McDonnell Model 66 Air to Air Missile

[Bill S]

Something different for me to post an Air to Air Missile concept. This is the McDonnell Model 66 Air to Air Missile. The specification describes an "air-launched, rocket-propelled, command-controlled guided missile for attack on enemy aircraft in flight. This missile is designated the M.A.C. model 66. This missile shall be propelled by a single, solid-propellant rocket motor."
Speed at launching Mach No. 0.8
Speed at burnout Mach No. 1.67 (at 35,000 feet or higher)
Speed at point of impact within tactical firing range Mach 1.1 or greater
Tactical firing range 2000 to 3000 yards
Maximum controlled flight Approximately 6800 yards at an altitude of 35,000 feet or higher

Attached are pages and drawings from Report 1304 Proposal For The Development Of An Air-To-Air Guided Missile M.A.C. Model 66
(Paul, I promise I searched several different ways before posting a new topic!)

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That's interesting indeed.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Ugh. Guided by a guy trying to track it using a flare in the tail. In all practicality that sounds like a recipe for "well, missed another one..."

 

[Dilandu]

Thanks to the rational mind of American airmen, they didn't even try to follow this dead end. Of all nations who buid their own AAM, only France ever deployed manual-controlled air-to-air missile: and only because they followed pathetic German ideas. Everyone else understood perfectly, that no kind of manually-guided AAM could be even remotely efficient.

 

[GARGEAN]

With proxy fuze, big warhead and against bombers it will be somewhat fine. But that would be quite limited application.

 

[Dilandu]

With proxy fuze, big warhead and against bombers it will be somewhat fine. But that would be quite limited application.

Even against bombers, it would be VERY hard to implement. It would be extremely demanding for pilot to maintain stable line-of-sight with bomber while guiding the missile to the line-of-sight. Such weapon would be a constant struggle between limited speed of human reaction (which demanded SLOWER missile), and high-speed aerial engagement (which demanded FASTER missile).

 

[SSgtC]

Ugh. Guided by a guy trying to track it using a flare in the tail. In all practicality that sounds like a recipe for "well, missed another one..."

Given the absolutely abysmal hit rate of the Sparrow, it honestly couldn't be much worse

 

[Sherman Tank]

Ugh. Guided by a guy trying to track it using a flare in the tail. In all practicality that sounds like a recipe for "well, missed another one..."

Given the absolutely abysmal hit rate of the Sparrow, it honestly couldn't be much worse

Hitting nothing ever is pretty much worse than hitting something once a sennight.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The report makes a reasonable case for the missile.

Its basically a 5 inch air-to-air unguided rocket with command guidance added. The kill probability of unguided 5 inch rockets is given as less than 1%. This simple missile would be available quickly with a kill probability of 24% (B-47) to 37% (B-36). Not great, but better than less than 1%.

Sidewinder was a similar idea (also based on the idea of adding simple guidance to the 5 inch unguided rocket) but chose a more promising guidance method.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I guess MAC aircraft didn't know that the USAAF and USN had both already tried using a CLOS guidance system with AAM's in testing (USAAF JB 3 Tiamat and Firebird at Wendover Field Utah, USN with a Gorgon in late 44 off Cape May NJ) and had found it totally impractical and unworkable. This proposal looks like it's 3 to 5 years later than that and likely why it was not considered for development.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

On March 8, 1945, the first live fire test against a TDC-2 target drone of a Gorgon IIA using TV CLOS took place. The system was the same as used successfully on the Bat guided bomb. The Navy’s project engineer, Cdr. Moulton “Molt” Taylor, reported that this guidance system was unworkable against an aerial target where closing speeds were too high for human mind and hand-eye coordination to match the speed of response needed to make it work. This launch represents the first time in history that a guided air-to-air missile had been tried in a live fire test against a target.

This occurred off Cape May New Jersey and the firing plane was a PBY carrying the missile. One should note that the Gorgon IIA had a speed of about 450 to 500 mph. Even at such a low speed CLOS wasn't possible. (Make a note for next time somebody tries to tell you the German X-4 Ruhrstal was a game changer...)

 

[Dilandu]

This occurred off Cape May New Jersey and the firing plane was a PBY carrying the missile. One should note that the Gorgon IIA had a speed of about 450 to 500 mph. Even at such a low speed CLOS wasn't possible. (Make a note for next time somebody tries to tell you the German X-4 Ruhrstal was a game changer...)

Frankly, of all WW2-era AAM projects, only British "Artemis" looks like viable solution...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

This occurred off Cape May New Jersey and the firing plane was a PBY carrying the missile. One should note that the Gorgon IIA had a speed of about 450 to 500 mph. Even at such a low speed CLOS wasn't possible. (Make a note for next time somebody tries to tell you the German X-4 Ruhrstal was a game changer...)

Frankly, of all WW2-era AAM projects, only British "Artemis" looks like viable solution...

Artemis wasn't going to work either. The guidance system using a single spoiler wasn't viable. The major reason for that is the lag in electronics of that era was such that the outputs would always lag the input and the spoiler wouldn't open and close at the exact moment necessary for accurate guidance. It needed control surfaces that could be incrementally moved like those on an aircraft.

The USAF's JB 3 Tiamat and the USN's Gorgon program had the concept correct, but lacked the necessary refinement and testing to get the guidance system to work well enough to make it viable. The Ryan Firebird that came right at the end of the war in late 45 was a bit better, but still not completely viable, again due to issues with the guidance system.

CLOS guidance for AAM's was dumped entirely by pretty much everybody by 1947-ish with some sort of radar guidance being the preferred choice at least until William McLean came up with Sidewinder...

 

[SSgtC]

CLOS guidance for AAM's was dumped entirely by pretty much everybody by 1947-ish with some sort of radar guidance being the preferred choice at least until William McLean came up with Sidewinder...

Usually beam riding. Which wasn't really all that much better than CLOS

 

[Dilandu]

Usually beam riding. Which wasn't really all that much better than CLOS

I disagree; it's simpler, more reliable and MUCH more jamming-proof.

 

[SSgtC]

Usually beam riding. Which wasn't really all that much better than CLOS

I disagree; it's simpler, more reliable and MUCH more jamming-proof.

Ok, on paper, yes it was better. But in the real world, it wasn't practically any better. Your odds of a hit went from 1-in-a-million to 1-in-1,000. So yeah, it was "better." But not in any meaningful way

 

[NMaude]

Usually beam riding. Which wasn't really all that much better than CLOS

I disagree; it's simpler, more reliable and MUCH more jamming-proof.

True however while it was implemented in the AIM-7A Sparrow I for example the nature of the beam-riding system IIRC restricted to a daylight only WVR role.

 

[NMaude]

CLOS guidance for AAM's was dumped entirely by pretty much everybody by 1947-ish with some sort of radar guidance being the preferred choice at least until William McLean came up with Sidewinder..

McLean came up with his initial idea for what became the Sidewinder in 1947.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Usually beam riding. Which wasn't really all that much better than CLOS

I disagree; it's simpler, more reliable and MUCH more jamming-proof.

The downside to beam riding is that it won't work on a maneuvering target very well as it is difficult to impossible to hold the target in the guidance beam. It also results in a very energy inefficient flight path for the missile shorting its engagement range.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

CLOS guidance for AAM's was dumped entirely by pretty much everybody by 1947-ish with some sort of radar guidance being the preferred choice at least until William McLean came up with Sidewinder..

McLean came up with his initial idea for what became the Sidewinder in 1947.

And, he took several years to develop it into a working system.

 

[NMaude]

And, he took several years to develop it into a working system.

That is par for the course for any missile system.

 

[spartina]

With proxy fuze, big warhead and against bombers it will be somewhat fine. But that would be quite limited application.

Even against bombers, it would be VERY hard to implement. It would be extremely demanding for pilot to maintain stable line-of-sight with bomber while guiding the missile to the line-of-sight. Such weapon would be a constant struggle between limited speed of human reaction (which demanded SLOWER missile), and high-speed aerial engagement (which demanded FASTER missile).

But isn't that why they are called "missiles" they are designed to miss within a "lethal" payload range?

 

[SSgtC]

With proxy fuze, big warhead and against bombers it will be somewhat fine. But that would be quite limited application.

Even against bombers, it would be VERY hard to implement. It would be extremely demanding for pilot to maintain stable line-of-sight with bomber while guiding the missile to the line-of-sight. Such weapon would be a constant struggle between limited speed of human reaction (which demanded SLOWER missile), and high-speed aerial engagement (which demanded FASTER missile).

But isn't that why they are called "missiles" they are designed to miss within a "lethal" payload range?

Nothing so exotic. "Missile" is from the Latin "missilis," meaning "that may be thrown." So it basically boils down to the fact that you're "throwing" something at another object.

 

[pathology_doc]

Even at such a low speed CLOS wasn't possible. (Make a note for next time somebody tries to tell you the German X-4 Ruhrstal was a game changer...)

Wasn't Seacat CLOS in its GWS.20 form?

And, he took several years to develop it into a working system.

That is par for the course for any missile system.

Especially when everyone in the field is a pioneer. Most of the textbooks and monographs I've been able to collect over the years detailing the ins and outs of (valve-era) missile design START being published in the mid 1950s, by which time most if not all the first-generation missiles were either already in service or being built and fired as early trials prototypes. The books that guided the men who designed those are not to be found (but I would be delighted to be proved wrong on this, and to be given authors and titles).

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Even at such a low speed CLOS wasn't possible. (Make a note for next time somebody tries to tell you the German X-4 Ruhrstal was a game changer...)

Wasn't Seacat CLOS in its GWS.20 form?

Seacat GWS 20 was but that was superseded by systems more akin to TOW where you track the target in a gunsight and commands are fed to the missile. For its only combat use, the Falklands, Seacat is claimed to have shot down three A 4's although there is considerable dispute over all three claims as other systems were involved too and it is unlikely that Seacat scored any kills. Eight other additional claims were discredited at the time.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The problem with trying to fly a Seacat using a joystick is the same one you'd encounter trying to do it with something like an AT-2 Sagger ATGM. You need excellent hand-eye coordination and lightning quick reflexes.
With Seacat what you are in essence trying to do is shoot a 500 mph skeet with a rifle.

 

[NMaude]

A bit OT but which Seacat variant did the RNZN's Leander-class frigates use?

 

[Kat Tsun]

The problem with trying to fly a Seacat using a joystick is the same one you'd encounter trying to do it with something like an AT-2 Sagger ATGM. You need excellent hand-eye coordination and lightning quick reflexes.
With Seacat what you are in essence trying to do is shoot a 500 mph skeet with a rifle.

Finally, a job for gamers.

 

[Rickshaw]

I always understood that the objective of Seacat was not to destroy enemy aircraft but to spoil the pilot's aim - knowing that you are facing a guided missile when attacking is a daunting aspect...

 

[Kat Tsun]

That's kinda nonsense though.

It was designed to kill kamikaze Zeroes and subsonic, straight-wing fighter-bombers like the Sea Hawk, but not supersonic fighter-bombers al a MiG-19 or transsonic aircraft like the A-7 or MiG-15. Fighter-bomber and jet engine technology simply outstripped Sea Cat within a couple years of its introduction. Or rather, while it was being developed, but the alternative was continuing with the wholly inadequate Bofors L/70 instead of merely the marginally effective Sea Cat.

It still would be reasonably effective against heavily loaded Skyhawks and subsonic missiles like Styx, of course, because these match the characteristics of aircraft which it was designed against. If anything, a Styx would be a simpler target than a fighter to attack because missiles don't maneuver, provided it could be detected in time for an engagement to be made. The proximity fuse was fairly effective (the British were and remain masters at radars) and MCLOS isn't a tremendous issue if the target and the shooter aren't maneuvering relative to each other. Ships don't move much, after all, so you simply line up the rocket flare with the fireball and you'll hit it.

This is all a tangent, but MCLOS isn't a big problem if neither the shooter nor target maneuver very much. The human eyeball is excellent at lining up two dots when it doesn't need to do any complex trig through parallax while being jockeyed around in the backseat of a F-4, or anticipate movement of a tank a mile away in a desert at morning when there's temperature inversion or at midday through heat haze.

Sea Cat scored a couple hits in the Falklands against aircraft and missiles, as neither Exocets/Skyhawks on an attack approach nor frigates maneuver much, but most egregious problems were the small warhead (half the size of the otherwise comparable BPDMS) and slow speed plus long minimum range which tended to preclude followup shots against incoming weapons or bombers.

 

[Pioneer]

The problem with trying to fly a Seacat using a joystick is the same one you'd encounter trying to do it with something like an AT-2 Sagger ATGM. You need excellent hand-eye coordination and lightning quick reflexes.

And hope you aren't under infantry/artillery/mortar suppressive fire whilst doing it

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

On March 8, 1945, the first live fire test against a TDC-2 target drone of a Gorgon IIA using TV CLOS took place. The system was the same as used successfully on the Bat guided bomb. The Navy’s project engineer, Cdr. Moulton “Molt” Taylor, reported that this guidance system was unworkable against an aerial target where closing speeds were too high for human mind and hand-eye coordination to match the speed of response needed to make it work. This launch represents the first time in history that a guided air-to-air missile had been tried in a live fire test against a target.

This occurred off Cape May New Jersey and the firing plane was a PBY carrying the missile. One should note that the Gorgon IIA had a speed of about 450 to 500 mph. Even at such a low speed CLOS wasn't possible. (Make a note for next time somebody tries to tell you the German X-4 Ruhrstal was a game changer...)

Would it be fair to consider that during the era in both terms of the X-4 Ruhrstal and Model 66, that the perceived threat was envisaged to be larger bomber formations, which as part of doctrine flew in ridged streams for navigation, mutual protection and bombing accuracy - hence making a stand-offish attack, "track it using a flare in the tail" wasn't just permissible for the era during and immediately Post-WWII, but a progressive stepping stone nonetheless, until technology meet envisaged demands?
Yes, sure, strategic bombers and bombing became more sophisticated, especially with the advent of atomic weapons.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[SSgtC]

On March 8, 1945, the first live fire test against a TDC-2 target drone of a Gorgon IIA using TV CLOS took place. The system was the same as used successfully on the Bat guided bomb. The Navy’s project engineer, Cdr. Moulton “Molt” Taylor, reported that this guidance system was unworkable against an aerial target where closing speeds were too high for human mind and hand-eye coordination to match the speed of response needed to make it work. This launch represents the first time in history that a guided air-to-air missile had been tried in a live fire test against a target.

This occurred off Cape May New Jersey and the firing plane was a PBY carrying the missile. One should note that the Gorgon IIA had a speed of about 450 to 500 mph. Even at such a low speed CLOS wasn't possible. (Make a note for next time somebody tries to tell you the German X-4 Ruhrstal was a game changer...)

Would it be fair to consider that during the era in both terms of the X-4 Ruhrstal and Model 66, that the perceived threat was envisaged to be larger bomber formations, which as part of doctrine flew in ridged streams for navigation, mutual protection and bombing accuracy - hence making a stand-offish attack, "track it using a flare in the tail" wasn't just permissible for the era during and immediately Post-WWII, but a progressive stepping stone nonetheless, until technology meet envisaged demands?
Yes, sure, strategic bombers and bombing became more sophisticated, especially with the advent of atomic weapons.....

Regards
Pioneer

If the missile is armed with a nuke, then that could work, since then all you need is "close enough."

 

[robunos]

AIUI, that was the idea behind the Wasserfall, not so much to actually shoot down individual bombers, but rather to break up the defensive formations, which then allowed the fighters in to engage . . .
I believe the terminology was 'Pulk- Zerstorer'.

cheers,
Robin.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

AIUI, that was the idea behind the Wasserfall, not so much to actually shoot down individual bombers, but rather to break up the defensive formations, which then allowed the fighters in to engage . . .
I believe the terminology was 'Pulk- Zerstorer'.

cheers,
Robin.

If true, and I've never seen anything on that, then it was even more ineffective as a SAM.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Wasn't Seacat CLOS in its GWS.20 form?


Especially when everyone in the field is a pioneer. Most of the textbooks and monographs I've been able to collect over the years detailing the ins and outs of (valve-era) missile design START being published in the mid 1950s, by which time most if not all the first-generation missiles were either already in service or being built and fired as early trials prototypes. The books that guided the men who designed those are not to be found (but I would be delighted to be proved wrong on this, and to be given authors and titles).

I do have one such book on the shelf, Principles of Radar published by McGraw Hill for the MIT Radar School (aka Rad lab) by Reintjes and Coate. Mine is the 1952 edition, but the first edition came out in 1944. It goes into automatic target tracking and such in detail...

 

[NMaude]

I do have one such book on the shelf, Principles of Radar published by McGraw Hill for the MIT Radar School (aka Rad lab) by Reintjes and Coate.

There are also a couple of Radar books (That are industry standard references) by Merrill Skolnik too - "Introduction to Radar Systems" and "Radar Handbook" (I have a copy of this book).

 

[pathology_doc]

I do have one such book on the shelf, Principles of Radar published by McGraw Hill for the MIT Radar School (aka Rad lab) by Reintjes and Coate. Mine is the 1952 edition, but the first edition came out in 1944. It goes into automatic target tracking and such in detail...

I have that book. Should take another look at it.

There are also a couple of Radar books (That are industry standard references) by Merrill Skolnik too - "Introduction to Radar Systems" and "Radar Handbook" (I have a copy of this book).

Can you please give me authors' names, year and publisher?

 

[NMaude]

Can you please give me authors' names, year and publisher?

Merrill I. Skolnik and the books are Introduction to Radar Systems and Radar Handbook.

• Skolnik, Merrill I. Introduction to Radar Systems. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
• Skolnik, Merrill I. Radar Handbook. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008.

Now IIRC in the Radar Handbook (At least in the 1990 edition) chapter is a rather detailed chapter about radar guidance systems for AAMs and SAMs.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I have that book. Should take another look at it.

Can you please give me authors' names, year and publisher?

J. Francis Reintjes and Godfrey T. Coate. Publisher is the Technology Press Massachusetts Institute of Technology and distributed by McGraw Hill. Three printings, 1944, 1946, 1952.