Ordnance – Bomb – flare and signal dropping – Racks
Reexamination Certificate
2000-05-04
2002-02-19
Jordan, Charles T. (Department: 3641)
Ordnance
Bomb, flare and signal dropping
Racks
C089S001801
Reexamination Certificate
active
06347567
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a system for launching precision guided munitions (PGMs), artillery rockets/missiles, and cruise missiles from an aircraft and, more particularly, to a highly efficient, cost-effective system for launching the same from tail loading cargo aircraft. According to the system of the present invention, PGMs, artillery rockets/missiles, and/or cruise missiles are packaged in munition ejection containers containers (MECs), arranged in a storage rack in the cargo hold of the aircraft and individually launched from the cargo door of the aircraft, whereupon the container is subjected to wind forces which strip the container from the munition(s) contained therein. With the container and various packaging inserts removed, the munition(s) can assume a flight path towards a designated target.
2. Discussion of the Related Art
The first known use of ground attack aviation occurred during World War I when bi-plane pilots, initially shooting each other with pistols, later progressed to dropping hand grenades on enemy ground troops. In subsequent years, anti-aircraft defense technologies continued to improve, as fighter and bomber aircraft, and the weapons they carried, grew more capable, sophisticated, lethal and expensive. In an effort to increase the effect of aerial munitions, precision guided munitions and cruise missiles were developed to avoid ground-based defenses and to increase the probability of killing the target with one aircraft sortie and one weapon. Unfortunately, the constant research and development needed to increase the survivability and effectiveness of fighter and bomber aircraft, and the weapons carried on these aircraft, has grown increasingly and, in some instances, prohibitively expensive.
The United States Air Force (USAF) currently uses dedicated fighter aircraft (e.g., the F-15E, F-16, and F-117) and bomber aircraft (e.g., the B-52, B-1, and B-2) to deliver bombs, missiles and precision guided munitions (PGMs) against ground targets. These aircraft, which are limited in number, are all considerably costly to manufacture, fly and maintain. Accordingly, their use as a platform to launch cruise missiles in a stand-off scenario, wherein enemy threat to the aircraft is minimal, amounts to a highly uneconomical and inefficient use of defense resources. It is, therefore, not surprising that despite the desire to acquire precision guided munitions (PGMs) and cruise missiles, the air forces of many countries are deterred from doing so due to the expense of purchasing and maintaining the sophisticated fighter or bomber aircraft required to deploy these weapons.
Fighter aircraft, such as the F-15E or F-117, which are capable of flying at night and in bad weather and surviving against the most capable enemy air defense systems ever developed and deployed, cost more than $50 million per aircraft to produce and thousands of dollars an hour to fly. Moreover, currently used fighter aircraft require highly sophisticated and expensive logistics support systems. At present, the USAF maintains only about 52 F-117 fighter aircraft and 200 F-15E fighter aircraft in inventory. And, while the B-52 bomber cost only about $10 million when produced in the early 1960's, these large aircraft are extremely expensive to fly and support due to their 8 jet engines and the maintenance required to support their aging air frames. Even more expensive are the B-1 and B-2 bombers which typically cost anywhere from 5 to 20 times more per flight hour to support than the F-15E and F-117 fighters.
To further complicate matters, the USAF uses a different cruise missile than the United States Navy (USN), resulting in increased costs of developing, producing and supporting the systems of each military branch. Both the USAF and USN have a long history of researching, developing, testing and producing different weapon systems that achieve the same end using different launch platforms. For instance, the USAF uses inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBM's) and air launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) and its conventional war head variant (CALCM), while the USN uses submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and the Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM). These practices have been justified in the past due to the radically different environments in which these systems have been deployed. The differences between the USN TLAM and the USAF CALCM launch platforms offers an excellent illustration of the challenge of developing a common weapons system that will meet the diverse needs of both services. For instance, the USN is able to launch the same basic TLAM missile several different ways from both submarine and surface ship platforms, and a variety of missiles in a dense format from a single launch system. The USAF, on the other hand, is presently limited to use of expensive and somewhat limited numbers of bomber and fighter aircraft to deploy similar weapons.
On most fighter and bomber aircraft, weapons can be carried either externally or internally. External carriage on aircraft allows more weapons to be carried, but with several disadvantages. In particular, the carriage of weapons externally creates considerable aerodynamic drag, which significantly reduces the payload/range of the aircraft. These aerodynamic loads also impose considerable stress and vibration on the weapon. Other factors to consider are the size, weight, and shape of the weapon, in addition to the number of weapons carried, their position on the pylon, other external stores carried, air speeds flown, etc. These and other factors must be carefully modeled, and the different external stores configurations need to be flight tested in a variety of mission profiles, to ensure that the aircraft and PGM reliability are not compromised. External weapon carriage also significantly increases the radar return of the aircraft. For this reason, the modern and more stealthy aircraft, such as the B-1 and B-2 bombers and the F-22 fighter use only internal weapon carriage.
While internal weapon carriage is far more efficient from aerodynamic (range/payload) and radar signature points of view, it is very inefficient from a payload volumetric density perspective. Each ALCM weighs about 3,000 pounds and their rotary launcher about the same, with the combined installed payload of 8 rotary launched missiles weighing about 27,000 pounds. This figure would double to approximately 54,000 pounds when 16 ALCMs on rotary launchers are installed in the B-2 bomber, which is an impressive payload. However, it is operationally unlikely that 16 ALCMs would be carried simultaneously due to the need to employ other PGMs during the same mission, which weigh only about 2,000 pounds each. The smaller PGM payloads, using the same rotary launchers, would then limit the bomber to only 16 PGMs, significantly less than the air frame's maximum payload capacity if the munitions were carried in a more efficient format. The use of other types of munition racks (e.g., in the B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers) allows the loading of large numbers of smaller munitions, but munition types cannot be mixed in the same payload bay. Thus, the potential load configurations and employment options are limited.
Another factor to consider is the limited operational availability of the USAF bomber inventory. Present reports show an inventory of 90 B-52 bombers, 90 B-1 bombers, and 21 B-2 bombers. This total of approximately 200 bombers is significantly reduced by aircraft undergoing short or long term maintenance, modifications, flight testing, and crew training, which typically leaves only 100-120 available aircraft at any one time for deployment and combat operations.
A further disadvantage of using bomber aircraft to deliver cruise missiles or other PGMs, beyond the expense and limited number of available bombers, is their extreme visibility which causes neutral parties, and even allies, to deny over-flight and basing rights. Additionally, bombers require long runways and extensive support facilities, which limits
Downey P.A. Robert M.
Jordan Charles T.
Thomson M.
LandOfFree
Covert aerial encapsulated munition ejection system does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Covert aerial encapsulated munition ejection system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Covert aerial encapsulated munition ejection system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2981478