AGILE MISSILE PROGRAM REVIEW
Captain MOHLENHOFF. Captain Mohlenhoff of the Naval Air Systems Command.
PROGRAM OVERVIEW AGILE REGUIREMENTS, CONCLUSIONS
Urgent need for dogfight,missile. Shoot first and shoot best-performance needed : Maximum launch region within visual range and angle, instantaneous reaction time from target detection to launch, maximum dynamic capability, maximum reliability, maximum lethality. But, affordable cost, kill effectiveness per dollar-figure of merit. This report begins with a brief overview of the requirements for this missile. We will then show you the current technology status of Agile and the corresponding effectiveness estimate. We will summarize progress made this year and the planned work, funding and scheduling for next year and beyond. The production cost estimate will be of special interest. Then we will finalize with current cost effectiveness estimates.
When considering recent experience in air-to- air combat and projected air threats, the Navy has concluded that there is an urgent requirement for a new, substantially superior air- to-air missile for close-in engagements or dogfight. It must provide these basic characteristics. We must get the first shot. Maximum launch region and fast reaction time will provide that. We also must improve the reliability and performance in the launch/guidance and lethality areas to shoot best. Only this combination will give us the performance needed. One of the most important requirements is affordable cost. A compromise must be made in the band of affordable cost and needed performance. Kill effectiveness per dollar becomes the appropriate figure of merit for this compromise.
The current configuration of the Agile guided missile weapon system is illustrated here. The pictures, in normal reading sequence, include an aircraft helmet sight system for acquisition and relay to the missile seeker, on the upper left, and the associated electronics, on the right. In the center, the Agile missile envelope is expanded in- close and to large angles, to greatly increase firing opportunity. The missile is wingless and thrust- vector controlled-designed to make hard turns and has a higher seeker tracking angle and rate and improved warhead lethality. It is designed to shoot at all possible target orientations. Agile is, in fact, designed to allow us to shoot first and shoot best.
STATUS OF HELMET MOUNTED SIGHT SYSTEM
Senator CANNON. Is that the only system now that you have that has the helmet coupled sight ?
Captain MOHLENHOFF. No, sir ; we have an example of that sight here. It is deployed in Southeast Asia in two squadrons in USS Ranger
Commander CASSIDY. We slave the radar or Sidewinder -9G or H seeker to the helmet sight. We actually acquire by pointing the helmet sight which slews the radar or missile seeker to the target. This gives us the capability to lock up earlier. I have one here.
Admiral HOUSER. Would you like to see it ?
Senator CANNON. I have seen them. I have seen them in use in the old Cheyenne program.
Captain MOHLENHOFF. The only change for Agile is wider angle coverage.
This is our present version of the Agile missile. It is maneuvered by a nozzle in the rear which is vectored to alter the course of the missile. The missile airframe itself provides the aerodynamic lift. We plan to produce it in three sections or modules: The guidance or electronics section up forward, the ordnance assembly, and the control assembly.
We have just arrived at this baseline, with the dimensions andweight shown at the top here. The [deleted] weight will be reduced, as will cost and risk areas in the next design iterations. We will manage the design process for highest possible reliability and minimum unit cost down to the smallest part. It is a phased- in replacement for Sidewinder and will use the same launch stations and switches in our aircraft. It is a short-range, visual- dogfight missile and does not compete with Phoenix or Sparrow, but supplements their longer range capability
USE OF SIDEWINDER LAUNCHER
Senator CANNON. You say you can use the same launcher system ?
Captain MOHLENHOFF. There will be modification of the launcher system. We are looking at whether the modification is more expensive than a change in the launcher. The aircraft modifications for either single- or dual-seat operation are simple, relatively inexpensive, and uncomplicated. The key avionic item required for Agile is the helmet-mounted sight. We have had recent experience with the installation in deployed fleet squadrons. We are now estimating the DSARC II milestone for the engineering development decision in April 1974. The Agile program preparation for the DSARC II decision hast he following objectives :
We will present a recommended baseline design, suitable for release to engineering development.
We will support the credibility of that design by feasibility proofof the critical Agile features.
We also will provide the extensive and detailed cost/effectiveness comparisons of our recommended design with other alternative methods of approach.
To give you a feeling, in two dimensions, of the differences between Sidewinder AIM-9L and Agile, let me show the nominal Agile and AIM-9L firing envelopes. The "friendly" is in the middle. These envelopes are actually volumes, or launch acceptable regions, flexing with the changing dynamics of a dogfight. An attacking adversary can be shot at with the AIM-9L colored limits shown. The Agile system permits the friendly pilot to readily fire at adversaries almost anywhere they may be in his field of view. The Agile shot volume is at least [ deleted ] times that of the Sidewinder 9L.
In addition to the advantage this gives our fighters, our attack aircraft can also more readily defend themselves without jettisoning their bomb load and aborting their primary mission. As shown here, we have had the opportunity to do extensive manned air combat simulation as well as our real dogfights in the recent Vietnam air engagements. In no other missile program in the design stage have we ever had the opportunity to look so thoroughly at the conditions of its projected use. We have had 1494 minutes or about 25 hours, of dogfights in combat simulators representing several different aircraft types and fights of real aircraft in mock engagements. We have quantified the dogfight to design the missile.
This vastly improved capability of the Agile aircraft in being able to get a shot off first is a consequence of the [ deleted ] .The long curve is an average of results covering F-4 vs MIG-21 dogfight data from that we have just summarized and shows the mean time into a dogfight for the first shot of a missile from the F-4 as a function of the missile's off- boresight seeker coverage. The data include fights typical of projected air wars in enemy airspace that started with the MIG at the nose, beam and tail of the F-4 inequal distribution. Thus the F-4 was seriously at a disadvantage two-thirds of the time. As is shown in the long curve, time into the dogfight for the first firing opportunity increases dramatically with a decrease in seeker off- boresight capability. The first Agile missile is fired in an average of [ deleted ] seconds into the dogfight. The average time for the first AIM-9L is [ deleted ] seconds. The curve shows only average firing times where firings were possible. An Agile firing was possible in [ deleted ] of the dogfights, whereas theAIM-9L could be fired only in [ deleted ] percent of them. If the MIG had the Agile and then the AIM-9L, the situation is as shown in the steeper line. The initial advantage and [ deleted ] . This illustrates why we need both superior missiles and superior aircraft. Having covered the shoot first factor, this table numerically compares the effectiveness of the interim AIM-9 versions and the Agile, which will replace them in the shoot best area. The mock and simulated dogfight data just mentioned is the basis of the Agile and 9L figures. Analog and digital simulations of the missiles are also used. Red Baron SE Asia history was used to obtain the other AIM-9 figures. The reliability factor is about the same for all missiles and is not included. In the P per shot column, the value for presently deployed Sidewinder's is quite good, [ deleted] percent, but this is only the kill probability once the pilot has achieved firing position and pulled the trigger. The AIM-9L and Agile will have better Pk per shot values as shown, because of increasing warhead capability and guidance electronic improvements.
The most significant set of numbers for Agile is the column with the arrow, the probability of shooting, given that a maneuvering engagement occurs. This is the number that can only be obtained in mock combat or Red Baron data. As shown in this colume, Agile will be able to shoot [ deleted] times more often than the current Sidewinder's. This means that Agile will be shot by [ deleted ] in ain nearly every dogfight instead of one in several, as in the Red Baron history. It is this factor that will provide our tactical aircraft with the capability of coping with the numerical superiority of the enemy in his own airspace. When you multiply the 1st two columns out, you get the third, which we call the P per dogfight, or Pk, given that a dogfight occurs. Agile will be at least [deleted ] times better than Sidewinder9L on this basis, where just one missile is fired, and many times bet ter if more than one is fired .Let me also project some other interesting potential applications of Agile technology. Agile could defend surface vessels against attack by any [deleted. ] It is particularly noteworthy that the missile will allow [ deleted ]and thus expands their capability in offensive and supporting roles.The tactical flexibility is available because of the dynamic turn capability and seeker IR sensitivity. In the lower right, the seeker can be [deleted. ]
AGILE PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENT
TVC airframe control at [deleted] .
Pilot tracking ability compatible with Agile requirements.
VTAS angular coverage compatible with Agile requirements.
Seeker off-boresight tracking of [ deleted] degrees.
Rail launch demonstrated.
Motor performance requirements determined.
Airframe aerodynamic characteristics measured.
Seeker tracking requirements determined and demonstrated.
Seeker field of view and lock-on time requirements determined.
We have demonstrated, to our satisfaction, the capabilities shown, which are of the utmost criticality to Agile missile system performance. The [ deleted] demonstration will be discussed further. The pilot and VTAS sight tracking to [deleted] degrees have been accomplished. The rail launch has been proven and motor performance optimized. We now have aerodynamic flight data which validates our computer simulations. The needed seeker characteristics have been defined.
This chart shows the maneuver of the thrust vectored airframe ina flight test which we will show you in a film. As you can see, the missile attitude was controlled to an angle of attack of [deleted] .It is through this kind of maneuver that the missile is able to chase and catch maneuvering targets at large angles off the boresight axis of the Agile aircraft. In this test, it performed almost identically to the simulations derived from our various laboratory tests and measurements. The film we will have here will close with a brief clip of a pilot tracking with a helmet sight during test of the tracking system.
[Film shown. ]
NARRATION OF FILM-The missile was ground launched *** -This is in slow motion ***-The smoke trail shows the flight direction ***-The real time repeat is more dramatic * * *-The pilot is able to track to the full missile capabilities.[End of film. ]
AGILE BRIEFING RESUMED
Risk reduction for DSARC II
Pilot NTAS/seeker lock-on. April 1973
Safe separation launch dynamics. May 1973
Seeker sensitivity . [deleted]
Seeker airframe body isolation . [deleted]
Boost/sustain vehicle controllability. [deleted]
Launch sequence….3-dimensional maneuver control .[deleted]
Guided flight controllability ..[deleted]
The risk areas that remain to be demonstrated, and the dates by which we expect to accomplish final demonstrations of technical feasibility are summarized here. We want to check the lock-on to the Agile [ deleted ] and validate our laboratory seeker sensitivity tests and calculations by flight test. Those are the first and third items. The second item is low- risk testing to verify safe separation from the airplane. The rest are flight tests in increasing complexity to verify that all parts of the system function as we test more and more of the subsystems together. The last test will be the graduation exercise.
We have confidence that we will be successful in this work because we feel we are addressing engineering solutions at this point, rather than the more fundamental question of "Can it be done at all ?" This recent history of fiscal year 1973-1974 R.D.T. & E. funding reductions is basic to our progress in the project. Commencing in the fall of 1972, we were still at the DCP 15A funding levels shown on the left here $26.1 million for fiscal year 1973 and $38.4 million for1974. In October 1972, we experienced the first of a series of in-year funding reductions to $33.5 în 1974, which we were expecting when we reported to you last year.
We now have available $16.6 million in 1973 and $21.7 million planned in 1974. The effort at the Naval Weapons Center and new planning through fiscal 1974 were successively adjusted to these re- ductions and we have the effort through the remainder of fiscal year 1973 well in hand. With our new plan, we project DSARC II to April 1974, vice June 1973, as scheduled last fall. These reductions stretched the advanced development schedule but they allowed some improvement in project planning and reduction of alternative subsystem effort. The cutbacks made vitally needed funds available to other high priority projects. We have kept the extension from causing a corresponding increase in our program cost. Here is the current overall Agile plan, spanning [deleted] years to full production in fiscal year [deleted] IOC would probably be in[ deleted ] Detailed planning in out-years will be presented at DSARC II. Following advanced development, it is planned that full scale development will consist of three phases:
(1) an engineering phase in which [ deleted] engineering models will be built ;
(2) a prototype phase in which 70 prototype units will be built for demonstration, IOT&E and Navy technical evaluation ; and
(3) a pilot production phase in which 200 units will be manufactured, with production funds, for OPEVAL and aircraft system tests.
Qualification will be completed before pilot production and operational evaluation will be completed prior to full production. Long lead-time approval for production effort shown will involve only essential small expenditures to hold overall program cost down. On the top of the viewgraph is the preferred funding profile, the one on which the schedule is based. At the bottom are the DCP and current OSD budget profiles. The DCP plan is currently being mod- ified.4241tdeOL0707dthWe present here a set of figures comparing Agile and Sidewinder unit production costs to DCP ground rules, in 1979 dollars which include all costs for support. The total buy and rate per year are shown. The [ deleted ] thousand dollars for Agile represents a Navy only quantity and rate. The [ deleted ] quantity and [ deleted] rate specified by OSD in DCP 15A of June 1972 yields an Agile figure of [deleted] thousand, below the DCP threshold limit of [ deleted] dollars. Investment costs and learning curve factors favor Sidewinder, but our current estimates are only about 20 percent above Sidewinder.
The lower quantities and rates reflect a Navy-only buy, but the intent is to develop the missile for dual service applications which would allow the higher quantity and rate and lower cost, and approach the DCP goal of [ deleted] dollars. On this chart, I have shown the classic program cost- schedule- performance trade-off triangle, and *** at the bottom of the chart, I have shown a range bounded at the top by maximum permissible cost ✶✶✶ and at the bottom by minimum permissible performance .In other words, a weapon must do the job intended as well as possible, and simultaneously, at an affordable cost. Schedule is less important now. If no such band exists, either the performance or cost goals cannot be met. We do have such a band with Agile and we are constantly iterating design and other alternatives that keep us within the acceptable band. Cost-effectiveness is our figure of merit to make the final selection. I will conclude by showing preliminary effectiveness and cost effectiveness comparisons of Agile, in four versions, with AIM-9L.
The first Agile is a thrust vector control version which has the best performance our technology will allow.
The second is one which makes large compromises to reduce cost.
The third is the most cost-effective version, and the fourth is an aerodynamic-controlled prospect meeting most of the performance goals, but having some risk areas and less growth potential.
The cost of the missiles are comparable, except that the cost of Sidewinder in the comparison includesa higher production rate effect for dual service buy in [ deleted] years. It correlates with the numbers on the previous comparison chartwhich were for [ deleted ] years, but is a comparison properly representing a continued Sidewinder buy versus a new Agile buy for Navy alone. Even on this basis, Agile is 3.2 times as cost effective as Sidewinder in our present preferred version. Compared on the same basis, it is about 3.5 times as cost effective.
