DOCSLIB.ORG

Advanced Cruise Missile Guidance System Description

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Advanced Cruise Missile Guidance System Description ADVANCED CRUISE MISSILE GUIDANCE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION Sue Hicks Advanced Cruise Missile SPO ASDIVCE Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433-6503 ABSTRACT: ACM and is built by Hughes Aircraft Company - El Segundo. This paper will provide a functional description of the navigation and guidance The Advanced Cruise Missile system in the Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) is the Air Force's newest stealth (ACM), one of the Air Force's newest missile. The ACM offers many stealth missiles. It will also discuss some improvements over the Air Launched of the areas of improvement over the Air Cruise Missile (ALCM). The ACM Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM). The provides longer standoff and total mission Kalman Filter design accommodates range, requires fewer position updates, and velocity updates, including lateral achieves a higher accuracy at the target velocities, and a nominal number of than the ALCM. The ACM's stealth position updates from Terrain Correlation characteristics improves its survivability as Matching (TERCOM) to achieve a high well. The ACM successfully achieved or accuracy, long range mission. exceeded its navigation requirements in the flight test program, which was completed in July 1990. INTRODUCTION: The Advanced Cruise Missile MISSION DESCRIPTION: System Program Office is located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base Dayton, OH. The ACM is carried extemally on The Prime Development Contractor is the B-52H, up to six per pylon. The ACM General Dynamics - Convair Division, San is launched from great standoff range, at Diego California. The Dual Production which time the wings and fins deploy and Contractor is McDonnell Douglas Missile the LDV is powered on. The vehicle Systems Company, Titusville Florida. The passes at subsonic speed through several Guidance Set (G/S) is a derivative of the F- timing control points along its 16's and B-1B's Navigation Units and was preprogrammed course. As specified in the designed and produced by Kearfott mission plan, the ACM performs terrain Guidance and Navigation Division - A following during designated portions of the Subsidiary of Astronautics Corporation of mission. The navigation system is updated America. The Laser Doppler Velocimeter with velocity information from the LDV (LDV) was designed specifically for the per the mission plan. In a typical mission, 355 U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright. the ACM takes it position updates from Carrier Aircraft Equipment (CAE) four TERCOM maps - a landfall map, two programs the air vehicle to fly directly enroute maps and a terminal map. It from a launch point to a target without use navigates to the target where it detonates at of any waypoints or TERCOM updates. a preprogrammed Height Of Burst (HOB). The guidance set memory can A generic mission is shown in figure 1. accommodate up to 192 waypoints and 10 TERCOM map areas. GUIDANCE SET: The guidance set (G/S) consists of five functional components - the Inertial Reference Unit @U), Air Vehicle Digital Computer Unit (ADCU), Rate and Acceleration Sensor (RAS), and Power Supply Unit (PSU). The guidance set interfaces and communicates with the air vehicle avionics and the carrier aimaft. Figure 1 - ACM Mission Profile The navigation function is performed by the Inertial Reference Unit The carrier provides initialization, (IRU) and its supporting electronics which alignment, and mission profile data to the reside on the Platform Electronics cards (1 guidance set via the Umbilical Assembly and 2) and the Gyro Wheel Supply card. (UA) during captive carry. The data The inertial platform is a four gimbaled blocks from the carrier that the ACM uses system with two double axis gyros, the are the same as those used by the ALCM vertical gyro and the azimuth gyro, and and SRAM. Upon separation, the guidance three orthogonally mounted accelerometers. set processes steering and engine control commands to navigate along the mission The Air Vehicle Digital Computer route to the target. Unit (ADCU) is the main processor of all the navigation and fight control functions, The ACM is capable of performing or the “brains” of the system. The ADCU missions that are terrain aided, i.e. is embedded in the guidance set. Memory TERCOM updating is utilized, or free consists of 128K of RAM and 64K of inertial. The mission can be flex targeted Electrically Erasable Programmable Read or direct targeted. In a flex targeted Only Memory (EEPROM). The ADCU mission, the carrier aircraft redefines a new communicates with ACM subsystems target by specifying a new target location through direct memory access or MIL- that is on a straight line from any existing STD-175OA instructions. The types of waypoint. In a direct targeted mission, the Input/Output are discrete, analog to digital, digital to analog, and serial data bus. These functions are performed by the Computer Processing Unit (CPU) card, the Digital YO card, the Analog to Digital (ND) card, the Digital to Analog @/A) card, the Serial YO card, the Discrete YO card, and two memory cards. The ADCU's processing speed is 580K operations/sec. The ADCU uses EEPROM to act as a non-volatile memory for storing the OFS. At power on, the OFS is copied from EEPROM to RAM for execution. Mission data is stored in RAM only. w The Rate and Acceleration Sensor t i (RAS) is a module that provides air vehicle body rates and accelerations to the ADCU for flight control functions. The RAS Figure 2 - Top View of Open Guidance Set consists of three single axis strapdown gyros and two accelerometers, mounted to The Air Modulator in an air control sense normal and lateral accelerations. valve to provide the platform with constant Although roll, pitch, and yaw information cooling over the temperature/flow range of could have been derived from the platform cooling air from the Environmental Control data, the platform data rate was too slow to System (ECS). The air modulator consists adequately support flight control of a temperature sensor on the platform processing. The flight control commands case which provides a signal to electronic are output of the guidance set to the Aft comparators. A signal that differs from Avionics Unit (AAU). The AAU interprets the comparator set point will result in an the guidance set commands for the fin electronic output to the air valve's drive actuators. motor. The drive motor adjusts the valve position to allow the cooling air to return The Power Supply Unit (PSU) is a the case to an acceptable operating new design. It consists of the Input power temperature. Conditioner (IPC), the DC/DC card and the AC/DC card. AC and DC power was In the first step in the operational required to meet system warm-up sequence, the G/S is initialized in the requirements, thus the ACDC card was captive carry mode to stabilize the inertial Created. platform at operating temperature. Then the G/S powers the IRU and starts the The circuit cards mentioned above alignment process with aid fiom the Carrier and the other guidance set components are Aircraft Equipment (CAE). The CAE shown in Figure 2. provides alignment commands and data, 357 mission profile data, and free flight focused on the detector. The frequency of initialization data. Upon command from this light has been Doppler shifted in the CAE, the G/S performs air vehicle proportion to the air vehicle velocity. The Built In Test (BIT)on itself and other Doppler shifted beam mixes on the detector avionics components. BIT results are with a portion of the laser beam whose stored and reported to the carrier aircraft frequency has not been shifted. When upon request. these two beams mix, they produce a signal current at the Doppler frequency. The Upon separation from the carrier, Doppler signal at the detector output is the G/S processes and computes steering processed by the signal processing and engine control commands for the air electronics. The computed velocity is vehicle flight control system. In the free transmitted to the navigation unit for flight mode, the G/S provides the guidance velocity updating. and control functions required to guide the air vehicle along preprogrammed flight profiles between precise geographical coordinates. All ACM mission steering and flight control calculations are performed by the Operational Flight Software (OFS). VELOCIMETERHARDWARE DESCRIPTION The Laser Doppler Velocimeter provides the guidance set with accurate measurements of the air vehicle’s ground velocity. The velocity data is used to update the Kalman Filter and therefore reduce the navigation errors. The LDV is operated only during certain times of the mission. It is hard mounted to the bottom of the guidance set, as shown in figure 3. Figure 3 - LDV and GIs Mounting The LDV is comprised of a CO2 Laser, beam forming and pointing optics, a The actual measurements that are detector, and signal processing electronics. made are the line-of-sight (LOS) The Laser beam is expanded and component of the ground velocity vector in transmitted through a window in the air three noncoplanaf directions by detecting vehicle to the ground. Light scattered by the Doppler shift in the frequency of the the ground is collected by the telescope and CO2 laser beam, and provide the velocity 358 information to the G/S. Upon command The laser is stimulated by an RF from the guidance set, the LDV will move power supply. The laser is adjusted to the the beam to one of the three beam positions correct frequency and sent to the beam shown in figure 4. The LDV processes the forming optics, where the laser beam is velocity data to veritjr its validity of the polarized and shaped. The laser beam is measurement. expanded in the pointing assembly and transmitted to the ground through the laser TOP VIEW window.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking the Need for a New Nuclear Cruise Missile
    Ghosts of the Cold War: Rethinking the Need for a New Nuclear Cruise Missile April 2016 By Will Saetren Will Saetren Acknowledgements is the Roger L. Hale Fellow at the Ploughshares Fund, where he conducts This report was made possible by the Roger L. Hale Fellowship, inspired by the research on nuclear weapons policy and safeguarding nuclear materials. He leadership and generous support of Roger L. Hale, and supported by the following has been involved in efforts to promote the Iran nuclear agreement, and to generous donors: Lew and Sheana Butler (Lead Gift), Edie Allen, Reza Aslan, eliminate redundancy in the excessively large American nuclear weapons Kennette Benedict, James B. Blume and Ms. Kathryn W. Frank, Doug Carlston, arsenal. Mr. Saetren has a Master’s degree in comparative politics from Joe Cirincione, Julia Dayton, Charles Denny, Michael Douglas, Mary Lloyd Estrin American University where he specialized in the Russian political system and and Bob Estrin, Connie Foote, Barbara Forster and Larry Hendrickson, Terry the politics of the Cold War. Gamble Boyer and Peter Boyer, Jocelyn Hale and Glenn Miller, Nina Hale and Dylan Hicks, Nor Hall, Leslie Hale and Tom Camp, Samuel D. Heins, David and Arlene Holloway, John Hoyt, Tabitha Jordan and Adam Weissman, Thomas C. Layton and Gyongy Laky, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Lehman, Deirdre and Sheff Otis, Rachel Pike, Robert A. Rubinstein and Sandra Lane, Gail Seneca, Robert E. Sims, Pattie Sullivan, Philip Taubman, Brooks Walker III, Jill Werner, Penny Winton. Special thanks to Tom Collina, Ploughshares Fund Policy Director, for his sound advice and mentorship that allowed this report to take shape.
    [Show full text]
  • Radars for the Detection and Tracking of Cruise Missiles Radars for the Detection and Tracking of Cruise Missiles
    • UPTON AND THURMAN Radars for the Detection and Tracking of Cruise Missiles Radars for the Detection and Tracking of Cruise Missiles Lee O. Upton and Lewis A. Thurman I The advent of the modern cruise missile, with reduced radar observables and the capability to fly at low altitudes with accurate navigation, placed an enormous burden on all defense weapon systems. Every element of the engagement process, referred to as the kill chain, from detection to target kill assessment, was affected. While the United States held the low-observable- technology advantage in the late 1970s, that early lead was quickly challenged by advancements in foreign technology and proliferation of cruise missiles to unfriendly nations. Lincoln Laboratory’s response to the various offense/defense trade-offs has taken the form of two programs, the Air Vehicle Survivability Evaluation program and the Radar Surveillance Technology program. The radar developments produced by these two programs, which became national assets with many notable firsts, is the subject of this article. , Defense Advance Research Projects Systems Command and the Office of Naval Research) Agency (DARPA) requested that Lincoln Labo- began sponsorship of a Lincoln Laboratory program, I ratory develop and lead a new program in air de- complementary to the AVSE program, which was fense against cruise missiles. The initial focus of the originally focused on the U.S. ship-based defense work at Lincoln Laboratory was to quantitatively as- against foreign antiship cruise missiles. The major de- sess and verify the capability of U.S. cruise missiles to velopment of this program, called Radar Surveillance penetrate Soviet air defenses.
    [Show full text]
  • CRUISE MISSILE THREAT Volume 2: Emerging Cruise Missile Threat
    By Systems Assessment Group NDIA Strike, Land Attack and Air Defense Committee August 1999 FEASIBILITY OF THIRD WORLD ADVANCED BALLISTIC AND CRUISE MISSILE THREAT Volume 2: Emerging Cruise Missile Threat The Systems Assessment Group of the National Defense Industrial Association ( NDIA) Strike, Land Attack and Air Defense Committee performed this study as a continuing examination of feasible Third World missile threats. Volume 1 provided an assessment of the feasibility of the long range ballistic missile threats (released by NDIA in October 1998). Volume 2 uses aerospace industry judgments and experience to assess Third World cruise missile acquisition and development that is “emerging” as a real capability now. The analyses performed by industry under the broad title of “Feasibility of Third World Advanced Ballistic & Cruise Missile Threat” incorporate information only from unclassified sources. Commercial GPS navigation instruments, compact avionics, flight programming software, and powerful, light-weight jet propulsion systems provide the tools needed for a Third World country to upgrade short-range anti-ship cruise missiles or to produce new land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs) today. This study focuses on the question of feasibility of likely production methods rather than relying on traditional intelligence based primarily upon observed data. Published evidence of technology and weapons exports bears witness to the failure of international agreements to curtail cruise missile proliferation. The study recognizes the role LACMs developed by Third World countries will play in conjunction with other new weapons, for regional force projection. LACMs are an “emerging” threat with immediate and dire implications for U.S. freedom of action in many regions .
    [Show full text]
  • Defense Number 14
    Defense Number 14 A publication of the Center for Technology and National HorizonsSecurity Policy JUNE 2002 National Defense University Toward Missile Defenses from the Sea by Hans Binnendijk and George Stewart Overview researchers made significant progress toward developing naval-based theater missile defenses during the Clinton administration, the basic Developments of the past 18 months have created new possibili- NMD architecture had no naval component because that administra- ties for the sea basing of national defenses against interconti- tion sought actual deployments by 2005–2006. nental ballistic missiles. Some conceivable designs would Once in office, the Bush administration was determined to enhance U.S. prospects for defeating a rogue state missile attack accelerate progress on missile defenses, expand research and devel- on the United States and its allies, but other deployments could opment efforts, accept a greater degree of technological risk, and undermine the Nation’s strategic stability with Russia and redesign NMD architecture. However, no new missile defense archi- China. The most efficacious architecture from both a technical tecture has been proposed. The clear line established in 1997 that and strategic perspective would include a U.S. Navy boost-phase delineated theater missile defenses and national missile defenses intercept program and some sea-based radar. Given the compli- became blurred. The strategy opened the door to a greater seaborne cations of using existing Aegis ships for the missile defense mis- contribution to defense against ICBMs, and the Navy began to ana- sion, the Navy should consider constructing a separate ship lyze the possibility of this new potential. The Federal Government designed solely for this purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System Major Weapon Systems OVERVIEW
    The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $32,000 for the 2017 Fiscal Year. This includes $13,000 in expenses and $19,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2017May03 RefID: E-7DE12B0 FY 2018 Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System Major Weapon Systems OVERVIEW The combined capabilities and performance of United States (U.S.) weapon systems are unmatched throughout the world, ensuring that U.S. military forces have the advantage over any adversary. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 acquisition funding request for the Department of Defense (DoD) budget totals $208.6 billion, which includes base funding and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding; $125.2 billion for Procurement funded programs and $83.3 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funded programs. Of the $208.6 billion, $94.9 billion is for programs that have been designated as Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs). This book focuses on all funding for the key MDAP programs. To simplify the display of the various weapon systems, this book is organized by the following mission area categories: Mission Area Categories • Aircraft & Related Systems • Missiles and Munitions • Command, Control, Communications, • Mission Support Activities Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) Systems • RDT&E Science & Technology • Ground Systems • Shipbuilding and Maritime Systems • Missile Defense Programs • Space Based Systems FY 2018 Modernization – Total: $208.6 Billion ($ in Billions) Space Based Aircraft & Systems Related $9.8
    [Show full text]
  • A Low-Visibility Force Multiplier Assessing China’S Cruise Missile Ambitions
    Gormley, Erickson, and Yuan and Erickson, Gormley, A Low-Visibility Force Multiplier ASSESSING CHINA’s CRUISE MISSILE AMBITIONS Dennis M. Gormley, Andrew S. Erickson, and Jingdong Yuan and Jingdong Yuan Jingdong and S. Erickson, Andrew Dennis M. Gormley, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs The Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs (China Center) was established as an integral part of the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies on March 1, 2000, pursuant to Section 914 of the 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. The China Center’s mission is to serve as a national focal point and resource center for multidisciplinary research and analytic exchanges on the national goals and strategic posture of the People’s Republic of China and to focus on China’s ability to develop, field, and deploy an effective military instrument in support of its national strategic objectives. Cover photo: Missile launch from Chinese submarine during China-Russia joint military exercise in eastern China’s Shandong Peninsula. Photo © CHINA NEWSPHOTO/Reuters/Corbis A Low-Visibility Force Multiplier A Low-Visibility Force Multiplier ASSESSING CHINA’s CRUISE MISSILE AMBITIONS Dennis M. Gormley, Andrew S. Erickson, and Jingdong Yuan Published by National Defense University Press for the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs Institute for National Strategic Studies Washington, D.C. 2014 The ideas expressed in this study are those of the authors alone. They do not represent the policies or estimates of the U.S. Navy or any other organization of the U.S. Government. All the resources referenced are unclassified, predominantly from non-U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruise Missile Technology
    Cruise missile technology 1. Introduction A cruise missile is basically a small, pilotless airplane. Cruise missiles have an 8.5- foot (2.61-meter) wingspan, are powered by turbofan engines and can fly 500 to 1,000 miles (805 to 1,610 km) depending on the configuration. A cruise missile's job in life is to deliver a 1,000-pound (450-kg) high-explosive bomb to a precise location -- the target. The missile is destroyed when the bomb explodes. Cruise missiles come in a number of variations and can be launched from submarines, destroyers or aircraft. Figure 1 Tomahawk Cruise missile Definition An unmanned self-propelled guided vehicle that sustains flight through aerodynamic lift for most of its flight path and whose primary mission is to place an ordnance or special payload on a target. This definition can include unmanned air ve-hicles (UAVs) and unmanned control-guided helicopters or aircraft. www.seminarsTopics.com Page 1 Cruise missile technology 2. History In 1916, Lawrence Sperry patented and built an "aerial torpedo", a small biplane carrying a TNT charge, a Sperry autopilot and a barometric altitude control. Inspired by these experiments, the US Army developed a similar flying bomb called the Kettering Bug. In the period between the World Wars the United Kingdom developed the Larynx (Long Range Gun with Lynx Engine) which underwent a few flight tests in the 1920s. In the Soviet Union, Sergey Korolev headed the GIRD-06 cruise missile project from 1932– 1939, which used a rocket-powered boost-glide design. The 06/III (RP-216) and 06/IV (RP-212) contained gyroscopic guidance systems.
    [Show full text]
  • October 1981 Lids-R-1158 Communication, Data Bases
    OCTOBER 1981 LIDS-R-1158 COMMUNICATION, DATA BASES & DECISION SUPPORT Edited By Michael Athans Wilbur B. Davenport, Jr. Elizabeth R. Ducot Robert R. Tenney Proceedings of the Fourth MIT/ONR Workshop on Distributed Information and Decision Systems Motivated by Command-Control-Communications (C3) Problems Volume ilI June 15 - June 26, 1981 San Diego, California ONR Contract No. N00014-77-C-0532 Room 14-0551 MIT Document Services 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 ph: 617/253-5668 1fx: 617/253-1690 email: docs @ mit.edu http://libraries.mit.edu/docs DISCLAIMER OF QUALITY Due to the condition of the original material, there are unavoidable flaws in this reproduction. We have made every effort to provide you with the best copy available. If you are dissatisfied with this product and find it unusable, please contact Document Services as soon as possible. Thank you. PREFACE This volume is one of a series of four reports containing contri- butions from the speakers at the fourth MIT/ONR Workshop on Distributed Information and Decision Systems Motivated by Command-Control-Communication (C3 ) Problems. Held from June 15 through June 26, 1981 in San Diego, California, the Workshop was supported by the Office of Naval Research under contract ONR/N00014-77-C-0532 with MIT. The purpose of this annual Workshop is to encourage informal inter- actions between university, government, and industry researchers on basic issues in future military command and control problems. It is felt that the inherent complexity of the C 3 system requires novel and imaginative thinking, theoretical advances and the development of new basic methodol- ogies in order to arrive at realistic, reliable and cost-effective de- signs for future C3 systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded April 22, 2006
    SIX DECADES OF GUIDED MUNITIONS AND BATTLE NETWORKS: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic Smarter and Budgetary Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments March 2007 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonprofit, public policy research institute established to make clear the inextricable link between near-term and long- range military planning and defense investment strategies. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundations, corporations, government, and individual grants and contributions. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), and The Revolution in War (2004). The first of these, on the military-technical revolution, reproduces the 1992 Pentagon assessment that precipitated the 1990s debate in the United States and abroad over revolutions in military affairs. Many friends and professional colleagues, both within CSBA and outside the Center, have contributed to this report. Those who made the most substantial improvements to the final manuscript are acknowledged below. However, the analysis and findings are solely the responsibility of the author and CSBA. 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS .................................................. v SUMMARY ............................................................... ix GLOSSARY ………………………………………………………xix I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 Guided Munitions: Origins in the 1940s............. 3 Cold War Developments and Prospects ............
    [Show full text]
  • Eric4.~Cruise
    Scientia Militaria, South African Journal of Military Studies, Vol 8, Nr 3, 1978. http://scientiamilitaria.journals.ac.za 4.~ERIC4.~ CRUISE ~ISSILES lTU. W. WARU Mankind's stnvlng to establish a superior poten- After the Second World War the development tial for extermination of antagonistic fellow beings, of cruise missiles was pursued mostly however as a deterrent to those whom he feels threaten taking a back seat to the development of manned his way of life or even existence, has motivated aircraft and rockets. the development of successive generations of 'super weapons' and counter weapons. Thus it is In America however, before the advent of the that we now hear the acclaimation for what sup- 'ultimate weapon' - the Inter-Continental Bal- poses to be the newest brainchild of this human listic Missile (ICBM) overshadowed all else, some fear and insecurity, the American cruise missiles. cruise missiles were taken into service by both the Much has been written about this new American United State's Air Force and Navy. 'wonder weapon' and its capabilities which will argueably give America an advantage over the The first cruise missile to enter service with the Soviet Union in the event of an 'ultimate con- United State's Air Force was the TM-67 Manin flict'. Matador. This missile in arming Pilotless Bomber Squadrons in Germany in 1954 became the first cruise missile to serve after the V- 7. Powered But just what is a cruise missile? The term is by an Allison turbojet the Matador is described somewhat vulnerable to ambiguous interpretation as a swept-wing pilotless aircraft, which had a as the weapon is actually a hybrid of features cruising speed of some 600 mph and a range from other specific weapon categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Active Radar Seeker Technology
    Defence Science Journal, Vol. 55, No. 3, July 2005, pp. 329-336 O 2005, DESIDOC RE VIEW PAPER Advances in Active Radar Seeker Technology Rajatendu Das Research Centre Imarat, Hyderabad-500 069. ABSTRACT Active radar seekers have gained wide applications in the terminal phase of missile guidance to provide hit-to-kill capability. Till recently, coherent monopulse tracker configurations were being used extensively for air-to-air missile seekers as well as surface-to-air missile seekers, while special real-beam technique-based seekers have been employed in antiship and land-attack systems. In this paper, features of active radar seekers have been described against different targets and background conditions to bring out the fact that the seeker design is highly application- specific in nature. The emerging trends in radar seeker technology have been identified wrt ever-changing threat scenario coupled with newer electronic countermeasure techniques, including the latest developments in components, subsystems, as well as implementation aspects. Keywords: Active radar seekers, active electronically scanned array, antenna, missile guidance, seeker technology, coherent monopulse, tracker configuration, target tracking, target identification, target detection 1. INTRODUCTION monopulse tracker with a gimbaled antenna structure. In this paper, an attempt has been made to highlight The superiority of radar seekers in missile guidance the features of conventional active radar seekers at the terminal phase has been well established and the associated current technologies, followed since 1960s. Three basic configurations, viz., semi- by the requirements of futuristic seekers, which active, active, and passive have been implemented have set the trend of radar seeker technology based in various types of seekers, including the track- on active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna via-missile concept used in Patriot missiles during configuration.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Range Nuclear Cruise Missiles and Stability
    &ience & Global Security, 1992, Volume 3, pp.49-99 Photocopying permitWd by license only Reprints available directly from the publisher C) 1992 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers S.A PrinWd in the UniWd States of America Long-range Nuclear Cruise Missiles and Stability George N. Lewisa and Theodore A. PoStolb Long-range nuclear-armed cruise missiles are highly accurate and are capable of reaching most targets within the United States and the Commonwealthof Indepen- dent States (CIS) from launch points beyond their borders. Neither the United States nor the CIS has air surveillance systemscapable of providing reliable warning against cruise missiles. Thus it is possible that a small-scale cruise missile attack could go entirely undetected until the nuclear weapons arrived over their targets. Such an attack could destroy the other country's entire strategic bomber force on the ground and severelydamage its strategic commandand control system,perhaps to the point of endangering the ability of its ICBM force to be launched on warning. This capability makes long-range nuclear cruise missiles potentially one of the most destabilizing of all nuclear weapons. INTRODUCTION Long-range nuclear-armed cruise missiles. are widely perceived as stabilizing additions to the US and CIS nuclear arsenals, This perception arises prima- rily from their relatively low speed, which is viewed as making them unsuit- able for use in a first-strike nuclear attack. However, this simple characterization neglects more troubling aspects of these weapons. Cruise missiles are already the most accurate of all strategic nuclear missiles. More a, Defense and Arms Control Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA 02139 b.
    [Show full text]