Anti ship missile.......

Army of One · June 17, 2016, 08:11:04 AM

Fellow whiffers......I know this is the whiffiverse but, just want some thoughts on an idea. What do you think of an AIM54 with the pointy bit replaced by a not so pointy bit and an intake underneath (sea eagle style) for a mach 1 ship killer. I was thinking of chopping the pointy bit of and replacing with a gentler point and saying most mods internal and engine replaced with a range of say 40-50 miles. Been comparing stats with the Sea Eagle, Harpoon, Exocet and sizes and weights are all within what I'd want this to be carried by. Basically I love the F14 and have a shed load of AIM54......any thoughts or advice greatly recieved.....

Hobbes · June 17, 2016, 09:40:46 AM

Interesting idea. Although I'd keep the rocket motor, and have this as a high-speed missile to complement Harpoon.

chrisonord · June 17, 2016, 10:02:08 AM

You could, if you still want to use a different motor, make a under-slung box section shaped, or tubular, turbo jet and stick it on one of the surfaces, like I did with the scram jet powered AIM-54's for some of my SHADO builds. The original rocket motor could be used for launching and or getting it up to a cruise speed, or, to bring the missile in for the kill at a very high speed to avoid anti missile artillery. You could put some folding wings, on it that are used for the first part of its low level journey, these then fold back for the the high speed kill.
Chris.

Dizzyfugu · June 17, 2016, 10:30:42 AM

An air intake under the missile and a smaller nozzle would IMHO do. Maybe a more blunt nose, too?
Check the Japanese ASM-1 and the ASM-2 missiles - both share basically the same body and layout, the -1 has a solid fuel engine while the -2 has an internal jet:

ASM-1:

ASM-2 (with closed air intake):

Army of One · June 17, 2016, 06:56:39 PM

Yup......was thinking of the blunter nose. I'd probably keep the fins as they are. A blunter nose and an intake like Sea Eagle I think. Cheers chaps......

Weaver · June 17, 2016, 07:12:58 PM

If you want it going at supersonic speed, the pointy nose is probably more appropriate than a blunt one. Another thing you might consider is adding a pair of supersonic intakes (dead easy: shallow U-section Evergreen) and claiming that the new motor is a solid fuel ramjet, similar in principle to the SA-6's system. What happens is that a conventional solid rocket booster gets the missile up to speed and is then ejected from the back, leaving a space that becomes a combustion chamber. The chamber is fed with hot gas from a slow-burning solid rocket grain that has a 'rich' fuel/oxidiser mix, i.e. just enough for it to light up, with the rest of the oxygen coming from intake air. It's not as efficient as a liquid fuel ramjet, but the advantage is that it can be treated as a 'round of ammunition' instead of needing the periodic inspections and maintenance that liquid fuel sytems need.

Dizzyfugu · June 18, 2016, 01:05:39 AM

As a side note, I do not think that any jet-driven cruise missile is supersonic? Those things faster than Mach 1 use ramjets, e. g. the French ALMP or the Russian Kh-31?

kitnut617 · June 18, 2016, 04:33:40 AM

I'm making a few of these up for one of my ongoing projects

sandiego89 · June 18, 2016, 05:03:58 AM

How about just keep the rocket and have the missiles glide to the target after motor burnout? Like a Maverick or unpowered Walleye. The missile already has long range and high speed. If launched at higher altitude they could dive to the target to pick up more speed in the terminal dive. A plunging attack can do more damage as warships have thinner armor topside. Nose could remain the same for radar guided, or put a Maverick or other type nose for TV, laser or IR guided.

eatthis · June 18, 2016, 06:15:40 AM

would a supersonic missile run the risk of overpenatration?

JasonW · June 18, 2016, 09:14:50 AM

Quote from: eatthis on June 18, 2016, 06:15:40 AM
would a supersonic missile run the risk of overpenatration?

Simply put, no. Take the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missile for example. It is Mach 3 capable at altitude and 2.2 plus at lower level during final flight. Basically during final course into the target the high speed drastically cuts the target's response time for countermeasures or jamming as opposed to western missiles like Exocet and Harpoon. The warhead detonates on impact. See attached link for a video of test footage.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-these-russian-missiles-completely-tear-through-a-1636002082

Army of One · June 19, 2016, 11:52:43 AM

I like the ideas being banded around here. Most simple seems to be keep it as is and say its a AIM54S (ship) or something....or slightly change the appearance a bit re nose n intake and call it a conversion or new missile. Many thanks chaps......i knew i wouldn't be disappointed.....

ChernayaAkula · June 19, 2016, 03:31:59 PM

Some people would joke that the Phoenix' reliability was notoriously dodgy and that - with so many falling into the sea - it was essentially an anti-submarine weapon.

Probably killed more fish than Fishbeds!

On a more serious note, I don't think you'd have to change much to make it an anti-shipping weapon. Maybe tweak the seeker and fuse to allow it to engage ships. Speed and range are fine. That it would arrive on target in a dive at around Mach 5 would probably offset the smaller warhead (when compared to a Harpoon or Sea Eagle)