41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit AIAA 2005-4171

10 - 13 July 2005, Tucson, Arizona

AIAA JPC 2005-4171

An Overview of the Hypervelocity

Anti-Tank Missile (HATM)
Development Program

Michael Kaiserman, Michael Rodack,

Wayne Spate, Stanton Winetrobe
Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ

Blaine Royce, Sandy Wallace

Alliant Techsystems, Rocket Center, WVa

Hans Biserod, Kai Fossumstuen, Dag Tokerud

NAMMO Raufoss AS, Raufoss Norway

Copyright 2005. by Raytheon Missile Systems, Published by the American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission."

Copyright © 2005 by Raytheon Missile Systems. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion

Conference & Exhibit July 10 -13, 2005/Tucson, AZ

An Overview of the Hypervelocity Anti-Tank Missile (HATM)

Development Program

Abstract

During a six-year period from mid-1997 until the end of 2002,

Raytheon, Alliant Tech Systems, and NAMMO Raufoss, AS teamed
together to design and develop a light-weight, compact, potentially low-cost
hypervelocity missile capable of flying at speeds in excess of Mach 6.5 to
defeat a variety of targets at realistic line-of-sight ranges. This IRAD
program produced design innovations in high-energy reduced smoke
propellants, composite case and nozzle technologies, stowage-deployment-
staging concepts, precision thrust vector control, fin actuation, igniter design
and system integration.

This paper presents an overview of the design concept and the sub-
scale component and static testing efforts that led to the flight testing that
culminated in two successful ballistic flights in Norway that achieved
hypervelocity flight with staging at the maximum velocity conditions in
November of 2002. This paper is the first in a series of seven papers that
will cover all aspects of the HATM design evolution, program history, its
purpose and objectives, choice of propellant and the system overview.

Page 2
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

Introduction

Worldwide interest in hypervelocity anti-tank missiles has endured

over the years as advances in armor design continue to challenge shaped-
charge and explosively-formed penetrator warhead capabilities. The
prospect of delivering a highly lethal Kinetic Energy Penetrator (KEP) using
a relatively small precision guided missile continues to intrigue the user
community. Though elusive in the past, it is now believed that near-term
advances in the state of the art in missile propulsion, and guidance and
control technology will soon put such a weapon system within reach.

In anticipation of future trends, Raytheon Missile Systems’ (RMS)

long term anti-armor strategy includes acquiring technical expertise in the
realm of hypervelocity. Accordingly, RMS implemented a plan for
developing the knowledge base necessary to not only competes effectively
in the kinetic energy missile arena, but to seize a leadership position.

The Hypervelocity Anti-Tank Missile (HATM) represented a

multi-phased technology demonstration program in which design concepts
were developed and demonstrated. The program integrated propulsion,
penetrator, guidance, and control systems into a TOW-sized hypervelocity
missile. The viability of the various concepts was demonstrated through a
series of flight tests.

This paper presents an overview of the initial phases of the

demonstration program that culminated in the first successful ballistic flight
tests of the tactical design. During this period, the propulsion system
evolved from subscale testing to both full-scale heavy motor and flight
weight motor testing. The two reduced smoke propellant candidates, one an
HTPB based formulation and the other an HTPE based formulation, were
fully characterized and tailored to meet the HATM system requirements.

Other notable accomplishments were the development of the

deployment/retention/separating mechanism for the embedded penetrator
rod, the spring activated fin deployment mechanism, and the integration of
the propulsion module with the forward ogive and fin cone assembly.

Page 3
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

History

In 1996, Raytheon incurred an offset obligation to Norway in

conjunction with a direct commercial sale of TOW missiles. In October of
that year, it was learned that the Norwegian government was encouraging
prime contractor participation in a propulsion technology development
program, managed by NAMMO Raufoss AS, in exchange for offset credits.
Moreover, one as yet unfunded element of the three-year program was
identified as an Army-sponsored effort entitled “Hypervelocity Motor
Demonstration”.

This hypervelocity motor demonstration project was seen as an

opportunity to advance the stated goal of developing core technologies
essential for creation of a future HATM product line while forging a long-
term alliance with a major European supplier. The Hypervelocity Motor
Demonstration schedule appeared to be compatible with RMS long-term
planning, and RMS and NAMMO had enjoyed a good working relationship
and outstanding technical success in the AMRAAM Rocket Motor
Enhancement (ARME) Technology Demonstration Program. Also,
NAMMO had demonstrated its ability to assume a leadership role as
evidenced by its participation in the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
Propulsion Section Integrated Product Development Team.

In participating in the Hypervelocity Motor Demonstration, RMS

proposed to expand the scope of the program beyond static firings to include
flight testing of HATM prototypes. This would dramatically increase the
NAMMO work content, broaden the base of technology transfer, and better
fit RMS HATM Development Program objectives. From a long-term
perspective, it would also allow the Raytheon/NAMMO team to showcase
not only a hypervelocity rocket motor, but a hypervelocity anti-tank missile
in a European venue.

Page 4
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

Purpose and Objectives

The principal long-term objective of the HATM Program was to

acquire the technological know-how necessary to effectively compete for
award of future hypervelocity anti-tank missile design, development, and
production contracts. Accordingly, a high level of expertise was expected to
be obtained in the following specific areas:

Hypersonic Missile Aerodynamics

Advanced Rocket Motor Design
Missile Guidance Systems
Trajectory Control Systems
Flight Vehicle Structural Dynamics
Kinetic Energy Penetrator (KEP) Design
KEP Lethality Modeling
Flight Simulation
Flight Test Procedures

It is appropriate to reference the Integrated High-Payoff Rocket

Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) Program, which is a government funded,
industry-wide activity whose goals have direct impact on the HATM
objectives. The solid propulsion industry is actively pursing significant
improvement in a broad spectrum of areas under the auspices of the IHPRPT
Program. Coincident with the HATM Program, IHPRPT was on track to
achieve their projected goals in the year 2000. Measurable improvements
can be expected in (1) delivered specific impulse (3% improvement for both
MS and RS propellants), (2) density impulse (1% improvement for both MS
and RS propellants), and (3) mass fraction (10%, without TVC, for both
minimum smoke and reduced smoke propellant motors). Solid propellant
technologies will result in significant increases in performance due to new
propellant ingredients, improved combustion efficiencies, improved
mechanical properties, and refined material processing. The ability to
control the propellant burning rate characteristics, nozzle erosion
characteristics and operate predictably over a wider pressure and
temperature range will provide a number of options to satisfy evolving
HATM mission requirements. New case, insulation, and nozzle materials
will provide appropriate solutions for operating in the more demanding
operating environment.

Page 5
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

Typical delivered specific impulse values of 245 to 250 sec today

(HTPB/AP/ HMX/Al) will improve to values in the range of 275 to 280 sec
in 2010 for energetic propellant formulations, involving a new class of
promising oxidizers (like CL-20, TNAZ, ADN, and NTO), binders (like
PGN, ORP-2, and Poly-NMMO), and heavy metal fuels (like Zr and Bi).
These ingredients will also lead to a small improvement (like 2%) in
density-impulse values. Mass fraction improvements on the order of 10%
are achievable with high strength metal matrix and composite materials that
are being investigated. The ability to be able to operate with chamber
pressures approaching 5000 psi will allow for very high burn rate boost
grain design to drive the missile to supersonic/hypersonic velocities in a very
short time.

Partners

Alliant Techsystems

Alliant Techsystems (ATK) was selected to design, build, and test the
rocket motor, with the Kill Vehicle (KV) deployment system. At the time
this decision was made, ATK led the industry in developing an appropriate
insensitive munitions, energetic HTPE (hydroxyl-terminated polyether)
reduced smoke propellant for ESSM. In addition, ATK had refined a family
of high-energy, high-burn rate HPTB (hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene)
propellants that would provide an alternative for meeting HATM
performance requirements. ATK, as the U.S. domestic leader in composite
case manufacture for tactical rocket motors, possessed the technical
expertise to design a light-weight propulsion module for operating in a
highly stressed, high temperature flight environment.

NAMMO Raufoss

NAMMO Raufoss, AS (NAMMO) was selected to partner with ATK

in a follower-leader, leader-follower role because of their extensive
experience with the production of HTPE propellant, especially for the ESSM
Program, which was poised to transition into low rate production at that
time. NAMMO’s design innovations on the ESSM program positioned this
particular missile to be considered the first IM compliant system in that a
sufficient number of the Mil-Std-2105C insensitive munitions criteria had
been met. An added benefit for the HATM Program was the extensive
production capability for composite case manufacturing that NAMMO

Page 6
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

possessed. ATK and NAMMO were already collaborating on a number of

technical endeavors, including ESSM.

Atlantic Research Corporation

Atlantic Research Corp (ARC) was selected to design, build and test
an integral high density penetrator rod with divert and final boost propulsion
options for the tactical version of HATM. At the time this decision was
made, ARC had an extensive formulation selection, manufacturing, loading
and modeling capability for penetrator design, as demonstrated in the Army,
company IRAD and Penetrator HVR programs. As ARC was most
knowledgeable in divert system design and reduced smoke rocket motor
development and production, they were selected to develop one option for a
solid divert attitude control /base drag reduction system for our tactical
penetrator.

TRW, Inc.

TRW, having had a long history as a niche propulsion house, was

selected to design, build, and test a Propulsive Torque Motor (PTM) that
would spin the missile during the initial launch sequence. TRW’s
experience in integrating precision separation devices for satellite systems
would be invaluable in designing a similar capability for the PTM so that it
could be discarded immediately following its operation. TRW’s addition to
the HATM Team brought extensive capability in propulsion systems
integration due to their involvement in a wide spectrum of spacecraft to
ballistic missile system development.

Special Devices, Inc.

Special Device, Inc. (SDI) joined the HATM project when they were
selected by TRW to develop and test the special high-burn rate propellant
formulations that would be required by the PTM. SDI had extensive
knowledge in the design and manufacture of small devices for tactical
systems that included flight actuators and safety/arming devices. SDI
enjoyed a special relationship with TRW in that they were working jointly
on a number of advanced technologies, including a Smart Energetics
Architecture to electronically network a large number of energetic functions
into a compact activation architecture. As our program progressed, SDI’s
role was expanded by Raytheon to include their participation in the

Page 7
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

development of a fin deployment system, the adaptation of their Smart

Energetic Architecture to our specific needs, and an optional design of a
Solid Divert Attitude Control System (SDACS) for our tactical trades.

Programmatics

The design and development of the propulsion module required a

concerted effort on the part of the entire HATM team. It was decided during
the beginning phases of the program to partition out the work tasks on the
major components to assure that the key milestones identified on the
aggressive program schedule could be met with confidence. The booster
design and development, including the propellant tailoring, case, nozzle,
ignition system, bond liner/insulation system, and the penetrator
deployment/retention/ separation system tasks, was the responsibility of
ATK and NAMMO. They facilitated their efforts through a leader-
follower/follower-leader arrangement, which reflected each partner’s area of
expertise (see Table 1).

ATK selected the most promising propellant formulations on which to

further refine the characteristics necessary to meet the HATM requirements.
This work included providing high burn rate propellants that would operate
in a stable environment, where operating pressures exceeded 4000 psi, to
completely burn the grain in less than one second. Subscale and forty-pound
charge motors were successfully static tested at their Alleghany Ballistics
Laboratory (ABL) Test Range at Rocket Center, West Virginia. This work
allowed the selected propellant to be fully characterized with regard to key
physical and mechanical properties. Ballistic tailoring and full-scale grain
designs were optimized with heavy weight hardware. Igniter work
proceeded independently at ABL. Upon completion, integration with similar
heavy weight hardware occurred at NAMMO Raufoss in Norway.

Transition of the motor design package and propellant technology to

NAMMO was made on schedule. NAMMO, in turn, proceeded to validate
their design by repeating the heavy weight testing. All ballistic predictions
and motor performance were met or exceeded in these series of tests. Full-
scale flight-weight motors were built and subsequently tested. Once again
the performance surpassed all expectations. Independently NAMMO
fabricated prototype separation mechanisms which were dynamically tested
first in the prototype development shop and then on their rocket sled test
track to demonstrate its operability. This work was satisfactorily completed

Page 8
 AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

Table 1. Alliant Techsystems/NAMMO Workshare

Design Fabrication Test

Task

Leader Follower Leader Follower Leader Follower

Penetrator/Motor
Separation NAMMO Alliant Alliant NAMMO NAMMO Alliant

Motor Design NAMMO Alliant NAMMO Alliant NAMMO Alliant

Case NAMMO Alliant NAMMO Alliant NAMMO Alliant
Grain + HWT Alliant NAMMO NAMMO Alliant - -

Ignition System
Technology Alliant NAMMO Alliant NAMMO NAMMO Alliant

HTPE Propellant
Tailoring Alliant NAMMO NAMMO Alliant NAMMO Alliant

Bondliner/Insulation
System Alliant NAMMO NAMMO Alliant
Subscale - - - - Alliant NAMMO
Full Scale - - - - NAMMO Alliant

Nozzle NAMMO Alliant NAMMO Alliant NAMMO Alliant

Page 9
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

and the penetrator retention/separation mechanism was mated with the flight
vehicle. In November 2002, two successful flight tests were conducted at
the Hjerkinn Test Range in Norway which verified all objectives of the
HATM Program, including attaining velocities in excess of Mach 6.5 at
burnout and successfully separating the penetrator from the booster.

In order not to detract from the major effort required to design and
develop the booster, TRW was independently given the task to design and
develop the Propulsive Torque Motor (PTM). TRW utilized the expertise of
SDI to support the propellant selection and tailoring. In turn, SDI turned to
Talley Industries to provide the full-up subsystem static testing. Further
development work was conducted at the Final Assembly and Checkout
(FACO) facility at Raytheon’s Missile System in Tucson, Arizona, with a
series of slug missile firings. The slug missile tests, though not completely
successful, demonstrated that with further development work, it would be
feasible to refine the PTM to provide the required spin to the missile during
the initial launch sequence.

Coincident with this testing, SDI provided support to Raytheon to

develop the tactical fin deployment system in lieu of the spring activated
system that was being used for the demonstration testing. Laboratory testing
was conducted at both SDI’s facility in Moorpark, California and in the
TOW Machine Shop at Raytheon; launch testing was conducted in
conjunction with the PTM slug missile testing at Raytheon’s FACO facility.
Like the PTM, the design/development needed further refinements to meet
the requirements for the tactical design.

Raytheon utilized the static test facilities of the Army Propulsion Lab
at the Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL, in order to evaluate the
transmissivity characteristics of several boost propellant candidates (Figures
1 and 2). This step was necessary because the RF command link between
the launch platform and the missile needed to be operable during the entire
portion of the motor burn. During the heavy weight static firings at ABL,
the Raytheon team obtained valuable transmissivity data in support of the
program goals (Figures 3 and 4). Additional plume data was also obtained
during the series of static motor firings conducted by NAMMO at their
Raufoss test range (Figures 5 and 6).The program reached a successful
conclusion with the flight testing in Norway in the July/August and
October/November 2002 time period (Figures 7 and 8). In the August flight,
a missile was successfully launched from the four-tube TOW Missile

Page 10
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

Launcher (TML), which was mounted on a Raytheon HMMWV. In the

August flights, the two missiles that were ballistically flown attained burnout
velocities, as verified by Weibel radar data, in excess of Mach 6.5 and
successfully separated the kill vehicle stage.

Raytheon provided the interface between the respective partners to

assure that all system interface issues were addressed and that the system
integration of the major subsystems would occur at the appropriate system
level testing. The overall program schedule milestones are presented in
Table 2, shown below.

Table 2. Program Schedule Milestones

Oct 1996 - Dec 1997 Preliminary Feasibility Study

1 Sept 1998 Program Start

22 Apr 1999 System Requirements Review

20 Oct 1999 Preliminary Design Review

20 Oct 1999 Test Requirements Review #1

18 Apr 2000 Weapon System In-Process Review

18 Apr 2000 Test Requirements Review #2

29 Aug 2000 Critical Design Review

29 Aug 2000 Test Requirements Review #3

Sept 2001 - July 2002 Subsystem Tests

6 Aug 2002 Flight Test #1

8 Aug 2002 Flight Test #2

5 Nov 2002 Flight Test #3

7 Nov 2002 Flight Test #4

Page 11
 AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

Figure 1. Test configuration/setup for 2x2 plume test motor at AMRDEC Propulsion Lab in Huntsville, AL

Page 12
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

Figure 2. Static test of 2x2 plume test motor at AMRDEC, April 13, 1999

Page 13
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

Figure 3. FPC Static Test Motor Configuration at ABL Test

Page 14
AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

Figure 4. FPC Static Test Firing at ABL Test Range, September 30, 1999

Page 15
 AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

Figure 5. Tactical Static Test Motor Configuration at NAMMO Test Range

Page 16
 AIAA JPC 2005-4171 July 8, 2005

Figure 6. Tactical Static Test Motor Firing at NAMMO Test Range, June 6, 2000

Page 17
AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

Figure 7. First Flight Test of HATM as Launched from 4-Tube TOW

Launcher (Hjerkinn Army Test Range, Norway, August 6, 2002)

Page 18
 AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

Figure 8. Second Successful HATM Flight Demonstrating Separating Airframe Concept

(Hjerkinn Army Test Range, Norway, November 7, 2002)

Page 19
AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005
Choice of Propellant

During the first four months of 1998, Raytheon undertook an

extensive evaluation of the current/future technology in order to make the
best possible decision on what propellant would provide the optimum
solution for our HATM Program. The following discussion is a summary of
what was learned during this investigation and the rationale on which
Raytheon selected a high-energy hydroxyl terminated polyether (HTPE)
polymer based reduced smoke propellant as the baseline propellant for the
tactical design.

Candidate Propellants for HATM Rocket Motor

Both Alliant and ARC (now part of Aerojet) have mature minimum
smoke propellant formulations that merited consideration for HATM.
Alliant proposed its DOT Class 1.1 LOSAT Flight Motor propellant, GCY
(Ispo = 247 lbf-sec/lbm, rho-Ispo = 15.1 lbf-sec/cu.in). ARC proposed its
Class 1.3 EFOG-M Booster Motor propellant, Arcocel 440B (Ispo = 243.2
lbf-sec/lbm, rho-Ispo = 13.4 lbf-sec/cu.in). Other ARC Class 1.3 propellants
that merit consideration are Arcocel 446 (Ispo = 237.4 lbf-sec/lbm, rho-Ispo
= 13.2 lbf-sec/cu.in, a lead-free MS propellant formulation which uses
bismuth subsalicitate as a burn rate modifier, thus alleviating a toxicity
issue) and Arcocel 444 (Ispo = 247 lbf-sec/lbm, which has a slightly higher
burn rate characteristics than the Arcocel 440B in the higher 3000 to 5000
psi operating pressure regime). All four of these propellants can be tailored
to increase the burn rate and optimize the grain design towards meeting the
HATM performance requirements.

These more energetic propellants, with NG, NC, BTTN, and/or

DEGDN plasticizers, and HMX and/or RDX nitramine or AN, AP and/or
ADN nitrate oxidizers, do not meet the insensitive munitions criteria. Both
the military, with its dictate that all new weapons systems development, and
the propulsion community, with its response to a stated IHPRPT goal, are
developing a new class of HTPE propellants to comply with IM
requirements at the systems level. Interestingly, Thiokol/Wasatch had
pushed this technology with a promising polyether plateau propellant
formulation that has higher energy than comparable HTPB formulations,
with energy densities ranging from 16.6 to 17.0 lbf-sec/cu.in (baseline
energy density is 16.3) and capable of operating at pressures up to 5000 psi.
However, the HTPE propellants fall into a reduced smoke category where
there will be a visible plume (aside from afterburning) under certain
humidity/temperature conditions.
Page 20
AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

To provide a fully IM compliant, DOT Class 1.3 propellant for the

HATM application, Alliant proposed using its ESSM Flight Motor HTPE
propellant. The baseline propellant has an Ispo = 248.4 lbf-sec/lbm, a
slightly higher density-impulse of 15.3 lbf-sec/cu.in, and a burn rate of 0.4
in/sec (at 1000 psi). This burn rate can be tailored to 0.7 in/sec and the burn
rate curve shows linearity out to 5000 psi. HTPE propellants have a lower
solids loading (81%) in comparison to HTPB propellants (88%). What is
most significant about the development of this particular propellant was that
it has been successfully static fired in an EMD program and was currently
undergoing environmental qualification at ABL during our survey.

During the same period, ARC was formulating and successfully

testing HTPE propellants to put themselves in a competitive position to
participate in new development programs advocating this technology.
However, it is clear that they, as well as Thiokol, were behind Alliant in
placing this propellant into an operational rocket motor design. As a bridge
until a more energetic IM propellant is ready, ARC suggested using their
Arcadene 422B (Ispo = 246.1 lbf-sec/lbm, rho-Ispo = 15.3 lbf-sec/cu.in), a
reduced smoke, non-detonable formulation that has been used in AAM,
ARS, Hydra-70, HVR, and Persuader development programs. This
propellant can be tailored with a burn rate of 1.0 in/sec at 1000 psi and
exhibit linearity out to 6000 psi. Derivatives of this RS propellant,
Arcadene-454 and -455, have burn rates of 1.3 and 1.5/1.6, respectively, at
1000 psi, with the Arcadene-454 having been characterized out to 8000 psi.

Minimum Smoke Propellant Technology

Both Alliant Tech Systems and Atlantic Research Corp are recognized
U.S. leaders in minimum smoke rocket propulsion, having developed an
unsurpassed capability in this area over the past thirty years.
Thiokol/Huntsville (now closed), by virtue of its development of Hellfire
and TOW during the 80’s, and Aerojet (Sacramento), by virtue of its more
recent development on the Follow-On-To-TOW (FOTT), were beginning to
make an entry into this area. The importance of the minimum smoke
propellant technology, with the more energetic nitramines, is the bridge it is
providing into a new family of insensitive munitions (Class 1.3) propellants.
State-of-the-art theoretical Isp values range from 230 to 248 lbf-sec/lbm.

Alliant developed its very reliable GCV propellant for the Air Force
in the late 70’s, spanning a whole family of propellants that have found use
in several production and promising development programs. Alliant
Page 21
AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005
currently produces Long Bow--Hellfire (GCY), LOSAT (GCU with
modified burn rate), and the TOW 2 Flight Motor (GCV). ARC followed
suite with its Arcocel 426 propellant for the Chaparral program and a
derivative thereof for the Javelin sustain motor. Thiokol/Elkton, in the mid-
80’s, tendered a minimum smoke propellant (TPQ-7042) for the second
source TOW 2 flight motor and a derivative thereof for the Hellfire boost
motor. Likewise, Aerojet reactivated the TOW 2 flight motor minimum
smoke propellant being developed in the early 80’s with a concerted effort
on the Follow On To TOW (FOTT) boost/sustain flight motor. At that time,
it was concluded that Aerojet’s and Thiokol’s high energy propellant work
would require further development in order to come up to the same level of
maturity that Alliant and ARC had established.

Reduced Smoke Propellant Technology

Since 1970, in excess of 260 million pounds of HTPB (hydroxyl-

terminated polybutadiene) propellants have been manufactured in this
country. Over 130 million pounds of HTPB have been produced by ARC
for the Army’s MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) alone! Aerojet
first explored this class of propellant (which uses AP--ammonium
perchlorate--as the oxidizer) in the 1960’s as an improved composite
formulation to the PBAN (polybutadiene-acrylic acid-acrylonitrile) and the
CTPB (carboxyl-terminated polybutadiene) propellants. The Space Shuttle
Solid Rocket Motors (SRM’s), manufactured by Thiokol/Wasatch, UT, and
the Phoenix rocket motor, manufactured by Aerojet/Sacramento, CA, use the
PBAN and CTPB propellants, respectively. Other significant HTPB
production activities are attributable to both Pratt & Whitney/Chemical
System Division (Sunnyvale, CA)--Mk 72 Standard Missile and Mk 111
Tomahawk booster rocket motors--and Thiokol/Elkton, MD--Harpoon
booster rocket motor.

Effectively 80% of the HTPB propellant production today is

accomplished by ARC (at 50%) and Alliant (at 30%). Besides ERMLRS, an
extended range variant of the MLRS (Arcocel 360B), ARC produces Javelin
(Arcocel 430A), Mk 104 Standard Missile booster (Arcocel 441/442),
ATACMS (Arcadene 361), Patriot (TP-H8202) and PAC-3 (Arcadene
451/452A) rocket motors, AMRAAM (M-988 RS propellant), and
imminently Maverick (SAA-124 with modified burn rate) rocket motors.
Except for Maverick, all the above formulations are highly aluminized
(smoky). Both companies have participated in numerous development
programs that have embodied this class of propellants.

Page 22
AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005
State-of-the-art theoretical Isp values for reduced smoke propellants
range from 240 to 247 lbf-sec/lbm. The addition of metal substances, like
powdered aluminum, increases both the rho-Isp of the propellant (by
increased solids loading) and the Isp (by increasing the adiabatic flame
temperature yielding a higher C-star, i.e., combustion gas exit velocity);
however, the propellant is extremely smoky during its burn. Typical Ispo
values for high-energy composite propellants range from 252 to 264 sec.

Characteristics of Leading Propellant Candidates

To minimize the risk to achieving the challenging performance goals,

both the HTPB and HTPE formulations were developed in parallel. The
high burn rate capability for both formulations was valuable in achieving a
grain burnout in less than one second. It should be noted the theoretical
Isp’s of 218.8 lbf-sec/lbm for the HTPE and 241.1 lbf-sec/lbm for the HTPB
formulations resulted in similar performance because of the higher density
of the HTPE (0.0738 lbm/cu.in) in comparison to the HTPB (0.0618
lbm/cu.in). This effect is manifest in the density-impulse values, which is
shown in Table 3. The burn rate slopes for both propellants remained
consistent to extremely high pressure regions in excess of 6000 psi, which
allowed the designers sufficient latitude in trading off grain design/
configuration and case geometry. All other characteristics for these two
propellant families gave a high level of confidence that the tactical
configuration would meet operating and storage temperature limits, aging
criteria, and the rugged handling/transportation required for this weapon
system.

The HTPE with the metal oxide additive (BiO) was chosen as the
baseline for the development program because it not only met the
performance requirements, but the technology had been successfully
transferred from ATK to NAMMO (who would be casting the flight
motors). The higher performance HTPB propellant and newer state-of-the-
art minimum smoke propellants would be available for any subsequent
development efforts initiated on the HATM Program.

Page 23
 AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

Table 3. Comparison of Propellant Properties

Property HTPB HTPE (2) Comment
(1)
Theoretical Isp, lbf-sec/lbm 241.1 218.8 Higher is better for fixed mass
system
Density, lbm/cu.inch 0.0618 0.0738 -
(1)
Density Isp, lbf-sec/inch 14.89 16.15 Higher is possibly better for fixed
volume system
Burn Rate at 1000 psia at 70F 1.370 1.080 Higher is better for increasing
volumetric loading
Burn Rate Slope 0.415 0.520 Lower is better for pressure and
thrust neutrality
Sigma P, %/F 0.068 0.080 Lower is better for pressure and
thrust variability

IM Response Baseline Improved (3)

Milder Reactions to IM Stimuli

(1) Theoretical Isp and Density Isp reported for a motor operating at 77F, at steady state, at chamber
pressure of 1000.0 psia, expanding isentropically through nozzle with zero divergence angle .to exit
pressure of 14.696 psia
(2)
Bismuth Oxide (BiO) added to the propellant formulation to enhance the performance with increased
Density Isp
(3)
HTPE in an analog composite case behaves better in slow cookoff, frag and bullet impact tests

Page 24
AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

System Overview

The Hypervelocity Anti-Tank Missile was conceptualized to be

compatible with the existing TOW launcher. This design attribute would
provide an enhanced capability to the suite of existing TOW missiles and
benefit the HATM Program with an ability to utilize the 12,000 plus TOW
launcher systems in operational deployment worldwide.

To fit within the TOW launcher, the missile needed to be a nominal

6.0 inches on the diameter and was constrained to a nominal length of 50
inches. The basic missile, as initially conceived, consisted of a propulsion
module, kill vehicle assembly, booster fins, and a propulsive torque motor.
These major components are depicted in the Figure 9 below, where the kill
vehicle assembly has been deployed.

Rocket Motor Kill Vehicle Assembly

Assembly (Raytheon)
(ATK/NAMMO)

PTM
(SDI/TRW)

Booster Fins
(Raytheon)

Figure 9. Missile Configuration

To provide for the maximum propellant load and stay within the
length constraints, the kill vehicle was embedded within the propulsion
motor in a stowed configuration and the TOW canister was modified to
accommodate a 6.225 inch diameter missile. Upon a pre-launch signal, a
pyrotechnic device was fired to deploy the kill vehicle, allowing it to

Page 25
AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

translate forward within the sealed sleeve in which it was housed, to the
deployed position where it was locked in place by a specially designed
retention mechanism contained in the forward ogive. This mechanism held
the kill vehicle throughout the powered flight, then released its mechanical
interlock due to the deceleration occurring during the latter part of the
propellant grain tailoff. After separation, the kill vehicle is tracked and
guided by the flight control system.

During the launch sequence, it was deemed necessary to spin the

missile to a rotation rate on the order of 20 Hz prior to fully emerging from
the launch tube. This spin was necessary to compensate for inaccuracies that
might occur due to tip-off, thrust misalignment, and cross winds, all of
which could compound the error buildup in the guidance and degrade the
accuracy of the kill vehicle to hit the intended target. As aerodynamic
control would not provide a control authority until the missile had built up
sufficient velocity somewhat downrange of the launcher, a propulsive torque
motor was integrated into the forward ogive assembly to provide the
necessary thrust over a few milliseconds of burn to achieve the required spin
rate. Once this burn occurred, the three modules comprising the torque
motor would be ejected by firing explosive separation devices.

As the missile fully emerged from the launch tube, four curved fins
were deployed and locked into place. The tactical design included four
piston actuators that were simultaneously activated upon a command signal
to provide the required force to accomplish this event. In the ballistic flight
demonstration, passive compression springs were used to achieve this same
function.

To complete the system overview, a cutaway of the Propulsion

Module is depicted in Figure 10. The configuration portrayed shows the Kill
Vehicle in the stowed position; the booster fins are illustrated in the
deployed position to provide for a better visualization. The requirements
which provided the drivers for the HATM design are summarized in Table 4.
A cutaway of the HTPE 11-fin finocyl grain configuration is shown in
Figure 11 and the mass properties summary for the missile is listed in Table
5.

Page 26
 AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

ARAMIDE AFT RING

FIBER ATTACHMENT
EXTERNAL PROPELLANT
INSULATION GRAIN HTPE EPDM R181
INSULATION
PISTON
FWD CLOSURE CFRP
CASE
FWD POLAR BOSS
NOZZLE

FIN CONE

PYROTECHNIC
CHARGE BOOSTER FIN
PENETRATOR
OGIVE KILL VEHICLE TUBE IGNITER AND NOZZLE
WEATHER SEAL
BRAKING AND
RELEASE
MECHANISM

Figure 10. Propulsion Section Design Overview

Page 27
 AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

Table 4. Propulsion Module Requirements

Design Item System Requirements Comments

Propulsion Module
Propellant Formulation Class 1.3 reduced smoke HTPE based on ESSM propellant
Class 1.3 reduced smoke HTPB based on Maverick propellant
Total Impulse > 12,000 lbf-sec
Thrust Profile All Boost minimize unburned propellant
Motor Operating Time 0.5 to 1.0 sec action time (thrust above 10% rise/10% decay
point)
Maximum Expected Operating 4000 psi predicate on propellant burn rate characteristics,
Pressure case design
Factor of Safety 1.4 for pressurized components 100 % proof test at 1.15 MEOP
1.5 for non-pressurized components
Propulsion Section Envelope 6.225 in dia, max. x 50 in length, max. see appropriate drawing
Embedded Kill Vehicle Envelope 1.40 in dia max. x 25 in min. see appropriate drawing
Insensitive Munitions mandatory for all new weapons highly desirable at missile level
Signature minimize smoke, illumination, and RF
attenuation
Weight (loaded) 95 lbm , nom. maximize propellant loading, minimize inert
component mass
Functional Reliability 0.998 @ 95% confidence level
Service Life 20 years 22 years with storage and handling; no
maintenance
Ignition System 1.0 watt/4.0 amp all fire; 1 amp no fire
Separation System TBD mechanical system
Thrust Misalignment 0.1 deg
Moments of Inertia (pitch, yaw, roll) TBD

Page 28
 AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

Table 4. Propulsion Module Requirements (continued)

Design Item System Requirements Comments

Environmental
Operational Temperature Range
Safety/Storage Temperature Range
Acceleration during Boost
(longitudinal, transverse,
rotational)
Temperature in Missile Launch
Canister
Pressure in Missile Launch Canister
Launch System Interface
External Surface Temperature
Vibration
Shock
Vibration
Shock
minus 40 deg F to plus 145 deg F
minus 65 deg F to plus 160 deg F
600 g’s, max (longitudinal)
10 g’s max (transverse)
30Hz in 55 msec +/-5 msec (rotational)
TBD deg F max. resulting combustion products
TBD psia
through bulkhead electrical connector
not to exceed 1490 deg F for the duration of the rocket motor burn
Figure 2 operational
TBD operational
TBD packaging, handling, shipping
TBD packaging, handling, shipping

Page 29
 AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

42.2"

5.89"

Pe ne trator GHE-BiO Prope llant

Grain Parameters
Max Surface Area, inch2 555.0
Avg Surface Area, inch2 512.0
Web, inch 1.68 5.81"
3
Volume, inch 862.0
Mass, lbm 63.0
Volumetric Loading, % 82.0
Sliver Fraction, % 0.17

Figure 11. HTPE, 11-Fin Finocyl Configuration

Page 30
 AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

Table 5. Mass Properties

Total weight: Total weight:

DETAIL: (grams) (lbs)
Propellant Grain 11-Point Finocyl 29060 64.076
Fwd Closure (w/ tube and closure) 540 1.191
CFRP Case (insul w/fwd and aft att ring) 3977 8.769
Nozzle & Nozzle Closure 1102 2.430
Aft wings (Titanium, 4 pieces) 312 0.687
Ogive (Aluminum) 103 0.227
Penetrator Wings (Ceramic) 140 0.310
Deployment/Braking/Rention/Release Mech 233 0.513
Ignitor 152 0.335
Propulsive Torque Motor (TRW/SDI) 1314 2.896
Kill Vehicle 7738 17.062

Total Missile Weight: 98.496 lbm (44.677 kg)

Missile Mass Fraction: 0.651
Motor Mass Fraction: 0.830

Page 31
AIAA JPC Paper 4171 July 8, 2005

Summary

Over the course of the four and one-third years that the HATM
Program operated from September 1, 1998 through December 31, 2002,
significant knowledge was gained in the design, development, and
manufacturing techniques that would be needed to qualify and operationally
deploy a tactical hypervelocity missile. Key objectives that were met
included attaining peak flight velocities in excess of Mach 6.5, separating
the kill vehicle from the booster after burnout, and integrating a robust
airframe capable of withstanding the severe structural and thermal
environments encountered during flight. The flight simulation modeling
tools provided predictions that closely matched the data acquired during the
various test phases.

On going technological developments that were identified during

the latter stages of the HATM Program will expand the capabilities of the
HATM design. A Precision Thrust Vector Control (PTVC) concept was
analyzed and tested to confirm that robust attitude control could be attained
during the boost phase to preclude the need for rolling the missile airframe
on launch. The development of new IM minimum smoke propellants will
provide equivalent or superior performance to the high performance reduced
smoke HTPB and HTPE formulations used in the HATM Program. These
newer propellants promise to meet the Army IM requirements as well as
significantly reduce the missile launch signature.

The hypervelocity missile that was demonstrated in this program is

envisioned as the forerunner to a new family of missiles that will have a
multitude of applications where rapid intercept and lethal engagement of the
target is essential.

Page 32