A Perspective on the

Requirements and Design for

Advanced Cruise Missiles
L. M. Nicolai, DARPA,
Arlington, Va.

AlAA AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AND

TECHNOLOGY MEETING
August 20-22,1979/New York, New York
W

For permission to copy or republish, contact thn American institute 01 Aeronautics and Astronautics.1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10019
 A PERSPECTTVE ON THE
REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN FOR
ADVANCED CRUISE MISSILES

By: Leland M. Nicolaih /'

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Arlington, Virginia 22209

Introduction: Pre-launch survivability is driven by the

The United States has made a commitment to
rely heavily on cruise missiles for the airborne
l e g of the strategic triad. Cruise missiles would
be used in concert with manned penetrating bombers
to confound the enemy's defenses and provide a
strategic synergism. Cruise missiles also show
great promise for striking fixed (or at least
stationary for a characteristic time), high v a l u e ,
hard and soft targets in a theater application
such as Eastern Europe.
Cruise missiles are long range airlift vehicles both theater and strategic cruise missiles. Long
and are similar to range dominated aircraft in
that respect, needing good aerodynamic and pra-
pulsive efficiency. On the other hand they are
one-way, unmanned vehicles and are similar to
missiles, needing low cost, autonomous operation
and high reliability and accuracy. Hopefully,
cruise missiles can combine the m o d features
~
ladvantanes of aircraft and missile+
~
~ . ~
~~~~ ~.
to n
r- -~
ro v-i d
. --p ~
- . Points)
very cost effective weapon system. The current
cruise missiles, the General Dynamicslconvair
Tomahawk (AGM-109) and the Boeing ALCM-B ( A G M - ~ ~ B )
Dowered by the Williams F-107 turbofan eneine
I
basing concept and the cruise missile range.
Ground or sea launch appears to be the most attrac-
tive launch mode for theater cruise missiles since
they would not tie up valuable Tactical Air assets
during the critical high sortie demand phase of a
theater war. The theater cruise missiles could
have either fixed launchers with hardened shelters
(to ride out an attack) or mobile launchers in a
dispersed mode (for aimpoint uncertainty). The
mobile launchers could be transporter-erector-
launchers (TIIL) for ground launch o r submarines for
sea launch. Cruise missile range is important f o r
range permits the theater cruise missiles to be
based well away from the hostile area, providing
more Secure basing and warning time. Long range
for the air launched strategic cruise missile
permits the carrier to launch well outside of .he .
enemy's defenses and the flexibility to select
alternate penetration routes (and hence launch
.
The pre-launch survivability of the strategic
cruise missile is also driven by the pre-launch
survivability oi the cruise missile carrier aircraft

be the departure point for this discussion. (CMCA). The CMCA must have the capability to take-
b . of an SLBM attack and have
off quickly w o n warninp,
The fundamental philosophy for cruise missiles the necessary separation distance and hardness to
is much like that for a submarine - low probability survive nuclear detonations in the proximity of the
of detection and long range. airfield.

Requirements: Penetration survivability is dependent upon

Survivability: High
Range: 1000-2000 nm for theater CMs
2000-3000 nm for strategic CMs
Payload : Nuclear o r conventional munitions
Accuracy: The CMs are autonomous and
need an a l l weather accuracy
commensurate with the target
hardness and warhead yield.
The accuracy associated with
TERCOM updated INS is sufficient
for a nuclear warhead aeainst
most hard targets. The scene
matching schemes (such a s the
McDonnell-Douglas DIGSMAC or
DARPA's all weather concepts)
promise CEPs sufficient for
conventional warheads against
most theater hard targets.
The measure-of-merit (MOM) is the life cycle
cost (LCC) required to destroy a given target set.
The features driving this MOM are pre-launch
survivability, penetration survivability,
carriageability, cost and reliability.
*Colonel, USAF; Associate Fellow, AIAA; Chairman,
L Aircraft Design Technical Committee
The views expressed in this paper are those of the
author and do not necessarily represent an official
DaD position.
the cruise missile probability of being detected
(PD) and the probability of being intercepted Once
detected ( P I D ) . PD is influenced by the stealth of
the vehicle (level of the observables), the tactics
employed (defense avoidance, deiense suppression,
etc) and ability to terrain mask. The leading
philosophy for cruise missiles is much like that
for submarines in that not being detected i s the
key element. P I D is inFluenced by speed, ECM, end
game maneuver and tactics (ie, saturate defenses by
flooding a defense corridor with many cruise
~
missiles and decoys).
Since a large p a r t of the LCC f o r the air
launched cruise missile (ALCM) is the cost of the
cruise missile carrier aircraft (CMCA), carriape-
ability is important. The size of the CMCA and the
number of ALCMs that it can carry are important
c o s t considerations. Increasing the number of
ALCMs per CMCA lowers the overall LCC of the system,
however, the effectiveness of the entire system
starts to hinge on the survivability of the few
CMCAS ( a l l our eggs in one basket so to speak).
The CMCA with its many ALCMs onbaard presents a
very lucrative target for the enemy and we can
expect him to focus on destroying the CMCA before
the cruise missiles are launched. Again, the range
of the cruise missile is an extremely important
parameter.

This psperlr drelsrrd a work of Ihr US.

Gorrrnmenl and Iherefore irin Ihepublirdomaln.
 Carriageability is driven by vehicle weight to current and near term threats. The selection of
and dimensions. The lateral dimension is usually the subsonic low altitude cruise missile is based
the most critical and thus some mechanism for largely on cost and carriageability.
folding the wings is important.
W
Consideration of basic principles would also
The cost for the cruise missile system is the lead one to focus O n the low altitude option.
LCC of the missile plus the launcher, either a Missile systems are influenced primarily by the
CMCA, a mobile TEL (plus associated support and limitations of their sensors (radar, IR, acoustic
security), a submarine or a fixed base launcher/ or v i s u a l ) . These limitatims Can be characterized
shelter. Here again, size of the cruise missile is as:
a factor in the acquisition cost of the vehicles
and the launcher. Simplicity is also a consider- 1. Signal-to-noise (sensitivity)
ation. The cruise missiles need to be the classical 2. Terrain masking
"wooden round" where they 3re sewiced and tested 3. Propagation effects
prior to the delivery acceptance and then not 4. Background clutter
touched again (except far perhaps retargeting)
until they a r e loaded and fired. Mainenance on the The signal-to-noise limitation is driven by
vehicles must be minimal with the engine scheduled the level of the observables (i.e., RCS, IR signa-
for only three starts (test, acceptance and ture, noise, etc.). For radars, increasing the
launching). input power can overcome the small RCS targets.
Input power is not a problem for ground radars but
It is important that the strategic and theater is a limiting factor for airborne radars. Propa-
cruise missiles be essentially the same vehicle so gation effects are rarefaction, diffraction and
that there is one RDThE for both and cost reduction reflection (multipath) for radars and atmospheric
through quantity buy can be achieved. This quantity transmission for I R , acoustic and visual. Back-
could be as many as 3500 strategic and 6000 theater ground clutter is driven by the proximity of the
CMs. Mission peculiar components such as warhead, target to the background, the signal strength of
booster, terminal guidance and perhaps navigation the target and system processing capability.
System would be different. Since engine RDT6E is Terrain,masking is the physical fact that you can't
very expensive it is felt that one engine should see through hills (although RF waves can bend
power both the strategic and theater cruise around hills by diffraction to some degree). Radar
missiles, both vehicles are range dominated and is the most effective of the sensor systems Since
need a very efficient (low thrust specific fuel it is not limited by atmosphere and can increase
consumption) propulsion unit. its sensitivity by increasing its power. Clutter
processing is a technology that will improve with
Reliability is very important but should be time.
traded off with cost. 4
The high altitude and speed option does not
Very important factors in all this consid- take advantage of any o f the sensor limitations and
eration are the limitations imposed by SALT. For becomes on easy mark for a space based I R sensor.
example, SALT I1 will limit the average number The high altitude option will be detected but
of cruise missiles per strategic delivery vehicle relies on its speed for survival. Ground defenses
(SDV) to 28 and the number of SDVs to 120 (total of can eventually cope with hypersonic, high altitude
3360 cruise missiles). The CMCAs could carry more cruise missiles through hypersonic interceptor
than 28 if some of the manned penetrating bombers missiles, near head-on attack and large (even
(8-52, etc.) would carry a small number of ALCMs nuclear) warheads. It should also be noted that
(perhaps 10) so that the average was 28. The long range hypersonic cruise missiles will be very
advanced cruise missiles that we are discussing large.
here would not be operational until after SALT I1
expires (1985) so that the limitations agreed to in Low altitude cruise missiles can take advantage
SALT I11 are very crucial. of many of the sensor limitations such a s terrain
masking, horizon limits and confounding of the
Cruise Missile Options: sensor sensitivity through background clutter.
Admittedly flying into the ground or obstacles
The cruise missile options that have received (clobber) is a problem at low altitude but technology
considerable study are: improvements should r e s o l v e this problem. Since
there is more payoff with low altitude than speed,
1. Subsonic low altitude cruise missiles of the future will probably be
2. Subsonic high altitude subsonic although there is some merit to a supersonic
3. Supersonic high altitude dash at a s low an altitude a s possible for the last
4 . Hypersonic high altitude 25 nm to the target.

The selection of the most cost effective Design Approach:

option is driven by the threat which is indeed
formidable. The Soviet radar and IR SAMs (surface
t o air missiles) plus the EWIGCI (ground early
warning radar) and SUAWACS (airborne warning and
control) controlled airborne interceptors present a
very impressive defensive threat. With the current
estimates of the late 1980 and 1990 threat the most
cost effective Option appears to be the subsonic
low altitude cruise missile. All of the options,
except the subsonic high altitude cruise missile,
could provide satisfactory penetration capability
The design approach will center around the
subsonic low altitude cruise missile. The design
of a cruise missile is a nightmare for the designer
as it is a myriad of compromises. For example
stealth and good aerodynamic/ propulsive efficiency
conflict one another. The designer has to continually i/
trade-off design characteristics to find the best
design solution.
 1. Low Altitude Cruise Requirements:
In order to minimize the probability of
being detected by enemy defenses the cruise missile
c would be designed for stealth (low observables) and
cruise flight at low altitude (in order to take
advantage o f the decreased horizon range, terrain
masking and background clutter). This low altitude
cruise is a poor condition for efficient long range
cruise.
Since the dynamic pressure is large (725
0.7) the wing loading W/S needs to be
p s f at Mach
large in order to fly near the CL for maximum
range. Figure 1 shows a typical LID versus CL
chart for a winpbody
. -
cruise missile confiauration
and would indicate a W/S greater than 250 psi for
start of cruise.
As fuel is burned the cruise missile
should slow down to keep the CL required for cruise
flight a s near the value for maximum range a s
possiblc. Slowing down from Mach 0.7 at the start
of cruise to Mach 0.55 at end of cruise would
accommodate a 40 percent decrease in W I S plus
giving a lower TSFC. If other factors dictate a
nearly constant speed for the mission (such as
mission planning time-over-target consideration,
navigation accuracy or minimum time in defense
zones) then the CL and LID will decrease as the
cruise missile weight decreases. This situation is
shown on Figure 1.
2. Propulsion Requirements:
The engine is usually sized for either a
maximum speed or a constant speed'maneuver load
factor of 2 at launch weight for terrain following.
These sizing conditions will give a maximum thrust
LJ
approximately twice the thrust required for cruise.
This is unlike the usual design practice for range
dominatcd vehicles where the thrust is sized for
cruise ( o r a small compromise between take-off
distance and cruise). Increased thrust (either in-
creased engine sizing o r augmented engine) for end-
game maneuvering against a SAM has not shown a
concl.usive payoff in tradeoff studies and needs to
be examined further.
Since cruise missiles will be operating
at partial power settings for much of their mission,
the engine should have a flat TSFC characteristic
between 50 percent and maximum thrust. This
desirable feature is shown on Figure 2.
Low engine TSFC is very important for the
cruise missile since it is a range dominated
vehicle. This means a moderate bypass ratio ( 3 to
4 1 , high overall pressure ratio (OPR) and high
turbine inlet temperature. The desired flat TSFC
characteristic shown on Figure 2 is usually assoc-
iated with low bypass ratio turbine engines so that
a tradeoff needs to be made between characteristic
shape and bypass ratio. If engine installation
losses are large (such as from a flush inlet o r a
2-D nozzle) the tradeoff studies would promote the
selection of a lower bypass ratio engine. Since the
cruise missile is a one-way system with a maximum
flight time of approximately seven hours, the
engine should be designed to short life criteria
(aPPro<imately 25 h o u r s design life).
c DARPA is pursuing two engine concepts for
an advanced cruise missile engine (approximately
600 lb sea level static thrust) that show promise
of greatly improved TSFC. These concepts are the
Compound Cycle Turbofan Engine (CCTE) by Garrett
and the Excelitric Turbofan Engine (ETE) by Teledyne
CAE. The CCTE concept replaces the combustor i n a
conventional two spool turbofan with a two stoke,
high speed (8000 RPM) adiabatic diesel. The shaft
power from the diesel engine drives the fan and
part of the compressor with the turbine (driven by
the diesel engine exhaust) providing the remaining
work for the compressor. The diesel core is a very
;d;z;:J reciprocating engine, providing approximately
power density for a design life of 25
hours". The ETE is a three spool turbofan operating
at an overall pressure ratio greater than 30 and
turbine inlet temperature of 25OO0F. The third
spool is mounted off-axis so that the shafting of
the first and second spools does not go through it.
This off-axis mounting permits more design freedom
to obtain high compressor and turbine efficiencies
in the very small third spool. A third engine
concept getting DARPA attention is a recuperated
two spool turbofan being proposed by a Pratt and
whitney/Williams Research team. There appears to
be a TSFC payoff with a recuperator i n a small
turbofan operating at high turbine temperatures for
long range cruise missile application. One of the
keys to the above three engine concepts is high
temperature materials development which permits the
operation of the adiabatic diesel and the uncooled
turbine rotors.
Another propulsion consideration for the
cruise missile designer is the use of high density
slurry fuels. Table 1 shows a comparison of
cruise missile turbine engine fuels. The fael for
the first generation cruise missiles will be JP-9.
Cruise missiles are driven by carriage constraints
and low observables and, therefore, tend to be
volume limited. The use of a slurry fuel with its
high volumetric heat of combustion would result in
a smaller vehicle. Boron slurry offers the most
outstanding performance advantage but leaves an
undesirable exhaust residue. Carbon slurry is the
preferred advanced fuel, offering a slight decrease
in vehicle weight but an approximate 15 percent
size decrease over JP-9 for a fined range mission.
3. Penetration Survivability:
Penetration survivability is influenced
primarily by the probability of detection, PD. LOW
P means low observables (RCS, IR, acoustic and
vysual signatures) and the capability to terrain
mask.
Control of radar reflections in the
microwave region is accomplished primarily by body -_ -
shaping and the application of radar absorbing
material (RAM). The desire to achieve low RCS can
have a significant effect on the cruise missile
design, particularly when shaping is used to reduce
RCS. Absorbing materials are characterized by
their ability to attenuate electromagnetic Waves as
they propagate through the material.
Assuming that the transmitting and
receiving elements of the radar are colocated, the
design approach is to minimize the normally reflected
energy (backscatter) by shaping the surface to
reflect away from the receiver. For the nose-on
*Indian polis 500 racing engines produce less than
6 Hlin' for less than ten hours with methanol fuel.
aspect, techniques for RCS reduction in the micro-
wave range include a small radius nose with long
fineness ratio, low RCS antenna, design of the
inlet to minimize detection (including location,
flush inlet, RAM, splitters and long curved ducts),
and Swept edges of aerodynamic surfaces. For the
side aspect, it is desirable to have sloped or
faceted surfaces, minimal (or elimination) fin
area, and smooth blended control surface body
intersections. For the tail aspect, it is desir-
able to shield the engine exhaust and to use high
temperature RAM to minimize the RCS.
After the first order RCS reduction is
achieved by configuration shaping, RAM can be used
to achieve a second order fine tuning. The u s e of
RAM on a vehicle should be done judiciously since
such installations a r e often expensive and difficult
to engineer. A layer of low-density, low dielec-
tric-constant RIlM with a thickness of approximately
one wavelength at the lowest frequency to be
encountered can be used to achieve reasonable
broadband performance. One of the disadvantages of
R$\M is that the one wavelength thickness can
displace considerable fuel volume for a low fre-
quency application.
For low IR signature it is desirable to
fly at low speed to minimize aerodynamic skin
heating. The hot parts of the engine should be
shielded from a vicw from the rear by external
fairings and a "kink" in the tail pipe. The engine
exhaust temperature should be as low as possible by
using high bypass ratio turbofans and mixing
nozzles o r 2-D nozzles to increase the mixing of
the exhaust with ambient air.
It should be obvious that the above
design features for reduced RCS and IR signature
c a n significantly impact the aerodynamic and
propulsion performance. The flush inlet and 2-D
nozzle will degrade the engine TSFC. The sharp LE
surfaces, and low aspect ratio shapes will reduce
the aerodynamic performance (decrease cruise L/D).
The minimal vertical fin area will aggravate
directional stability and control and the appli-
cation of RAM will displace fuel volume. This
conflict between stealth and long range performance
is depicted in Figure 3.
The requirements for stealth and long
range need to be carefully traded off in the design
of the air launched cruise missile in order to
arrive at the most cost-effective design. This
tradeoff is depicted in Figure 4 where decreasing
RGS denotes cruise missile shapes with decreasing
aerodynamic/propulsion performance. The number of
cruise missiles carried on a particular CMCA
decreases as the RGS decreases and the missile
launch weight and size increase. The number of
cruise missiles arriving over the target per CMCA
has a maximum for a particular vehicle shape (and
associated R C S ) .
4. Materialslstructures:
Material and structural concepts for
cruise missiles should lead to both lightweight and
low cost airframes. Thus the deliberations should
keep the manufacturing aspects of the vehicle
design in mind. Advanced composite materials need
to be examined as they can impact both airframe
weight and cost.
Empty weight fractions (based upon meager
statistical data and conceptual design estimates)
are presented in Figure 5. The comparison with
manned aircraft is interesting showing the decrease
in empty weight fraction associated with removing W
the landing gear and the pilot related components,
and a missile design approach. Early estimates of
designs using advanced composites show about a 16
percent decrease in empty weight fraction.
The radar absorbing material needs to be
integrated with the structure to realize a more
volumetric efficient design. Current RAMS are
bulky, narrow band, and not capable of carrying
loads or high temperatures. They are applied, for
the most part, in a "bandaid" fashion to the
exterior of a structurally sound airframe. This
area needs considerable work.
Conclusion:
Cruise missiles are d r i v e n by the requirements
for low detection and long range. These requirements
present a dilemma for the designer a s they conflict
with one another. The measure-of-merit is the life
cycle cost required to destroy a given target set
and provides the value criteria for the tradeoffs.
The size and weight of the cruise missile enters
into this MOM in terms of vehicle cost and the
number carried on a cruise missile carrier.
Low detection is enhanced by low altitude
flight where the cruise missile can take advantage
of the decreased horizon range, terrain masking and
background clutter. This low altitude flight
results in a very high wing loading vehicle and the
need for an effective terrain followinglavoidance W
system.
The high leverage technology for the advanced
cruise missile is an advanced engine with greatly
improved TSFC over current small engines. Several
new engine concepts show promise and are being
pursued by the DoD. High density fuels offer a
reduction in vehicle size. Carbon slurry appears
to be the most promising and is being developed by
the DoD.
TABLE 1 Cruise Missile Fuel Comparison
FUEL DENSITY HEATING VALUE
(lb/ft3) Btu/lb Btu/gal
CURRENT FUELS (1960)
JP-4 48.5 18,400 119,300
JP-5 51.0 18,700 127,500
NEAR-TERM FUELS (1980)
EXO-THD (JP-10) 58.6 18,100 141,800
RJ-4 58.7 18.200 142.300
JP-9 58.9 i8;ioo i42;500
RJ-5 67.4 17,750 159,900
SLURRIES (60% SOLIDS)
BORON 99.8 20,015 266,000
CARBON 80.6 16,700 180,000
 2
-

-
1

;'
M 0 . 7 a t SL j - Desired
CD= .03 + .07 CL I
-;
i ~

I lI_L--J-J 2

LONG R A N G E VERSUS STEALTH

LJ EFFICIENT SCOOP I N L E T FLUSH I N L E T

EFFICIENT A X I S Y M M N O Z Z L E 2 - 0 NOZZLE
VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENT NON-CIRCULAR W I T H R A M
R O U N D LE SHARP L E
H I G H ASPECT R A T I O H I G H SWEEP, LOW A
M O D E R A T E SUBSONIC H I G H SUBSONIC
DIRECTIONAL S&C M I N I M I Z E V E R T I C A L SURFACES

___---
-----_-- -_
-_ ------'-.e
I ,

FIGURE 3. Design i s a compromise

 .6

.5

6
.rl A i r Launched Cruise Missiles
Forward Sector RCS
(Decrease -+I
1 "'\
(Metal S t r u c t u r e )

Launch
Weight

No. carried
on CMCA
L
Forward S e c t o r RCS i
(Decrease -) .2 IL i---.I---.1~-_J.~.-l ..I ~I 1..1

1 2 3 5 10 'L.4

Launch Weight, W (1000 I b )

L

(Decrease -
Forward S e c t o r RCS
)

FIGURE 4 . Trade-off c h a r t s for S t e a l t h vs FIGURE 5. Empty Weight Fractions f o r Cruise

Aero/Propulsion Performance f o r f i x e d Missiles
range h payload

"0'

.. . ,. "
.