Missile-SIM : Performance Evaluation for Impact of Missile-Size

Previous Work Status

Initial Version of Missile-SIM for Performance evaluation
Aerodynamic Validation of Missile-SIM for Trajectory 
AIM-120C Study using Missile-SIM : Part 1 - Sensitivity
AIM-120C Study using Missile-SIM : Part 2 - Launch Condition
AIM-120C Study using Missile-SIM : Part 2 - Launch Condition - revision
Patch note of Missile-SIM : Guidance Algorithm is added w/ Real-Time plot
W.I.P status of Missile-SIM : Addition of Air-propulsion part 1
W.I.P status of Missile-SIM : Addition of Air-propulsion part 2
AIM-120C Study using Missile-SIM : Part 3 - CUDA / LREW / METEOR types. 1 : Baseline Comparison
AIM-120C Study using Missile-SIM : Part 3 - CUDA / LREW / METEOR types. 2 : Sensitivity Analysis
AIM-120C Study using Missile-SIM : Part 3 - CUDA / LREW / METEOR types. 3 : Few mentions
W.I.P status of Missile-SIM : Addition of 3D Coordinate
W.I.P status of Missile-SIM : Development of Few generic bodies for Further Missile-SIM
Missile-SIM : Performance Evaluation for ATACMS class missile
Missile-SIM : Performance Evaluation for KM-SAM class missile
Missile-SIM : Effectiveness of Rocket motor for free-fall bomb
Missile-SIM : Performance Evaluation for Iskander / Kh-47M2 Kinzhal & ATACMS+Booster

 1. Modeling of Candidates for SIZE-EFFECT

 While I was coding Flight-SIM, I had curiosity about impact of the size of the missile. It is generally known that larger missile can preserve its kinematic energy and has advantage for longer range. 

 However, how much advantage the larger-missile have ?

 As the size of the missile grows, slender ratio (l/d), propellant/weight ratio, and aerodynamic configuration (fin size and shape) are changed. So, it is hard to evaluate the pure impact of the size. 

 At this time, I could simulate the different size of the missile with same aerodynamic-coefficient, propellant/weight ratio. It is unrealistic, because smaller air-to-air missile generally has slender profile, smaller propellant/weight ratio. Purpose of this study is only for sensitivity study for missile-size.  

 2. Missile-SIM Result


 Simulation has been conducted for Sea-level, 15kft, 30kft for M0.5 launch conditions. Size of the missile has been varied from AIM-9's to Massive S300 SAM class. The result shows that the larger missile has slightly higher speed however difference is small compared to its size difference. 

 As we expected, real-difference between small and big missiles can be shown in after-burn-out phase of the missile. Because relation between weight, proportional to the dimension^3, and drag, to the dimension^2, made larger missile could glide longer range with maintained speed. 

 In Sea-level, AIM-9 one almost loses its energy symmetry to its burn-phase while AIM-120 class reaches twice of that, AIM-54 class three-times, and S-300 class four-times. 

 Due to this result, it is natural that Point-Defense Anti-Air warfare(<30km) has missile smaller than AIM-120 class, like MICA-VL, ASTOR15, Sea-Sparrow, Sea-RAM, Crotale, and ESSM. Larger than AIM-120 class is excessive and in-practical. 


 At the higher altitude, difference become larger. Although smaller missile could achieve longer range, AIM-54 and S-300 sized missile goes longer than 100km, without following trajectory course. 


 From this result, we could understand why each nation develop own missile for different size. US, usually operating offensive counter air, will develop smaller missile to carry more missiles in limited payload for longer mission. (And offensive mission should encounter shorter range of engagement). Eastern side should develop larger missile to perform aerial-denial for high-value asset of western side. 

<Sea Level>

<15kft>

<30kft>