Which Missile to Kick Off 2021 With?

[Bruiser]

I did start another thread yesterday about which rocket to build first in 2021 but I didn't do a poll. Choices were a Patriot or a Raytheon Peregrine missile. Based on the input I have decided to toss out the Patriot for now and bring in another missile I drew up this morning. Before I say it's name, a little history...

The Air Force revealed the concept of SACM (Small Advanced Capabilities Missile) in a presentation in February 2017. The idea is to replace the AIM-120 missile platform with a missile that has the same capabilities, is smaller, lighter, and costs less. This is possible because of recent improvements in rocket propellants and guidance systems. So far two companies have come forward with designs, Lockheed and Raytheon. Both designs are just under 6 feet long which adds the benefit of doubling the amount of missiles an F-22 can carry. As best I can tell they are both in the development stage as yet. All the dimensions for both missiles have come from pictures and drawings on the internet.

The Raytheon Peregrine was in my original post. It looks a lot like a naval missile but is an air to air missile. The nose cone in my drawing is a little long but otherwise the dimensions are as close as I could approximate them. The challenge here will be the long strakes and the root fairing where they bolt on to the missile body.





The second missile being developed is the Lockheed Cuda. It looks more like a traditional air to air missile. Again the nose is a little long and I have increased the aft fins by 14 percent over what I initially calculated for stability. The challenge with this will be modelling the small Attitude Control Motors (ACMs) at the front of the missile.



Oh, they will be built using Pro Series .040 wall tubing and have 29mm mounts for basically F and G motors although I did throw in an H motor for the stability check. The H motor was installed when I took the snips

So what do you all think? I don't think either has been modelled yet, at least not a TRF. Somebody was looking for data on the Peregrine but as best I know has not started construction

 

[teepot]

I like the Raytheon one.

 

[neil_w]

Peregrine looks a bit more interesting to me. A nice thing is that there are a *lot* of pictures of it available, so it shouldn't be to hard to suss out the details.

Not sure I see where or what the ACMs are at the front of the CUDA?

 

[Bruiser]

The ACMs are the round circles just behind the nose cone. They are solid motors that fire explosively to refine the missile's course and ensure body-to-body impact.

There are a lot of pictures and drawings of the Peregrine but I've just found two schemes. One that is all light gray (most drawings) and another the has a white front end (on the demo) . Some of the bands are blue, some are brown.





The pics and drawings of the Cuda show a couple of different grays on the main body, the black ACMs and natural metal fins.



Tough choice...

-Bob

 

[mo2872]

One each is the obvious answer....

 

[kuririn]

IIRC blue bands would indicate a display or inert round.

 

[OverTheTop]

Peregrine. I should build one of these one day.

Or both, as others have suggested.

 

[Senior Space Cadet]

I did start another thread yesterday about which rocket to build first in 2021 but I didn't do a poll. Choices were a Patriot or a Raytheon Peregrine missile. Based on the input I have decided to toss out the Patriot for now and bring in another missile I drew up this morning. Before I say it's name, a little history...

The Air Force revealed the concept of SACM (Small Advanced Capabilities Missile) in a presentation in February 2017. The idea is to replace the AIM-120 missile platform with a missile that has the same capabilities, is smaller, lighter, and costs less. This is possible because of recent improvements in rocket propellants and guidance systems. So far two companies have come forward with designs, Lockheed and Raytheon. Both designs are just under 6 feet long which adds the benefit of doubling the amount of missiles an F-22 can carry. As best I can tell they are both in the development stage as yet. All the dimensions for both missiles have come from pictures and drawings on the internet.

The Raytheon Peregrine was in my original post. It looks a lot like a naval missile but is an air to air missile. The nose cone in my drawing is a little long but otherwise the dimensions are as close as I could approximate them. The challenge here will be the long strakes and the root fairing where they bolt on to the missile body.
View attachment 443701

View attachment 443702


The second missile being developed is the Lockheed Cuda. It looks more like a traditional air to air missile. Again the nose is a little long and I have increased the aft fins by 14 percent over what I initially calculated for stability. The challenge with this will be modelling the small Attitude Control Motors (ACMs) at the front of the missile.
View attachment 443705View attachment 443704


Oh, they will be built using Pro Series .040 wall tubing and have 29mm mounts for basically F and G motors although I did throw in an H motor for the stability check. The H motor was installed when I took the snips

So what do you all think? I don't think either has been modelled yet, at least not a TRF. Somebody was looking for data on the Peregrine but as best I know has not started construction

I like the Raytheon. I like it so much I think it might influence one of my next designs.

 

[BrendanH69]

View attachment 443705

Cuda gets my vote!

 

[DaHabes]

I have the Raytheon in my possible build list but had not seen the Cuda until this post. I would now have a hard time deciding. My advice is to build both and do a drag race. 3" diameter with 54mm MMT. Warp-9 or Super Thunder. Whoosh!

 

[shawn_rocket]

Cuda. Great lines for a missile.

 

[neil_w]

IIRC blue bands would indicate a display or inert round.

I learned a bit about this stuff when building my IRIS-T. The original reference I used is gone now, but this reference is good: https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Markings/US_Ammo_Markings.htm

On the IRIS-T, I ultimately went with my best guess on live round markings (plus logo which wouldn't be there on the real thing), which would be yellow in front ("high explosive") and brown in back ("low explosive", or rocket propellant). I would do the same for these missiles, unless proved otherwise, or if you prefer to model an inert training round.

Sidewinder pictures typically show the same yellow/brown scheme, e.g.:

I'm not sure how they decide exactly *where* to put the strips along the body, but for that I'd probably just stick with the positions in the images you have. For the IRIS-T, there were several variations out there so eventually I just picked. In pictures of the Sidewinder I see at least two different strip positions, although the one shown above is the one I probably trust the most to be correct.

I don't know what the third stripe on the CUDA would be (or which one is the "third").

 

[UhClem]

I sort of started work on a BT80 Cuda almost a year ago. I cut out aft fin blanks anyway. (Balsa laminated with a fiberglass core.) Based on the timestamp on another Rocksim file I fiddled with a LOC 5.5" design a year before that.

 

[Funkworks]

Cuda. I like the small circular Attitude Control Motors, even though they can only be modelled or painted. Very unique.

 

[Bruiser]

I like the ACMs too. It gives the missile a "different" look.

I wonder if they could be painted using a stencil and some sort of "textured" paint. It might be quite tricky... There's a rubberized coating used for handles on tools that comes to mind. I just don't know what type paint it would be compatible with. It also might be too thick.

-Bob

 

[kuririn]

PAC 3 also has ACMs.

 

[UhClem]

Don/t forget LOSAT:

 

[Hobie1dog]

both are great looking.

 

[Bruiser]

"PAC 3 also has ACMs."

I've been trying to find a close up of the ACMs installed in a missile but have had no luck. I wonder if they are recessed, protrude from the body tube or if they are flush? If they are flush are they curved to match the curvature of the missile? Also, are they just a solid "dot" when you look at them?

-Bob

 

[UhClem]

I've been trying to find a close up of the ACMs installed in a missile but have had no luck.

I know that for the PAC3 and LOSAT they get obscured by the ablative coating. So nothing to see until a hole appears.

 

[Bruiser]

So those circles in the pictures are probably ablative coating then? Just painted on in a circle to seal it all up?

Peregrine is still in the lead. Over 350 views and only twelve votes so far. Guess my choices aren't too exciting

-Bob

 

[neil_w]

Just did a bit of reading on the ACMs... so now I see that each of those black spots is actually an individual solid-fueled motor. Wow. I guess each one only gets to be used once.

So, for proper scale modeling, you need to stick a live MMX motor in each one of those.

 

[kuririn]

Here's how Stickershock simulated the ACMs on the early model PAC-3s.

Black circles on silver metallic vinyl.
Very good match to the missile in Post #16 wouldn't you say?

For the Cuda I would go grey circles on clear home printed decal paper.

 

[Alan R]

"
Which Missile to Kick Off 2021 With?
"
How about a nuke? We'll just have a do-over for this past year

 

[UhClem]

Very good match to the missile in Post #16 wouldn't you say?

It's only a model. (Post #16)

 

[kuririn]

It's only a model. (Post #16)

Yes, it's "only" a 1/2 scale display model at the 2005 Paris International Air Show at Le Bourget.
But I have no reason to doubt its' accuracy of an early model PAC 3.
Bruiser, here's a link to a closeup of a dummy model at Hamamatsu Air Base in Japan.
You can see the details of the ACM openings in the airframe if you click and enlarge the picture.
File:JASDF MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3 Missile(dummy model) left front low-angle view at Hamamatsu Air Base October 20, 2019.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Your guess is as good as mine if the Cuda openings are similar.

 

[Funkworks]

Yes, it's "only" a 1/2 scale display model at the 2005 Paris International Air Show at Le Bourget.
But I have no reason to doubt its' accuracy of an early model PAC 3.
Bruiser, here's a link to a closeup of a dummy model at Hamamatsu Air Base in Japan.
You can see the details of the ACM openings in the airframe if you click and enlarge the picture.
File:JASDF MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3 Missile(dummy model) left front low-angle view at Hamamatsu Air Base October 20, 2019.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Your guess is as good as mine if the Cuda openings are similar.

Looking at that picture up close, it seems like a good way to model each one of these would be:

1. a shallow hole
2. a smaller disk, as thick as the hole's depth
2. all black except the rim

And a rough count gives about 120 of them (5 x 12 on one half).

 

[UhClem]

But I have no reason to doubt its' accuracy of an early model PAC 3.

I do. These things are only display models designed to show off details that the salesmen want to use to impress customers.

The ACM count on a PAC3 is 180.

a319957.pdf

 

[kuririn]

Hey Bruiser, found another Lockheed Martin missile that apparently has ACMs.
It's surface to air and is mounted on Stryker vehicles for area air defense.
It looks A LOT like the Cuda. Wonder if it's the same airframe?
Anyway, it's called M-SHORAD, here's a pic:

More info here:
Lockheed Martin Tests New M-SHORAD Future Interceptor – UAS VISION

 

[Bruiser]

File:JASDF MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3 Missile(dummy model) left front low-angle view at Hamamatsu Air Base October 20, 2019.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

That is a good picture. Thank you for sharing that.

found another Lockheed Martin missile that apparently has ACMs.

I think it is the same missile. It certainly looks the same. I had found a link that said how many ACMs it has but now I can't find it. I found a link saying it was test fired back in Nov 18 at White Sands...

So I wonder how much the tube would be weakened if I made a shallow hole with a sanding disk with the Dremel. I am thinking of using nylon and water based poly on the outside of the tube. I have also read about using the WBP on the inside of tubes. Supposed to strengthen them and make them easy to clean out ejection residue...

-Bob