor 1 Total Impulse [Ns]: 12.49 63.50 0.54 1.20 2.64 234.40 5.00 6074.22
I-8
Trajectory Data: Time (s) Altitude (m) Ignition 0.00 0.00 Tower 0.09 0.59 Burnout 1.20 85.73 Apogee 10.00 500.80 Touchdown 20.44 -0.24
Velocity (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) 0.00 0.00 50.95 583.98 455.47 9.87 342.67 12.45 295.77 9.54
Extreme Values: Velocity 455.5497m/s Acceleration 686.0828m/s2 Nominal Touchdown Position: 6993.59m at 270
Ballistic Trajectory for Ground

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000 800
70 deg bur n - 50 deg burn 150 deg burn
600
400
200
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 R a ng e ( f t ) 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Figure I1: Ballistic Failsafe Trajectory for Gound
I-9
Ballistic Trajectories from Helicopter
1400 1200 1000 Altitude (ft) 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Range (ft) 70 deg burn 150 deg burn -50 deg burn
Figure I2: Ballistic Failsafe Trajectory for Helicopter

Dead on Range
900
800
700
600
500 400
70 deg burn -50 deg bur n 150 deg bur n
300
200
100
0 0 2000 4000 6000 R a ng e ( f t ) 8000 10000 12000 14000
Figure I3: Line of Sight Firing from Helicopter
I-10
Dead On Ground Velocities 450 400 350 300

Velocity (m/s)
250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 Time (s) 10 12 14 16
70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure I4: Line of Sight Velocity Profile for Helicopter
Dead on Helicopter Range

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000 800
600
400
200
0 0 5000 10000 15000 R a n ge ( f t ) 20000 25000 30000
I-11
Figure I5: Line of Sight Helicopter Range
Helicopter Velocities
450 400 350 300 Velocity (m/s) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 Time (s) 25 30 35 40 70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure I6: Line of Sight Helicopter Launch Velocities
Crossw ind Range

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000 800
600
400
200
0 0 5000 10000 15000 R a n ge ( f t ) 20000 25000 30000
Figure I7: Range for Helicopter with Crosswind and Platform Error
I-12
Flat Earth Model

250
200
Correction (side) Movement (ft)
150
70 deg burn 100 -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
50
0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
-50 Range (ft)
Figure I8:Recovery for Helicopter Mission in crosswind and platform error
Helicopter Velocities
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 T ime ( s) 25 30 35 40 70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure I9: Helicopter Crosswind Velocities
I-13
Range w ith platform error and crossw ind

900
800
700
600
500 400
300
200
100
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
R a n ge ( f e e t )
Figure I10: Ground Launch Range with Crosswind and Error
Flat Earth Model

100
80
60
70 deg burn 40 -50 deg bur n 150 deg bur n
20
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
- 20 R a n ge ( f t )
Figure I11: Ground Recovery for Crosswind and Platform Error
I-14
Ground Velocity Graph

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 T ime ( s) 10 12 14 16 18 70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn
Figure I12: Ground Range Velocities with Crosswind
Max L/D Range

6000
5000
4000
3000
Helicopt er Ground
2000
1000
0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
R a ng e ( f t )
Figure I13: Max L/D graphs for both missions at 70 deg F.
I-15
Max Copter Range 1800 1600 1400 1200 Altitude (m) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 Range (m) 8000 10000 12000 MAX L/D PROP NAV
Figure I14: Max Range from Helicopter compared to Max L/D All attached graphs are from AP02 output files.
I-16

IPT2003 Phase3 Final Report Team3

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

IPT2003 Phase3 Final Report Team3

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Final Proposal: Advanced Tactical Missile (ATM)

April 24, 2003

The University of Alabama in Huntsville April 24, 2003

ATM Compliance List

2.6.2 2.6.3 2.6.4

Common Terms and Acronyms List [M. McWhorter]

Team-Specific Terms and Acronyms List

Figure 1: Artist Drawing [S. Paul]

Figure 2: Artist Drawing [S. Paul] IPT 3:

Figure 4 shows a three-view drawing of the Night Hawks ATM

Unit Production Cost Temperature

Hazards Classification 1.5

$13,341 per missile

Meets Objective 1.3

The Implementation [T. Towry]

2.0 Technical Description of Methods Used

Value 13.60 lbs

13.78 lbs 33.38 lbs

M i Vel 2 q S ref C N ,TRIM

2.0 Height (in)

Figure 8: Detail of Hawkeye Aft, Actual Geometry [J. Ipnar]

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 74.0

Figure 10: Drag Coefficient vs. Mach Number [J. Ipnar]

Trim Normal Force M=0.5 15 10 5

d=0 d = 10 d = 20 (canard deflections)

Trim Normal Force M=1.5 15 10 5 CM 0 -5 -10 -15 0 2 4 CN

d=0 d = 10 d = 20 (canard deflections)

Figure 11: Trim Normal Force [J. Ipnar]

Trim Drag (drag added) M=1.5 15 10 5 CM 0 -5 -10 -15

d=0 d = 10 d = 20 (canard deflections)

Figure 12: Trim Drag [J. Ipnar]

30 25 20 M = 2.0 M = 1.5 M = 1.1 M = 0.7 M = 0.5

level flight not maintained

0 -5 0 5 Angle of Attack (deg) 10

Figure 13: Maneuverability gs available for pitch maneuver [J. Ipnar]

Radius of Turn (km)

Propulsion Propellant Design [J. Craft]

Vprop Mprop Ab, i

Web time Thrust Pressure Cf It

-50 deg F 70 deg F 150 deg F

Figure 19: Nozzle [J. Sterling] 2.5 Structures

0 0 0.5 1 Time [sec] 1.5 2 2.5

Figure 20: Temperature at propulsion-casing interface [Z. Butler] IPT 3:

Figure 21: Folded Tailfins [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo] IPT 3:

Figure 22: Unfolded Tailfins [C. Bourbon, G. Fouques, T. Gualdo] 26

Figure 23: Canard Hinge Detail [J. Collier]

Avionics [J. Collier]

70 deg burn -50 deg burn 150 deg burn

Ignition Groove Rear fin

Fin groove Nozzle Exit

0.287 in 0.2 in 0.437 in 4 in

3.0 Implementation Issues [T. Towry]

Cost per missle =

Feasibility [T. Towry]

4.0 Company Capabilities [S. Paul]

5.0 Summary and Conclusions [S. Paul]

Recommendations [T. Towry]

Appendix A - Concept Description Document

Fig 1. Platform Error

Fig 2. MPSM Warhead Accuracy Requirement - Wall in Space Definition

Table 1. Contract Data Requirements

Appendix 2 M261 Launcher

Appendix 3 M261 MPSM Warhead

Appendix B - Electronic File Index [S. Paul]