Key Features

Weight: 7,495 lbs (3,400 kg)
Length: 32 ft. (10 m)
Diameter: 3 ft. (1.2 m)
Warhead: 727 lbs (330 kg) Conventional Warhead, Nuclear Option
Operational Range: 466 miles (749 kilometers)
Engine: Solid Propellant Booster, Liquid Fueled Ramjet
Speed: Mach 5.5
Launch Platform(s): Submarines, Surface Vessels,[Will soon be housed in strategic bombers and ground units]
Price: $4,500,000

Origins

In 1994, the Defense Department of Minnysota began looking into a new type of cruise missile that would enhance Minnysota’s naval strike capabilities, from below the surface and above the surface. The DoD of Minnysota stressed to the companies looking into the project that the missile would need to be hypersonic, to give Minnysota impressive strike capabilities. AeroTech, the leading Minnysotan aircraft producer, led the project and soon began to develop the HK7 ‘Viking’ Hypersonic Missile.

Design

The ‘Viking’ Hypersonic missile is designed to be able to fly at hypersonic speeds and travel for long periods of time. The winglets used on the main body of the missile provide the ‘Viking’ with strong stability for hypersonic flight.

The missile is divided into several main parts. The engine is located in the rear of the missile, to give the maximum potential for high speeds. The fins are located in the rear of the missile as well, to provide more stability and maneuverability to the missile. The middle of the missile is where the fuel for the flight is stored. Also in the middle are the winglets, to provide maximum stability and maneuverability for the missile. Near the front is where the guidance systems are located, and directly in front of the guidance systems is where the 330 kg warhead is stored.

Propulsion

Initial propulsion for the missile is provided by a solid-propellant booster. Upon reaching hypersonic speeds, a liquid-fueled ramjet is used to sustain hypersonic speeds throughout the flight and until the target is reached.

Guidance Systems

The missile’s guidance systems, located near the front of the missile, use a pre-recorded contour of a map to navigate terrain and to the target. The pre-recorded map is then compared to a radar altimeter.

Warhead

The warhead used by the ‘Viking’ missile is a conventional 700 kg semi-armor piercing warhead. The warhead will allow the naval versions of the ‘Viking’ to strike enemy ships from afar and cause some serious damage afterward. A nuclear warhead is also an option for this missile.

Launch Platforms

The ‘Viking’ missile is currently being looked at by the Republican Navy, in the hopes that they may purchase the missiles as the new standard anti-ship missile. The Navy has stated that the missile will be launched from VSLs on the many missile ships the surface fleet possesses. In addition to the surface fleet hopefully operating the 'Viking', submarines will most likely begin using this as their primary anti-ship weapon.

Targets

The main goal of the ‘Viking’ so far is to allow naval ships to fire at enemy ships from farther ranges and have a higher chance of striking. Other targets do include submarines, and not just surface vessels, however. The ‘Viking’ missile can be launched against ground targets, but it will have much less effectiveness in a ground attack role than the anti-shipping role [in its current state].

Advantages

The ‘Viking’ missile outperforms the earlier missiles operated by Minnysota in several ways. The high speeds, reaching Mach 5.5 in the test fires off of the coast, allow the missile to hit an enemy target with much greater kinetic energy than previous supersonic and subsonic missiles. The high speeds also give the missile a greater chance at penetrating the armor or protection of enemy targets. Long range also gives the ‘Viking’ an advantage over previous missiles. Ships can now comfortably fire from farther distances instead of firing at an enemy ship within strike range of the enemy’s missile. The missile will also come in on a ballistic trajectory. By doing this the missile can come in at high speeds due to gravitational pull. If the missile is hit by ship defenses, the trajectory of the missile can still allow the missile to crash into the target and cause damage.

Variants

Although AeroTech has informed the DoD that using the ‘Viking’ missile on ground targets is less effective than the anti-shipping role, AeroTech has informed the DoD that they are working on a variant that can be launched from mobile launches or silos on the ground, mainly for surface-to-surface use. Said variant has been named the KH7A ‘Viking ’ missile. AeroTech has also confirmed the development of an air-launched variant of the missile, called the KH7B 'Viking'.

Not exactly the right shape for something that goes into the hypersonic speeds.

Have a look at this, it should help you a lot. \\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51

Im sure some of the aerospace guys will be able to help you out with this alot more than I can, so please excuse me for not being of more assistance.

The Brahmos/Yakhont/Shipwreck form is good to hypersonic speeds. Nose looks kinda blunt though.

Scramjet propulsion really isn't needed for this application. Ramjets are still workable at Mach 5.5 and unlike scramjets require no exotic technology. If you have a working scramjet you may as well go even faster anyways...

Oh, about the image the end of the missile kind of has a gap at the end that contains the missile, very similar to the BrahMos.

And since I am new I have little knowledge of what to include in a write up? Mind giving some tips?

Also, while looking up example missiles I stumbled upon the one the US is developing (ArcLight) which said the missile was to perform strikes on anywhere in the globe almost. So, even though I would have to make the missile longer to store more fuel, would it be possible for range to extend past 1,000 km?

That is what Lamoni told me as well, or at least he told me to look into it. I found an example of a hypersonic missile that looks (very) vaguely the same (india's self-developed one) that had already been launched (I think). Based on
that I figured the BrahMos influenced desing would work.

Also, would a nuclear option be needed for this?

Hypersonic missiles that do not rely on conventional technology (high-alt, ramjets or rockets, etc) are currently in very experimental stages. It won't be until 2020s, probably mid 2020s, that any of them is actually ready for deployment. None of the experiments with ten-second burns, much less vague not even predictions, but intentions, can be used as a basis for conclusions.

You might note that ArcLight is only meant to carry a 100-200lb warhead, which is 50-90 kilograms. It relies on conventional propulsion technology (rocket) and unconventional aerodynamics.

Your missile is slightly over 2x the weight, and has less range. Range generally scales as squared logarithm of payload ratio, but it's not a very simple calculation, so suffices to say that your missile should be feasible using conventional technology; it might be a bit overweight or OK in payload terms, depending on how sophisticated (and consequently heavy) the guidance system is.

I don't want to sound like a noob, but I'm still in high school and haven't learned about some of that stuff, lol. Could you please interpret that for me a little bit? Sorry.

1. Scramjets are no-go
2. Range/payload is probably fine

Yea, I decided to go with a solid-propellant booster for launch to hypersonic speeds and then go with a liquid-fueled ramjet to sustain the speeds. Would this work?

Also, for the guidance systems I am trying to see if I can use an ATR, but would I be able to use that on this platform?

Write up added, although I don't consider this finished yet.

The X-43 is another implementation of hypersonic that we know works pretty damn well. However, note the whole ass-end of the missile is part of the nozzle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:X-43A_%2...c_%28CFD%29.jpg
Think Aerospike, with the air forming like 5/6 of the nozzle.



Scramjet suffers from one huge thing: ever tried to keep a match lit in hurricane force winds? Yeah. Now, put that match in supersonic conditions because DEAR GOD WE JUST CAN'T STAGNATE HER FARTHER CAPTAIN! Note that the piddly box there actually stagnates the air through shock compression, which is just INSANE considering the hilarious pressures in the aft end.... at which point you have to detonate the fuel because the speed of sound just ain't fast enough for piddly burning....

And the whole holy mixture doesn't really even have enough time to go from fuel species to exhaust species, hence the poor ISP and the need for a long aftbody to snatch what little extra boost you can from what energy you can scavenge out back. (Basically, a huge chunk of combustion happens outside the engine, which is bad for ISP)

Takes some doing, but it /can/ be done. That's really towards the end of Ramjets that screams "WHY IN GODS NAME ARE YOU SHOCKING ME SUBSONIC WHYYYYYYYY WHAT KIND OF NOZZLE ARE YOU USING YOU MADMAN?"

A/A* gets really lulzy at that end. Hence, AEROSPIKES! :D

It works. There are rocket systems that can get ISPs approaching your liquid fueled ramjet, but they require you to be really and truly mad to implement (neurotoxins, shock sensitive compounds, molten lithium, all sorts of really friendly stuff to work with) Probably best to stick with your solid boost and liquid sustainer unless you're going to do some twiddly thing with that solid fueled throttleable ducted rocket Spiz loves so much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_missile#Propulsion

Guidance, well, depends. Are you putting a big old cruising booster on there? Or do you intend this to be short-rangeish. If you're short range, you can almost INS and get away with it (not like a carrier is going to turn very fast) but radio guided is probably a good idea just in case. Not sure if there are any active guidance packages that like that many Machs to be honest.

Double post because I can! D:<



Looks like BrahMos is indeed somehow guided, which is both interesting and terrifying at the same time (there are integrated circuits withstanding WHAT?!?!)



To touch on that ISP one more time, don't try for rockets with ramjet competitive ISPs. Rocketdyne toyed with the idea and came up with a mixture of molten lithium and cryo fluorine matched to produce LiF. Then they squirted in H2 at 30% of the mass flow, and got ~540 seconds. Using cryo fluorine, molten lithium, and hydrogen (a practical implementation would use cryo hydrogen rather than the gaseous they used). This is absolutely mad. It gets results, however they had to design an injector to vaporize molten lithium. Reread that last sentence. Don't use this in a production missile.




Just so you know, your control gains on your missile will be interesting with that planform, but that's neither here nor there.

"Long periods of time" is shorter than you'd think, these things don't take long to get to their targets, and they can't; any longer and there'd be no fuel left! (Fuel fractions may be high, but goodness look at that fuel flow rate!)

Wait, hypersonic* sea-skimmer? It's doable, but remember that air near the surface is tremendously denser than air at altitude. Doc got around it by MOAR THRUST! but for long range it ain't the best.



Seriously consider doing an air-launched variant. Nothing wrong with RAKETONOSCI TO THE DANGAZONE! after all, and we can listen to amusing music while riding a a Viking to the ground swinging a cowboy hat. YEEEEE-HAW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3yGmmEtnPg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueuauKKjPZI

As for hitting ground targets, if you're really hitting this thing supersonically then there's something to the return of TallBoy! D:< Nothing wrong with scabbing your opponent to death, after all, though at that point nuclear warheads are even more fun! Go-go-gadget Grand Slam!



*Lord of all things high energy Theodore von Karman noted that it's possible to defend anything from Mach 3 to about Mach 12 as the onset of "hypersonic," but ~5 is what people tend to treat it as just because of when things tend to happen in air that get.... weird.

idt it would actually work irl tbh. Thrust is cool, but at something like Mach 10 at sea level it takes something highly unusual just to survive flight, much less use a radar and/or whatever guidance it had.

Also, what's strange with Brahmos having guidance? Its M2.8 is terminal speed, not cruise, and since you can't maneuver at Mach 3, guidance in that late a stage loses relevance.

NE, VTC already discussed this with me buy when the missile is near sea level it isn't traveling at high speeds. Would it be traveling at subsonic, though?

Translation, elaboration, clarification, not constipation:
-your airframe is fine, though your controls guys will have headaches working out the nonlinear control gains off those maneuvering surfaces. Nothing another million$ RnD can't solve.

-your propulsion system is good enough to get the job done

-sea-skimming is inefficient with a ramjet. You can do it, don't get me wrong, but that's not a good long distance cruise method. Some sort of high ISP low thrust cruise booster might be worth investigating if you're considering long distance sea skims. Otherwise it's full throttle hoping the CIWS miss you until it's too late, and damn the efficiency.

-Seriously consider making air-launched, anti-ground, and surface to surface variants. You'll hit HARD, and as we all remember from T-12, Tallboy, and Grand Slam, hitting hard can be a very good thing. Plus, it's cheap once you've got the missile working to modify it rather than having to design a whole new missile.

-nuclear armed variant is a must, for Dr. Strangelove reasons.

Not necessarily, probably you could pull Mach 1.5 up to 2, but it would get A LOT less range.
When I said your range might be feasible, I meant it would be feasible in a well optimized semi-ballistic trajectory (essentially an arc), where top speed is only reached by the moment of impact, partially by gravity assist. And if sensors are kept relatively basic.

If you use a less efficient trajectory, your range drops back to 150-300km common for most missiles.

Phhh they had a command guidance system on the UPSTAGE which pulled 300g's laterally. In the 60's.

A modified version of UPSTAGE revived for SDI would have had full infrared terminal guidance.

Ok, since the stats conflict with sea skimming, should this be land based and I will develop a naval and air based one?

ground skimming has the same problems.



Really, what you'd do is cruise towards your target at a medium altitude and do a terminal sea skim. That may require a three stage missile to do efficiently though.

Well the ground based one really wouldn't need to skim the ground, I think? Wouldn't a ballistic trajectory work better?

I have been looking into a 3 stage missile for this to allow the level of sea skimming that NE proposed. However, I couldn't find much. Anyone mind explaining the 3 stages of a missile to me?

boost, cruise, terminal.

Boost is, well, boost. Solid fueled lolziness to get up to speed. Cruise is cruise stage, probs a ramjet of sorts with a fun ISP. Terminal is KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKE THRUSSSSSSSSSST D:< propulsion system of some sort for low alt work if you're skimming.


it'll be expensive as hell, but staged munitions get the advantage of their mass fractions multiplying or something like that.

Don't do it.

Flying at sea level all the way produces garbage range. Diving to sea level for the attack doesn't really do much of anything (other than eat some range), point defenses are not a major concern for hypersonic weapons.

So in a ballistic trajectory I have a higher chance of hitting the ship than if I sea skim?

Sea-skimming simply isn't relevant for high speeds.

The higher your speed, the lower your maneuverability. Not because of design tradeoffs, but because the same g-load at Mach 5 corresponds to a 40 times larger turning circle than for a subsonic missile. That being a 'circle' that would look like a straight line to anything short of a satellite.

At hypersonic speeds not only can't you go as low as sea level for longer than a couple seconds, but even if you could, you wouldn't see much and you couldn't maneuver even if you had an idea of how to do it. And you'll be very visible anyway, so no stealth either.

aircraft carriers pull fighter jet maneuvers itt

So sea skimming for hypersonic is a bad idea, so I should toss that out? That being said, is the missile fine the way it is?

maneuvering isn't much of a concern if you're attacking large targets, you won't find a carrier pulling 10G turns.

They don't, but CIWS do, or rather hit you unless you do.

So lack of maneuverability could be a problem for this to be an effective anti-ship weapon?

No, much the opposite.


Ships dont turn on a dime, much the opposite.

Ah, I see.. so this COULD be an effective anti-ship weapon then.. it just depends on the angle the missile is coming from?

There are two methods of penetrating ship missile defenses.

1. Stealthy and maneuverable - come in low and slow to delay detection, swerve around so that you are hard to hit;
2. Fast and hard - come in at high speed, hope they don't hit you, and even if you are hit, your kinetic energy will still make sure you reach the target.

They are not compatible. You are using the second method. Maneuverability isn't used there, you just come in straight at the ship at all times.

Missiles don't automatically go kaboom when hit - all but the best shots would just damage a missile. The warhead is small and uses insensitive explosives, so often won't explode even if you hit it. If it is a slow missile, it will usually be thrown at least somewhat off the course, and there's plenty of time to put more rounds into it. If it's a fast missile, it will not be thrown off the course and there is little time to do additional damage.

Wait, are you talking about when anti-missile defenses are firing at the missile?

He is.

Ok, that is what I thought lol.

Would you guys say the naval variant is ready for NS?

Fixed up the write-up a bit.

I am considering downsizing the warhead to allow more range, however I will have to look into it more.

Made one last change: now using a 136 kg warhead to allow more range. I will probably post this on NS soon.

If i were you i would revert to a 750kg warhead. Your never going to use this near its max range anyhow, due to detection limitations, so you might as well make sure that when you do hit something with it, it is going to be fucked up big time.