Ideal PLA Ground Based Air Defence (SAM etc)??????

Scratch said:

For a missile system of that category, I would divide the radar from the launcher. Six 4,5m missiles and a radar would make for a rather big vehicle wich is less mobile and harder to hide, plus you'd loose too much with one vehicle destroyed. Maybe you could offer it in a wheeled version also.
That missile would offer a rather great envelope for a medium range AAM, because of the ramjet. It would of course need a rocket booster, maybe that one could be equipped with TVC to quickly turn to the target from a slant launch.

IIR or ARH require the missile to do the computing itself making it rather expensive. I think different options for a otherwhise identical missile would be ideal, to have a good mix.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Love the model, 3D studio max?

The solid booster mounted in tandem is simple and effective, but increases the overall length of the missile. The shorter the missile the easier it is to adapt to multiple launcher configurations IMO.




Anyway, I've been saying that I think a 4m missile is too long for a practical Vertical Launcher on a tracked fire-on-the-move chassis, but after some thought I think I'm wrong. Compared to the 6m SA-6 Kub, a 4m missile (represented by the blue rectangle) would be only marginally taller overall, and have a lower centre of gravity. You could easily mount 4 boxed missiles this way, especially if you opted to use an MBT size/weight chassis.




And here's a vertical launched 4m long SAM on a tank chassis, representing a ZTZ-99 chassis (not accurate):

planeman said:

Love the model, 3D studio max?

Click to expand...

No, blender (v2.44), but thanks

The solid booster mounted in tandem is simple and effective, but increases the overall length of the missile. The shorter the missile the easier it is to adapt to multiple launcher configurations IMO.

Click to expand...

Agreed, for your needs of mobility (fire on the move) that's a better option.

And here's a vertical launched 4m long SAM on a tank chassis, representing a ZTZ-99 chassis (not accurate)

Click to expand...

Is there a hole in the chassies under the launchers? If not there could be issues with the exhaust. And cold launch on such a platform could further complicate things.
Medium to long range SAMs that can be fired on the move are really a leap forward. However, I wonder if slant launch wouldn't make things much easier without any disadvantages. I guess the vehicle would at least have to slow down pretty much before firing.
I see you also dropped the radar on the launch vehicle, or is it just not shown? There could also be probs with the exhaust streaming on the radar I think.
Just have a lighter vehicle with a radar to accompany the lauchers.

All good points, re the hot launch, I envisaged no chassis below the launch tubes. That's why I reversed the tank hull so that it now drives backwards (gearbox adjusted obviously).

Re fire on the move - I was thinking more fire and move, with a 1-4 second reactiion time.

Building on the idea of a family of high-end SAMs suiting various roles and platforms, but sharing elements of commonality to reduce research and costs, here's two missiles based on the PL-12 (SD-10s)active-radar seeker, guidance and warhead, but with SAM optimised powerplants.

The idea of simply adopting the PL-12 as a SAM makes sense, and would follow the lead of the older HQ-61 and LY-60 already in service.


The obvious analogue is the SL-AMRAAM. Here some I-HAWK customers have bought an upgrade that simply swaps the I-Hawks for the SL-AMRAAM using the same launchers:


But the advanced medium range AAMs already adopted for SAM use lack the range of their airborne cousins, and the comparable Israeli Spyder-MR system, which uses the Derby active-radar AAM adds a booster phase to the missile:


The final comparable active-radar SAM system I'd like to introduce also happens to be my favourite - the Aster-30 which uses a seeker related to the MICA's but in a completely different airframe:



OK, so my observations are:

• The PL-12 has an ideal seeker, guidance and warhead modules, but would lack the range and post-launch agility to make VL worthwhile.
• Because VL is preferable to transversed slant launch, the shorter the missile the better.
• Separate launch boosters are not preferred as they limit short-rang engagement and add complexity, especially to Thrust Vectoring Control.

So here's my idea of PL-12 modules *with appropriate upgrade* being derived into two advanced SAMs, both suited to vertical launch.



1) (middle): A short-medium range highly agile missile. Estimated engagement envelope:
Range: 0.5 > 20km
Altitude: 0.25 > 10km
Speed: Mach 3

This SAM would use a two-phase solid fuel rocket with TVC for immediate post-launch maneuvering.


2) (bottom): A medium / long range SAM
Range: 1 > 80km
Altitude: 0.25 > 50km
Limited Anti-Ballistic-Missile capability


Both sub-types would also have IIR and semi-active (cheaper) seekers.

The a separate specialised system would fulfill the ABM role, and cheaper short range systems would continue to be developed to complement this system.

Does the bottome version utilize ramjet propulsion? It look like it does. Is there at 50+km alt enough air/oxydgen to keep the motor going?
That missile reminds me of the Askash SAM wich is longer but has a much smaller engagemnt envelope, where comes the discrepancy form?

Yeah I'm confused by the Akash, its stated range of just 30km seems very short considering the 1960s SA-6 on which it's based could do that, you'd think they'd have improved the motor. Other Ramjet missiles had greater ranges - 1960s Bloodhound did 85km (twice the size), SA-4 (also much bigger) did 50km, Sea Dart (similar size) did 55km etc.

On a side point, another SAM with a curiously low official range is the VL-MICA; MBDA say 10km altitude and 10km range -??? if it can go up 10km, which can't it go further????? Physics lesson needed. I'm sure VL-MICA has a longer range than 10km. The only reason I can fathom is that MBDA are scared that quoting a longer range undermines their more expensive Aster-15's market position???

Here's another layout for the medium SAM using the PL-12 seeker, avionics module and warhead module. Although it may look old-fashioned I think that there are some advantages to this layout. For one thing it simplifies nose cone jettison for the ramjet intake.

Borrowing a trick out of the 1960s Thunderbird-II SAM, the Sharp nose and taped wings increase turn rate. It's also less than 4m long despite a large internal volume. Maybe the ramjet could be jettisoned once it's run out of thrust? The launch booster and first-phase rocket is in the main fuselage.




And here is the Short-Medium range version alongside. Shorter booster, extra canards, shorter radome and of course no ramjet.

The relatively short airframes mean the the transport options are more diverse, with my preferred "High mobility" option being to use jeeps as TELs, with (secondary in terms of battery targeting) IIR sensors for point un-networked operation. But in the main mode of operation several TELs would work with battery level AESA radar, command unit and support vehicles.


(Benz-Jeep 2022 Brave Warrior shown but could be almost any heavy jeep including the Chinese produced Hummer).

Each TEL would have integral secondary engine as a power generator (rather than separate vehicles), as well as a 600m power/comms cable on a powered winch.

Each TEL would carry either two 'large' ramjet powered medium range SAMs (see above) or four 'small' short-medium range SAMs. Batteries could deploy either one or the other, or mixed.

Taking software advances as a given, the contemporary SAM battery could easily handle up to 20 TELs although more realistic deployments would be 6.

Although the Jeep mounted missiles might look over-sized, they are in fact comparable to the US Marines SL-AMRAAM system that has 4 AMRAAMs mounted on a Hummer. The AMRAAM is slightly longer than my 'large' missile, although my concept has a much larger internal volume.




Such a system would be deployable even by LCAC or Y-8.


A truck mounted system with 6-8 rounds and its own radar would also be available, and a tracked system also.

For battlefield area-ai defence I think a single tracked chassis with radars and both medium/long and short/medium SAMs would be the 'mutts nuts' solution:


Tracks means that you don't need to stop and erect out-riggers before you fire, so it is more mobile than systems like S-300, KS-1A etc.

I toyed with VL but I couldn't get a satisfactory layout. The closest equivalent system is the SA-12 but that's bigger, longer ranged and cannot move and fire.

This refinement of the area-defence version is also more complicated. It has three powerplants:

1. Launch. A solid fuel rocket booster with 'soft' first phase (1 second) then 4 seconds burn. This rocket is the green one behind (and inside) the ramjet on the bottom.

2. Sustainer (1). The solid fuel ramjet fires.

3. The rocket motor in the main missile body fires. There are numerous profiles available depending on the distance to target etc.
a) The 'main' rocket fires whilst the ramjet is still burning to give extra thrust.
b) The rocket fires immediately after the ramjet cuts out. Ramjet jettison depends on flight circumstances.
c) The ramjet is jettisoned on burn-out and the missile glides, then the main rocket is ignited to give extended range, or for last-minute power for agility.



The whole concept is complex, but flexible. It's main weakness is close in defence because the booster stage requires non-maneuvering flight for a safe jettison.



Here's another TEL config with 12 missiles in VL (3 rows of 4). The missiles can only really be the short range version due to height.