Blue Eye ( [bluː aɪ] cheat. “ Blue-Ai ”, [К 1] from English - “ Blue Eye ”, military index - AGM-79 ) - American air-to-surface tactical guided missile. It was intended to suppress the ground objects of the enemy's air defense system, in this class it was supposed to replace the existing arsenal of Bullpup missiles. It was developed by the Martin-Marietta corporation's Martin-Orlando missile unit in Orlando , Fla. , Commissioned by the US Air Force [2] . The development of the “Blue-Ai” was carried out simultaneously with the creation of the Viper URVP [K 2] on a competitive basis [5] [6] . Both promising projects were designed to relieve the pilot from the need to track the missile in flight ( shot and fly technology, eng. Launch and leave ), [7] allowing pilots to resort to kick-bounce tactics [8] [9] . The rocket was supposed to be integrated into the weapons control system of the F-4 [10] and F-105 fighter-bomber [7] . In view of the Vietnam War , work on both projects was rush. Joint flight tests of two missiles of competing projects began in the summer of 1968. For these purposes, the US Air Force requested Congress to allocate budget funds to conduct a test program, the decision on choosing one of the two projects for further development and adoption was expected in the autumn of the same year [9 ] . Air Force plan for 1968-1969 provided for the purchase of the first production batch of missiles in the amount of $ 29 million [7] . The project was minimized in the early 1970s. after testing a series of prototypes under the symbol XAGM-79A [2] .
AGM-79 Blue Eye | |
---|---|
Type of | guided missile |
A country | USA |
Service history | |
Years of operation | not entered service |
In service | USAF (potentially) |
Production history | |
Designed by | 1968 |
Manufacturer | Martin orlando |
Total released | 15 |
Content
Title
The name for the missile in the US Air Force was determined even before its official assignment and before the start of the test, it was due to the characteristic distinguishing feature of the homing missile head. During the hearings on assigning a verbal name to a rocket in the Subcommittee on Defense of the House of Representatives Budget Budget Committee , Florida Congressman Robert Sykes , who chaired the meeting, noted that he didn’t like the name Blue Eye personally, he commented that he is slightly annoyed, although he had already received the Red Eye rocket (MANPADS) in response to the counter remark that he was satisfied with the Red Eye. When the congressman from Arizona, John Rhodes, offered to call the rocket “The Unkind Eye” (born Evil Eye ), Sykes liked this idea, but it didn’t come to practical implementation, the lawmakers stopped at the Blue Eye. [eleven]
Background
The practice of bombing assault on the North Vietnamese administrative and industrial centers as part of the US air campaign during the Vietnam War revealed a number of shortcomings. In particular, for the suppression of the enemy's air defense positional areas , anti-aircraft artillery forces and anti-aircraft missile forces , the American side was required to send, along with assault and bomber aviation forces, assigned guard and reinforcement teams equipped with high-performance aircraft and electronic jamming stations ground means of radio engineering troops of the enemy. The ratio of air attack forces to escort and cover forces was about 50%, and sometimes it reached 20% (that is, only one-fifth of the total number of aircraft involved in the next airstrike took part in strikes against ground targets). But these measures were not a panacea for aviation losses due to the highly effective countermeasures of enemy ground forces and air defense missiles, and the effectiveness of air raids remained at the same level and even lower (due to the active resistance of the enemy’s air defense forces), which forced the US Air Force to deliver private research institutions of the military industry the task of finding technical and tactical solutions to the problem, among other things, in the direction of finding new means of destruction in general and guided aircraft weapons in particular. As part of this research, under the general name "suppression of enemy air defenses" (eng. Suppression of enemy air defenses , abbr. SEAD), such a category of armament as anti-aircraft missiles ( flak-suppression missiles ), designed specifically for striking equipped enemy air defense positions. This direction of URVP immediately went in two ways: along the path of improving self-guided anti - radar missiles to suppress ground - based radar stations for detection and guidance, and to improve television-guided missiles targeting any ground targets (which allowed them to be used to solve other combat missions). The latter category belonged to Bullpup and its derivatives, Blue-Ai and Viper. The latter implemented the guidance technology, called the correlation guidance or comparative guidance (eng. Correlation guidance ), the essence of which was to fix the rocket with an online storage device at the time of launching the highly magnified scene using a stabilized tracking optical device ( stabilized telescope ) images of a tactical situation, with a target in the middle of the target and visual elements of the area around it, otherwise called the reference scene, in which the cancer eta was guided in flight. This technology made it possible to increase the accuracy and effective range of the URVP while reducing the time required to fire the target while simultaneously implementing the requirement for reducing the load on the pilot (“fired and flew away”). [12] The concept of a missile's combat use assumed equipping it with strike groups to clear the way to the attacked objects from their air defense forces [7] .
History
- Development
The task for the Martin-Orlando engineers was simplified by the fact that the Bullpup missiles, along with modifications, were also the products of their development and the program for their modernization was carried out by the same institutions. For the development of guidance systems at Martin-Orlando, he was responsible for the Guidance Development Systems and Technology Research Center (GDC) with his own laboratories, —the optical guidance laboratory, the radar-guidance laboratory, and the tactical environment visualization laboratory — test benches and testing ground [13] . On March 13, 1968, a representative of the contracting authority, Major General Aviation Thomas Jeffrey, visited the Martin-Orlando Research Center to personally familiarize himself with the progress of the missile guidance system, finding the approach of Martin-Orlando engineers in a very interesting way to solve the all-weather guidance problem. rockets. Both contestants were required to submit fifteen prototype prototypes of homing heads for state tests [14] .
- Tests
At the time of the start of development work, a rocket with a relatively low range (up to 6 km) demonstrated a rather large value of the circular probable deviation (30-60 meters), compensated for by the radius of scattering of fragments and ready-made destructive elements. In its regular report to the Secretary of Defense for June 23 - July 5, 1968, the Scientific Council of the US Department of Defense recommended improving the accuracy and effective range of missile use by improving the fuel supply system and autopilot . At the same time, the rotating rocket body was recognized as an obstacle to improving the accuracy and range of the rocket, and the optics of the guidance system did not provide the necessary image magnification at distances exceeding 6 km. In addition, the developers were recommended to strengthen the destructive effect of the air explosion due to the directional expansion of the finished destructive elements. The Scientific Council assessed these difficulties as solvable and predicted bringing the missile launch range without entering the enemy’s air defense zone to 9 km, bringing the QUO up to 3 meters at the maximum distance, the prospect of accelerating the launch of the missile in large quantities on time up to two years, that is, until the autumn of 1970. Work on the Blue-Ai was recommended to be carried out in parallel with the program to improve the existing arsenal of Bullpup missiles and to equip carrier aircraft with more sophisticated guidance tools [12] .
Description
- Rocket
The rocket "Blue-Ai" was an improved version of the URVP " Bullpup " with an automatic guidance system. Outwardly, both rockets were similar, the Blue-Ai used a similar propulsion system, the innovation was a passive television optical homing head with an areal correlation system, the lively transparent cap of which, made of a bluish-colored polymer material , gave the name to the rocket. The image of the area surveyed through the lens of the GOS was transmitted to the sighting device screen in the cockpit. The missile’s guidance system provided for the pilot to capture the ground target’s coordinates and distance, while receiving the calculated flight trajectory, after which the launch took place, the missile was oriented toward the target position recorded in its operational memory. , inertial navigation system ensured the following of the programmed course. In flight, the GOS continued its work, continuously tracking the target, the logical apparatus of the areal correlation system fixed the missile deviation parameter from a predetermined course and formed control commands for the missile steering surface drive system. PIM rocket was designed to undermine at a certain height above the ground to create the greatest radius of destruction of field infrastructure facilities, military equipment and enemy manpower outside the shelters [2] .
- Guidance system
The Martin-Orlando engineers developed a Multi-Mode Guidance System ( Multi-Mode Guidance System ) for use on various types of aircraft guided weapons, including the Blue-Ai. [13] The homing head was called by its developers an "optical scanning device" ( optical-scanning device ). For the continuous comparison of the image observed in the GOS lens with the terrain map recorded at the time of start-up, a vidicon tube was used. As the rocket approaches the target, the resolution of the displayed image becomes clearer, which makes it possible to reduce the deviation parameter from the given flight path to a minimum [9] .
Comparative characteristics
Criterion | " Bulpap " | " Viper " | " Blue-Ai " |
---|---|---|---|
Control system | radio command | automatic | |
Missile Flight Control Mode | manual | auto | |
Missile targeting device | command station | optical homing head | |
Safety mechanism | piezoelectric | radio altitude | |
Propulsion system | solid rocket engine | ||
Inertial navigation system | two-degree float gyro | ||
Information sources | |||
|
Performance characteristics
- Sources of information: [2] [3] [12]
- General information
- Aircraft carrier - F-4 , F-105
- Target categories - ground targets
- Guidance system
- Missile targeting device on the target - television homing head
- Type of homing head - optical passive with areal correlation system
- Zone of fire
- Launch range
- Actual (in 1968) - from 3 to 6 km (10-20 thousand feet)
- Predicted (for 1970) - up to 9 km (30 thousand feet)
- Circular Probable Deviation
- Actual (in 1968) - 30 ... 60 meters (100-200 feet)
- Predicted (as of 1970) - up to 3 meters (10 feet)
- Aerodynamic characteristics
- Aerodynamic layout - " duck "
- Mass-dimensional characteristics
- Length - 4140 mm
- Case diameter - 460 mm
- Plumage span - 1220 mm
- Warhead
- Type of warhead
- high-explosive fragmentation with offensive elements
- cassette
- Type of safety actuator - remote action, radio-altitude, actuation of the distance to the surface measured by the radio altimeter
- Propulsion system
- Type of remote control - solid propellant
Comments
- ↑ In the Russian-language military press, the variant of writing “ Blue-Ai ” is well-established. [one]
- Both missiles, the Blue-Ai (XAGM-79A) and the Viper (XAGM-80A), were essentially modifications of the Bullpup AGM-12C (body and aerodynamic surfaces) [3] and AGM-12E (inertial navigation system, engine, fuel supply system). [four]
Notes
- ↑ Abroad: Foreign aviation and space information. Viper or Blue Eye? // Aviation and cosmonautics . - M .: Voenizdat , August 1968. - № 8 - p. 92.
- ↑ 1 2 3 4 Parsch, Andreas . Martin Marietta AGM-79 Blue Eye . (electronic resource) / Designation Systems . - 2002.
- ↑ 1 2 Jane's Weapon Systems 1972-73 . / Edited by RT Pretty and DHR Archer. - 4th ed. - NY: McGraw-Hill , 1972. - P. 121, 123 - 705 p. - (Jane's Yearbooks) - ISBN 0-354-00105-1 .
- ↑ Statement of Gen. John P. McConnell, Chief of Staff, US Air Force . / US Tactical Air Power Program: Hearings. - May 28, 1968. - P. 125 - 240 p.
- ↑ AGM 79/80 Missile: Testimony of Maj. Gen. TS Jeffrey, Jr., US Air Force, Director of Production and Programming, Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development . / Department of Defense appropriations for 1970. - May 21, 1969. - Pt. 3 (Procurement) - P. 1035 - 1163 p.
- ↑ Taylor, John WR Missiles 1969 . // Flight International . - 14 November 1968. - Vol. 94 - No. 3114 - P. 792.
- 2 1 2 3 4 Statement of Lt. Gen. Robert G. Ruegg, US Air Force, Deputy Chief of Staff, Systems and Logistics, Headquarters . / Hearings on Military Posture: And an Act (S. 3293). - June 24, 1968. - p. 9736 - 9943 p.
- ↑ World missile market and air defense systems: Air-to-surface // Flight International . - 11 May 1972. - Vol. 101 - No. 3295 - P. 689.
- 2 1 2 3 LaFond, Charles D. Washington Report. Summer bout set: Blue Eye vs. Viper . // Electronic Design . - NY: Hayden Publishing Company, July 4, 1968. - Vol. 16 - No. 14 - p. 51.
- ↑ Knaack, Marcelle S. Encyclopedia of US Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems (1945-1973) . / Office of Air Force History. - Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1978. - Vol. I - P. 274n - 358 p.
- ↑ Statement of William R. Curl, Chief, Missiles and Space Branch, US Air Force Directorate . / Department of Defense Appropriations for 1969: Hearings. - March 27, 1968. - Pt. 3 - P. 431 - 574 p.
- 2 1 2 3 Report of the Panel on Tactical Aircraft . - Washington, DC: Defense Science Board- National Academy of Sciences , 23 June-5 July 1968. - P. 52-53 - 124 p.
- ↑ 1 2 Gregory, Philip C. Laboratory Techniques and Evaluation Methodology. // Guidance and Control of Tactical Missiles ( AGARD Lecture Series ). - May 1972. - No. 52 - p. 3e.
- ↑ Statement of Maj. Gen. TS Jeffrey, Jr., US Air Force, Director of Production and Programming, Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development . / Department of Defense Appropriations for 1969: Hearings. - March 27, 1968. - Pt. 3 - P. 430 - 574 p.