Title: MN-950 Marino Long Range AShM
Description: Needs some serious fixing
Cassidy - June 30, 2008 10:25 PM (GMT)
MN-950 Marino Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile
The MN-950 Marino(English: MS-950 Sailor or MS-950 Marine) was developed as the forerunner and primary demonstrator of the developing Third Spanish States naval missile technology. Considering the latest developments in naval warfare, the increase in engagement range in the latest years and the need to not be excessively reliant on naval strike aircrafts as the main anti-ship platform, it was no surprise that the previously announced intent of developing an intermediary between a land strike cruise missile and heavy anti-shipping missile regarding its effective range and capabilities was done. To allow this missile to achieve a high speed and ceiling, its launch system is equipped with solid-state lasers used by the ignition system of its VLS to accelerate its launch sequence, and the missile itself is propelled by a liquid biokerosene vectored thrust afterburning turbojet, which also serves for its intended role.
It is an expensive technology, primarily designed to be used against classes like battleships, battlecruisers and dreadnoughts and with the secondary function of out-ranging certain classes of ships when tactically interesting to do so. Packing an avionics suite developed under the principles of network-centric warfare, the Marino can not only rely on its own inertial guidance system and active home-on-jam Radar, but also on the filtered feed of multiple sensor systems, including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Satellites, AEW aircrafts and ships, coordinate with up to twelve other Marinos and receive new targets on the fly according to priority changes on the operational and tactical theater.
Capable of flying through a very high altitude, to the limits of the stratosphere, bypassing significant quantities of air defenses until its final destination, the Marino can hit straight from above at a high speed in its last stage, similar to an air-to-ground missile and taking advantage from both gravitational pull and of a maximum boost of its afterburners, driven by its remaining fuel, to hit a target at MACH 5.x after an accelerating descent, with very few vessels being able to stand the combined kinetic energy and chemical energy of its 1,000kg High Explosive Dual Purpose warhead. Finally, at optimal conditions, and specially against slow ships like dreadnoughts or against static targets, by taking a more oblique diving trajectory, it can reach a range of up to 1,200 kilometers as a true cruise missile, adapted for anti-shipping roles. Its advanced ignition technologies and avionics bring a hefty influence over its price, which makes it more viable on cost-efficiency only against the more expensive sorts of vessels.
Name: MN-950 Marino
Alternate designation: SS-N-69 Starsail
Type: Long-range anti-ship hypersonic cruise missile
Guidance: Inertial guidance, Datalink w/ multiple sensors support, RADAR with home-on-jam.
Weight: 10,000 kg
Wingspan: 0.7m(folded), 2.5m(unfolded)
Propulsion: Solid-state laser ignition (4), Vectored thrust afterburning turbojet(1)
Speed: 680 m/s(Flight), 1,700 m/s(Top attack Impact)
Effective Range: 950km
Maximum Range: 1,200 km
Warhead: 800 kg HEDP or 600 tn fission-fusion thermonuclear
EW: 130kg ECM Jammer and ECCM package
G limit: 23
Flight Altitude/Path: 50,000 m - dive
Platforms: Battlecruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Guided Missile Destroyers, Battleships and Dreadnoughts.
V12 - July 3, 2008 12:04 AM (GMT)
It's not really possible to use Mach 8 for a ground or sea attack missile. When the radome is damaged, your aerodynamics will be lost and you'll crash. But really you'll crash anyway, because Mach 8 ASL is 2.7km/s, and no practical material is going to survive this for long enough to reasonably accelerate.
Gravitational pull is mostly useless, it will only provide a few % of the energy needs. Although top attack will reduce heating. Nonetheless, you'd be falling blind.
And why would you need such a velocity anyway - to get detonation on contact instead of inside the ship?
Cassidy - July 3, 2008 12:11 AM (GMT)
Ehm... I need a high speed downfall to reduce the chances of it being intercepted by CIWS, because at such high speed, even a slight maneuver can make it much harder to be predicted by a FCS or to be intercepted by a missile. What is actually the limit for the the most resilient and expensive materials around to hit close to sea level without being ripped to shreds before the impact? 1.4 km/s? MACH 5?
I considered sea-skimming as well, but I am afraid that at such ranges, it would require even more fuel for low altitude flight unless if much slower. I might design a sea skimming missile of medium range(200-400km), but for now I see no need to replace the latest Extended Range HARPOONs that I'm using. They have less range, but are much more lightweight, cheaper and can be fitted in larger numbers. And I don't see many ways to make something superior to them besides tech wank.
V12 - July 3, 2008 12:51 AM (GMT)
If that maneuver can be made, that's it. And remember that computers are faster anyway; you can't outrun them.
Best maneuverability is always achieved at low speeds - it's much easier to change direction then. The turning circle at Mach 8 is larger than a few ships.
For this speed, sea skimming is out of the question. It tops out at Mach 2, and better less.
Falling down can be made quite fast, of course, but that involves becoming essentially a well-targeted automated bomb. Fly high, find target, rush.
Cassidy - July 3, 2008 12:58 AM (GMT)
Would pseudo-random maneuvers at a lower speed like MACH 1.2 or even 800 km/h actually make a missile more difficult to target and intercept than a falling "bomb" in straight trajectory at almost MACH 6?
V12 - July 3, 2008 02:01 AM (GMT)
They do, maneuver-wise.
Supersonic missiles rather rely on the inability of the CIWS systems to detect, track, engage and destroy them in the available time.
A big heavy fast bomb has merits too, but it's two completely separate design schools.
Cassidy - July 3, 2008 02:33 AM (GMT)
|QUOTE (V12 @ Jul 3 2008, 02:01 AM)|
| A big heavy fast bomb has merits too, but it's two completely separate design schools. |
Would it make sense ICly in a country like Third Spanish States for proponents of both design schools exist? The basic principle of this is to be the heavy fast-falling bomb rather than the nimble maneuverable missile. I just don't want to file this design, as I like both ideas, but I would put the slow highly maneuverable missile for a medium-ranged sea-skimming type of AShM instead of for what this is intended for.
Should I consider a price around 18 millions each, considering the cost of a Granit?
Now... I don't have any idea on how to have even a rough estimative on fuel weight, or if the way to achieve this really would need a ramjet or scramjet, but the basic principle is like:
MACH 1.8 for 94%(890 km) of the flight, high acceleration downwards and oblique up to MACH 5.x for the rest(little more than its flight altitude)
The higher 1,200 km range basically is achieved by limiting its flight velocity to MACH 1.4(?) with an hardwired governor system that can be set by the FCS of any Confederacy ship.
V12 - July 4, 2008 02:55 AM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Cassidy @ Jul 3 2008, 02:33 AM)|
| Would it make sense ICly in a country like Third Spanish States for proponents of both design schools exist? |
Perhaps, but they don't mix in one missile.
Cost, about that, considering avionics level. Depends on scale of production, though, may be lower.
Range, there's a problem with ramjets: they suck anywhere under Mach 2. A turbojet could do.
Cassidy - July 4, 2008 04:10 AM (GMT)
Is its current total weight proper regarding avionics, fuel load etc for a solely turbojet propelled missile to reach 950km range at MACH 1.8 and still have enough fuel for the final boost downwards?
V12 - July 4, 2008 09:39 PM (GMT)
Not sure.... Possibly. But then it's impossible for a ramjet to reach Mach 5 in the first place.
It might be desirable to use a turbofan for the cruise stage. Unless you plan to go well supersonic at low altitudes. Turbojets start taking over at Mach 2, turboramjets (afterburners) at 2.5, ramjets at 3.
OTOH the difference is small, so an afterburning turbojet going at Mach 2 might be better after all. Things also depend on wingspan - larger wingspan makes for a more fuel efficient missile, at the expense of some extra bulk, RCS, and reduced maneuverability.
I'd consider increasing the launch mass somewhat within the limits of the intended launch system. Then it would have the weight for the final booster.
Payload can be increased then as well. This missile will carry not as much the warhead as the avionics and the airframe.
Cassidy - July 5, 2008 12:26 AM (GMT)
I have updated it, partly on guesswork, and partly on what you informed. I'm not sure if it would work though for the intended range.
"Maximum range" basically suppose perfect weather conditions, a so slow target that it seems static and other impossible facts. Just like anything out of the NEZ of a AAM.
Also, would something like this work like a cruise missile by only using different avionics?
V12 - July 5, 2008 01:18 AM (GMT)
What do you mean? It is a cruise missile. Anti-ship one.
Normally, and universally, in the military the "Maximum [whatever]" is the maximum [whatever] the operator can count on - not the Guinness Record once set by the device.
That means maximum speed a plane can safely use, max range a missile reliably hits a simple target, max payload the plane won't crumple its wings with in a turn, max cargo load the truck won't damage its suspension at.
Cassidy - July 5, 2008 01:36 AM (GMT)
I mean whether it would work against ground targets by only using the same frame but different avionics or not.
Maximum range is basically for hitting effectively a target like... an oil rig.