1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to fin-stabilized projectiles and more particularly to a mechanism for delayed tail fin deployment.
2. Description of the Related Art
Modern warfare is based on mission speed, high per round lethality, and low possibility of collateral damage. This requires that the ordinance be delivered on target with high precision. An important component to achieving high precision is to maintain the stability of the projectile delivering the ordinance. High spin rate projectiles such as bullets, artillery shells or ballistic missiles are self-stabilizing (“spin-stabilized”), the projectile acts like a gyro which prevents the projectile from tumbling. Low spin rate projectiles such as rockets (guided or unguided) deploy tail fins to shift the center of pressure aft of the center of gravity to ensure stability (“fin-stabilized”). Roll-stabilized projectiles such as guided missiles use active control of tail fins and other aerodynamic surfaces to provide stabilization.
An exemplary weapon system 10 is illustrated in
As shown in
D. J. Wilson “Delayed Fin Deployment Mechanism” (Lockheed-Huntsville Research and Engineering Center, Huntsville Ala. 1978) describes an “active-passive” system that provides for delayed deployment but at significantly higher cost, weight, and volume. A timing circuit fires a bridge wire activated cable cutter squib after a precise time delay initiated by the rocket ignition pulse. The squib, in turn, clips and thus releases a stainless steel cable which had previously maintained the spring-loaded fins in a folded position. Each (of two) timer circuit/squib units with batteries is contained in a package approximately the size of a pack of cigarettes.
Some systems use the tail fins to provide both stability and guidance control instead of using additional canards. These “active-active” systems are quite expensive and large as they must provide both the actuator mechanism to physically adjust the fins and the intelligence to proportionally control the actuator mechanism in Teal-time to guide the rocket. The actuator mechanism may be mechanical, electromagnetic or possibly electrostatic. This guidance capability is more than sufficient to delay deployment of the tail fins but at a high cost.
A need remains for a fin deployment mechanism having rudimentary timing control that does not sacrifice cost, weight, volume or reliability. Ideally, such a fin deployment mechanism should require minimal redesign of existing rockets with the potential to retrofit the existing inventory of rockets.
The present invention provides an inexpensive, light weight, low volume and reliable delayed fin deployment mechanism for boosted fin-stabilized spinning projectiles.
This is accomplished with a hold down device that holds the fin in its stowed position with a constant spring force. During the boost stage, the projectile spins up to its terminal spin rate. The spring force is selected to correspond to a particular spin rate of the projectile (less than the terminal spin rate), which in turn is correlated to a desired travel distance of the projectile from launch. When the spin rate reaches the target value the rotational moment produced by the centrifugal force exceeds the opposing moment produced by the spring force and the hold down device releases the fin to pivot outwardly to its deployed position. The hold down device provides a very simple and reliable solution to allow a boosted spinning projectile to, for example, clear an aircraft's flow field and/or other projectiles in a multi-tube launcher.
A typical projectile will include a plurality of fins positioned around the circumference of the projectile's tail section. In one embodiment, each fin will be provided with a hold down device. Ideally each device will exhibit the same spring force so that all of the fins deploy at the same time. However, inevitably there is some variation in the spring forces that causes a degree of dispersion at the target. In another embodiment, a plurality of cams are positioned between adjacent fins so that when the hold down device having the weakest spring force releases, the deployment of its fin pushes the cam against the adjacent fin causing its hold down device to release and so forth in a daisy chain until all of the hold down devices have been released and the fins deployed. The cams should reduce dispersion at the target. In yet another embodiment, only a primary fin is held in place with a hold down device. The remaining secondary fins are captured by a lanyard that is held between a pair of attachment lugs. The deployment of the primary fin releases the lanyard from at least one of the attachment lugs thereby allowing the secondary fins to deploy almost simultaneously.
These and other features and advantages of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description of preferred embodiments, taken together with the accompanying drawings, in which:
a-3b, as described above, are section views of the spinning rocket illustrating the centrifugal forces on the stowed fins in or out of the launch tube and the fins in their deployed positions post launch out of the launch tube;
a-5b are plots of the forcing moment and travel as the boosted projectile spins up, respectively;
The present invention provides an inexpensive, light weight and reliable delayed fin deployment mechanism for boosted fin-stabilized spinning projectiles. A hold down device is positioned on the projectile to exert a known spring force in opposition to the centrifugal force. When the projectile is launched it is boosted and spins up to a terminal spin rate. The centrifugal force increases with the square of the spin rate. When the moment produced by the centrifugal force acting on the fin exceeds the opposing moment produced by the hold down device, the hold down device will release the fin allowing it to swing into its deployed position. Thus, proper selection of the spring force and positioning of the hold down device will cause the fins to deploy at a predetermined spin rate. The spin rate can be correlated to a time or travel distance of the projectile from launch. Thus, the hold down device(s) provides a simple yet effective means for delayed fin deployment in a boosted fin-stabilized spinning projectile. The incorporation of the hold down devices requires minimal design changes to existing rockets and may, in some cases, be retrofit to the existing base of rockets if desired.
As shown in
As shown in
As shown in
The hold down device provides a very simple and reliable solution to allow a spinning projectile to, for example, clear an aircraft's flow field and/or other projectiles in a multi-tube launcher. In both instances, the travel delay can be established a priori based on knowledge of the aircraft or the multi-tube launcher. For example, a designer can estimate that for a certain type of helicopter when hovering to fire its rockets the flow field produced by the rotors could cause the rocket to turn into the flow field and away from the intended target if the tail fins were deployed within 10 meters of the helicopter. Assuming that the boost phase extends beyond 10 meters, the designer can select and position a simple hold-down device to delay tail fin deployment. In the multi-tube launcher application, if the tail fins deploy immediately upon clearing the tube they can interfere with adjacent rockets extending from their tubes. In this case, the travel delay need only be sufficient for the rocket to clear the other rockets. Note, if a longer travel delay is required, it may be possible to extend the boost phase.
A typical projectile will include a plurality of fins positioned around the circumference of the projectile's tail section. The fins may be flat or curved to wrap-around the projectile. Alternately, the fins may be jack-knifed inside the tail section. In one embodiment, each fin will be provided with a hold down device (
As shown in
The hold down device is configured to provide a predetermined spring force opposing the deployment of the fin until the forcing moment is sufficiently large to overcome the spring force and push the hold down device out of the way. The spring force is determined by length, width, thickness, shape and material composition of walls 94 and can be defined and manufactured to a reasonable tolerance. Friction between the fin and hold down device has considerably more variation as it depends upon such unknowns as dirt, humidity etc. Consequently, it is generally desirable to design the hold down device (shape) to minimize friction. In this particular embodiment, the edge 96 of the hold down device that actually contacts the fin is rounded to minimize any friction between the fin and device as the fin pushes edge 96 outward from the projectile spin axis 86 during deployment. The rounded edge also reduces the likelihood that the edge will tear or otherwise damage the fin during deployment.
Ideally each hold down device 88 will exhibit the same spring force so that all of the fins deploy at the same time. However, inevitably there is some variation in the spring forces that causes a degree of dispersion at the target. To reduce dispersion, a like plurality of cams 98 are positioned between adjacent fins 82 so that when the hold down device 88 having the weakest spring force releases, the deployment of its fin 80 pushes the cam 98 against the adjacent fin causing its hold down device to release and so forth in a daisy chain until all of the hold down devices have been released and the fins deployed. In this particular fin configuration, the cams 98 are positioned axially between the interior longitudinal edge 82 of one fin and the exterior longitudinal edge 92 of the adjacent fin so that when the hold down device having the weakest spring force releases the deployment of its fin pushes the cam against the exterior longitudinal edge of the adjacent fin causing its hold down device to release and so forth in the daisy chain. The force exerted by the cams should be larger than any variance in the spring forces of the hold down devices. For the typical case in which all of the hold down devices are designed to have the same spring force, any one of the hold down devices may be the weakest and start the daisy chain. Alternately, a fin could be designated as the primary fin and its hold down device designed specifically to have the weakest spring force. The remaining secondary fins would have a higher designed spring force. When the primary hold down device releases, it starts the daisy chain and the cams provide sufficient additional force to deploy the secondary fins.
Although not shown, a typical deployment mechanism may also include a spring underneath each fin to more rapidly deploy the fin once released. If the spring assist is included the spring force of the hold down device is increased to offset the spring assist so that the tail fins deploy at the same delay. The only effect is that once the fins are released, the forcing moment includes both the centrifugal force and the spring assist so that the fin will deploy faster. A typical deployment mechanism may also include a fin locking mechanism on the fin hub that holds the fin its deployed position. The centrifugal force of the spinning projectile will tend to hold the fin in the deployed position but the locking mechanism provides an additional measure of stability and reliability. The locking mechanism can be a simple detent.
In an alternate embodiment shown in
In an alternate embodiment shown in
While several illustrative embodiments of the invention have been shown and described, numerous variations and alternate embodiments will occur to those skilled in the art. Such variations and alternate embodiments are contemplated, and can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2793591 | Jasse | May 1957 | A |
3125956 | Kongelbeck | Mar 1964 | A |
3260205 | Dietrich | Jul 1966 | A |
3697019 | Watson | Oct 1972 | A |
4296895 | Pazmany | Oct 1981 | A |
4440360 | Hallstrom | Apr 1984 | A |
4520972 | Diesinger et al. | Jun 1985 | A |
4664338 | Steuer et al. | May 1987 | A |
4817891 | Gaywood | Apr 1989 | A |
5368255 | August | Nov 1994 | A |
6168111 | Kayser et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6588700 | Moore et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6764042 | Moore et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080111020 A1 | May 2008 | US |