Vendetta Final Proposal Part 1 (3.4 MB) - Cal Poly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

shows, most threats will be from below and at shallow angles of about 15° while at 50,000 ft during ingress. Because ofthis, the 0° and 15° lookup angles were analyzed. The results of the Radbase2 software are illustrated first in Foldout 3.which depicts the radar cross-section of the aircraft from a frontal, or 0° lookup angle.The figure shows that the vehicle does clearly meet the frontal RCS requirement of 0.05 m 2 (-13 dBm 2 ) set forthin the RFP. It also shows that the iterative measures taken to shape the aircraft worked. The leading edge and trailingedge of the wing come together closely. There is a large return directly from the side of the aircraft due to the wingtipand fuselage side. It can also be seen that, although there are slight variations in the returns due to the differentfrequencies, they do not vary much due to the fact that the Vendetta is a rather large vehicle; hence none of the surfacesare small enough to interfere at the radar wavelengths. The weakest azimuth angle for the Vendetta is the 40° anglewhere the leading edge sends a large spike forward. However, the Vendetta meets the RFP requirement for a full 77° ofazimuth.Looking at the equally crucial 15° lookup angle cross-section in Foldout 3 reveals a slightly different picture. Itshows that the Vendetta meets and exceeds the 0° lookup angle returns. This is highly advantageous. The shape of thebottom of the aircraft is effective in keeping spikes at a minimum. As mentioned earlier, this is a crucial area for theVendetta. As most of its threats are from the ground, it is important that the aircraft has a limited return in thisorientation.The threat chart shows that the Vendetta would remain in range of the Soviet SA-12 and SA-6 SAMs for 160seconds and 60 seconds, respectively. This means that the returns from the bottom of the Vendetta are crucial for threatassessment. The software was used to generate an RCS butterfly plot in a sweep around the vehicle to determine thefootprint that it will leave as it flies above its threats. Foldout 3 shows this sweep.It can be seen that the 60° facets on the bottom of the fuselage are deflecting radar away from the vulnerablelookup orientation. The aircraft is still producing a large return of almost +40 dBm 2 in this position, however. Onceagain, there is little variation in the returns for various frequencies. Mission planning would become crucial to be surethe Vendetta avoids flying directly over only these long-range, high flying threats such as the SA-12.It is important to note that the addition of radar absorbing material (RAM) would further reduce some of thereturns on the aircraft. Note that all plots shown reflect the fact that software is assuming fully reflective metal on allsurfaces. No cavities are being modeled besides the inlets. This is a conservative approach. RAM could be applied inactuality to reduce some of the returns on the bottom and front of the aircraft.15
0° Lookup77°50403020100-10-20-30-40Threat Frequency Analysis:RadarAN/TPS -43E Mobile RadarAN/TPS -70Fixed Ground RadarManufacturerWestinghouseNorthrop GrummanFrequency2.9 to 3.1GHz2.9 to 3.1GHz0AN/SPS -49850 to 942Typical Long Range Naval Navy Research LabsMHzRadar1 GHz5 GHz10 GHz12 GHzRFP RequirementRegion of RFPAN/SPS -559.05 toCompliance -13 dBm 2 Long Range Surface Search ISC Cardion10.0 GHzRadarImageRadial Sweep6050403020101 GHz5 GHz10 GHz12 GHz15° Lookup3063°Threat Envelope Analysis:100,000 ftSA-1220100-10-20-30-4075,000 ft25,000 ft1,000 ft50,000 ft8°15°SA-6SA-11SA-8/15SA-9/13500 ft1 GHz5 GHz10 GHz12 GHzRFP RequirementRegion of RFPCompliance -13 dBm 2300 ft200 ft45706040503020 nm40 30 20sm10Time In RangeSA-12 -- 160 sSA-6 -- 60 sSA-11 -- 55 sSA-9SA-13SA-8SA-11SA-13SA-6SA-12Chris DroneyNate SchnaibleRev. 3VendettaKolby KeiserChris MaglioHigh RollersFoldout 3Low ObservablesChris AtkinsonDan Salluce5/23/02
Page 6 and 7: Figure 11.1 - 1-g Military Specific
Page 8 and 9: Nomenclature6DOF Six Degrees of Fre
Page 10: 1 IntroductionThe American Institut
Page 13 and 14: Table 1.III - Comparison of the F-1
Page 15 and 16: The weight fraction method provides
Page 17 and 18: 3 ConfigurationThe current configur
Page 19 and 20: • Span = 53 ft• m.a.c. = 32 ft
Page 21 and 22: VendettaChris DroneyNate SchnaibleK
Page 23: low signature axisymmetric advanced
Page 27 and 28: 5.2 Wing SweepThe next wing paramet
Page 29 and 30: 5.3 Wing ThicknessThe effect of win
Page 31 and 32: 0.10.050-0.05-0.1-0.150 0.1 0.2 0.3
Page 33 and 34: 5.6 DragDrag was divided into four
Page 35 and 36: 6 PropulsionIn developing the propu
Page 37 and 38: Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET)
Page 39 and 40: 35,00030,000Sea Level 1.5K 5K10K20K
Page 41 and 42: 0.990.980.97Pressure Recovery0.960.
Page 43 and 44: oundary layer diverter for high spe
Page 45 and 46: 7 Structural Layout & Material Sele
Page 47 and 48: Vertical AttachmentPointsHorizontal
Page 49: 8 Landing GearLanding Gear design f

Vendetta Final Proposal Part 1 (3.4 MB) - Cal Poly

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?