crobatoLike I said time will make him great. And future Americans will be greatful.
While they wait in the unemployment line, lets figure out whom they will be thankful for.
crobatoJust for people wondering where “frigate” = “cruiser” idea came from, the original sailing vessels where the term “frigates” originated from, were in effect, the cruisers of the Age of Sail. Man of Wars and Ships of the Lines were in effect, the battleships. The frigates were ships intended for autonomous long range patrol, interdiction and interception duties, and can navigate the oceans for as long as half the year.
But they were also ships with one or two lines of guns. Basically for the Europeans, it was one line. But the early USN had frigates that had two lines of guns like Old Ironsides. With only one or two lines of guns, these ships were also smaller, more sea worthy and more maneuverable than three to four line Ships of the Line that were like the battleships of the era and would certainly outgun and out power them. So hence also came the idea that frigate = “small”.
Destroyer on the other hand, is short for “Torpedo Boat Destroyer”. The original idea of the destroyer is a ship used to escort battleships and others against torpedo boats, which were becoming a serious threat towards the end of the 1800s. Submarines later supplanted the torpedo boat, followed by aircraft.
crobatoConsidering the Leahys, Belknaps, Bainbridge, and Truxtun were reclassified as CG/CGNs that’s understandable. Then on the other end you have the 11,000 ton Californias which started off being referred to as frigates. :confused:
These are DL or Destroyer Leader, which prior to 1975, was also used for “Frigate” at least in the USN. In 1975, there was reorganization in the classification, and all Destroyer Leaders aka frigates, become cruisers. After 1975, Destroyer Escorts become the Frigates.
The French calls all their ships, frigates, though there are Type 1 and Type II. Type I is akin to a destroyer, while Type II is something you would associate more as a destroyer escort.
crobatoMore deflection huh? How ’bout you admit you didn’t know what the hell you were talking about when you said,
“Note, its also a factor in the obsolescence of the Talos.”
Oh, and while you’re at it you can tell us how you didn’t know what the hell you were talking about when you said the screens on the F-117s intakes absorb radar too. Once you’ve don’t that you can attempt to impress us some more. 😉
As a note don’t think I actually believed what SOC said about the F-117 screens. If you want to make something reflect, you won’t be using screens which lets radar waves pass through.
And yes, it is a factor in the obsolescence of the Talos. Obsolescence means little in the way of upgrade path. With the way Talos is configured it leaves little room or means in developing a more advanced RF seeker.
crobatoAnd yeah, I’m familiar with other forms of ramjet intakes- likely far more than you.
And your continued lack of technical expertise on this make me laugh at loud LULZ sfool.
Read everything what I have said once again and see how it relates to the last few posts on the surface targeting ability.
The problem of using a ramjet with the inlet on front is that you’re literally designing a missile around the engine and trying to fit components on the spare spaces. That isn’t an optimal design approach where you should be able to consider all the components first, have them logically laid out, then add the engine. Not enough space, add some length and figure out the C/G effects. With a centerbody, you’re stuck with the space inside and you cannot expand the space without some serious thermodynamic issues since the design of the inlet is critical to ramjet performance since it is the part that is responsible for air compression.
Its not just the size of the array that is limited but the fact that its FOV is as well. If you got a planar array inside, try twisting it around and see how much FOV you get without interfering at the side walls of the “mouth” as opposed to a radome that has a clear view of the front and sides.
Better yet, with pure radome on front, the missile can alter the seeker type. The Kh-31P and Kh-31A (passive HARM and active AshM respectively) have radomes of slightly different shape. But you can’t do that on a radome on the end of an inlet centerbody because changing the shape alters the engine characteristics. The shape used for an infrared seeker or for an electro-optical seeker, has to be round or flattened for the glass window and for the least optical distortion, again, you can’t use that on an inlet centerbody.
Given that a forward section of the missile is dedicated to the warhead and guidance systems alone, its far easier to do variations like adding a thermal seeker with the radar system to create a dual seeker. Its far easier to open the missile, upgrade the systems, instead of tearing up the upper section of the engine to access the centerbody or pulling out the centerbody for the upgrade. Remember Humpty Dumpty, you might not put things together as well again.
crobatoStick it in a missile cell tube though and where do you put the inlets? That and you get the best airflow quality up front which what you want if at all possible. Being in the centerbody might have limited airborne radar back in the 50’s but you can easily squeeze one into today’s antiship missile. Hell just stick the seeker from Harpoon in it (over 30 years old itself), it’d fit. Today you could fit an even better / smaller one in it. Brimstone is just over 6″ diameter and it’s got an active radar seeker. As for the Meteor, or Kh-31 they’re not 21″ in diameter so needless to say they wouldn’t have large centerbodies.
Jesus christ, you have not seen other ramjet designs do you? They got their inlets on the side. Certainly its not a problem for the Granit or Sunburn or the Kh-31 or the Meteor.
The problem of using a ramjet with the inlet on front is that you’re literally designing a missile around the engine and trying to fit components on the spare spaces. That isn’t an optimal design approach where you should be able to consider all the components first, have them logically laid out, then add the engine. Not enough space, add some length and figure out the C/G effects. With a centerbody, you’re stuck with the space inside and you cannot expand the space without some serious thermodynamic issues since the design of the inlet is critical to ramjet performance since it is the part that is responsible for air compression.
Its not just the size of the array that is limited but the fact that its FOV is as well. If you got a planar array inside, try twisting it around and see how much FOV you get without interfering at the side walls of the “mouth” as opposed to a radome that has a clear view of the front and sides.
Better yet, with pure radome on front, the missile can alter the seeker type. The Kh-31P and Kh-31A (passive HARM and active AshM respectively) have radomes of slightly different shape. But you can’t do that on a radome on the end of an inlet centerbody because changing the shape alters the engine characteristics. The shape used for an infrared seeker or for an electro-optical seeker, has to be round or flattened for the glass window and for the least optical distortion, again, you can’t use that on an inlet centerbody.
Given that a forward section of the missile is dedicated to the warhead and guidance systems alone, its far easier to do variations like adding a thermal seeker with the radar system to create a dual seeker. Its far easier to open the missile, upgrade the systems, instead of tearing up the upper section of the engine to access the centerbody or pulling out the centerbody for the upgrade. Remember Humpty Dumpty, you might not put things together as well again.
crobatoYou’re beating a dead horse. Fitting a suitable seeker in a nosebody is doable. India has done it with Brahmos. Others have as well. It’s arguably MORE suitable than “side inlets” that you’re promoting as those use space less efficiently.
Not really. Note, by far the great majority of missiles, from rocket to ramjet to turbine, all have full noses. This lets them make full use of the missile’s diameter for the seeker array size and back end electronics. This phenomenon has also been reflected in aircraft, where round inlet noses has all but abandoned. The side inlets I am saying is about the jet intakes. Look at the Meteor, the KS-172, and the Kh-31.
crobatoHyFly and RATTLRS are currently in various stages of developement so it would make sense these might be players. HyFly’s first two tests failed for reasons unrelated to the propulsion system and a third flight is planned for 2010. RATTLRS is still being developed with flight testing as yet undetermined. The RJ102 engine apparently ran into delays with part sourcing (ceramic bearings or some such which I imagine would be due to lead times) and according to AvWeek a couple weeks ago Williams International is also testing a turbojet in that class (small, Mach 4 dry). Anyway, both HyFly and RATTLRS are sized to fit in a MK41 VLS. The X-51 is probably too big for a cell.
You’re trying to make a connection, when there is in fact, nothing to suggest there is. It didn’t even say it has to be supersonic. Right now, this is so vague—because the proposal is hunting for ideas. Concepts are concepts, they are only tested for technological feasibility, but for it to reach the finish line, it has be grounded with other concerns.
And besides, the X-51 with its slanted sides, makes it better for dielectric RAM and planform alignment, for improved VLO qualities, as opposed to missiles with curved and rounded sides like the HyFly. Combined with a nose that can hold a much larger radar, so it can raise the range of the acquisition envelope.
crobatoShipwreck, Yakhont, Brahmos, RATTLRS, HyFly, Fasthawk.
Shipwreck is old. I’m criticizing the layout for the next two. The last three are demonstrators for tactical missiles which is apt not to use a radar on the nose but rather some INS likely based on GPS.
crobatoSay what?
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/rattlrs.html
They do have the whole legacy thing going for them though 😀
It does not appear to have a radar though.
Jonesy, oh I see you meant antenna gain.
crobatoLOL Quit trying to change the subject. It didn’t go out of service because it had a (relatively) small centerbody. The crux of your “arguement”. Nobody has ever claimed there weren’t more efficient methods. You’re obviously unaware of Talos’ successor “Typhon” which also had a ramjet intake in the nose (as did Sea Dart). Typhon had a 200 mile range in a roughly Terrier-sized envelope. I’d say that was efficient packaging. It (Typhon ) didn’t die because of it’s airframe, it died because of the radar system associated with it.
Dude, once again, no current or future ramjet design is using a rounded inlet design for this reason.
Jonesy, the dipoles only appear on the front upper body and not the entire length. For the interferometry to work, at least two of the antennas have to receive the signal, which is not possible unless the signal is from the front. The angular gain is not from the length of the dipole but rather the spacing between the antennas.
crobatoExcept for storage space which is at a premium on a ship. The wings weren’t fitted until right before it was run out onto the launch rail so storage in the magazine was relatively compact compared to needing additional space for intakes on the side.
Boy you’re totally off. It has nothing to do with the wings. Once again, where are you going to put the back end processing systems for the Talos.
crobatoLet’s put this in perspective with an amusing photo. As you can see, while the centerbody may be small in relation to the missile the missile is large enough that the centerbody is still pretty good sized in absolute terms. Even so it had ZERO to do with it being taken out of service. The thing was 33 feet long and required LARGE ships to carry it. The smallest so fitted was something like 14,000 tons. (Long Beach)
You really don’t understand do you? Only an idiot would never think outside of his mental box.
That’s the entire reason why the whole thing died. It is INEFFICIENT compared to the alternatives. For a missile that size with a different configuration, you would have gotten a bigger bang/performance for the pound. You think about it. If you got a missile of the same size, with a different nose configuration, the radar performance would simply have been better.
That’s the reason why no one—except for this particular Russian missile—ever used this configuration anymore. Even all the ramjet based missiles since, have a solid nose.
crobatoAnd? The point is that the intake centerbody in the Talos does not house a receiver assembly for the SARH guidance system.
No but it can still house the back end processing for the guidance system and for the beam rider. Which is not to say that this configuration offers a lot relative to a different configuration with a solid nose given the same size and weight. Plus warhead, fuse, and the battery power supply. You’re not going to put that along the tube that makes up the missile body which is passageway for the air to the combustion chamber. Space is always a premium in a missile and this is always a most important consideration in its design.
crobatoFFS it didn’t have a dish behind the nose. It used the four antenna around the nose.
Dude. Read again. Small. Why do you think in the first place SARH missiles don’t use the system like on the Talos? If you wanted to put a more effective dish based array on the Talos, you are compromised. The system leaves very little in the way of an upgrade path. Not to mention the corresponding drag the external antennas create.
Sign In
