Active rockets with direct-flow engines designed by A. Lippisch (Germany)

67
The German scientist and designer Alexander Martin Lippis is primarily known for numerous and not always successful projects in the field aviation. At the same time, he managed to work in other areas. So, at the very end of 1944, A. Lippisch and his colleagues at the Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt Wien (LFW) institute presented the German command with a curious concept of active-reactive artillery shell.


Model of an active rocket with a front fairing and front-mounted ramjet




Origins and ideas


It must be recalled that the development of active rockets (APC) in Nazi Germany started back in 1934 and a few years later yielded real results. Early projects included equipping the APC with its own propellant engine. It provided additional acceleration after exiting the barrel and increased the firing range.

Already in 1936, the original version of the ARS was proposed by the designer Wolf Trommsdorff. Together with the tail section with a powder bomb, he planned to use a ramjet (ramjet engine). The idea of ​​direct-flow ARS was supported by the military, and over the course of several years the engineer managed to create testable samples. Nevertheless, the project of V. Trommsdorff did not give real results. His ARS could not get to the front.

In 1944, the idea of ​​ARS with ramjet engine was remembered in LFW, and immediately set to work on it. In the shortest possible time, the pros and cons of such products were determined, development paths were determined, and the first prototypes were created and tested. By the end of the year, the project documents were submitted to the command.

Shell family


The report of A. Lippisch actually dealt with the creation of a whole family of APCs with different design features. According to the LFW project, it was possible to create eight shell options with one or another plus. Eight concepts were based on several basic ideas - they were combined in different ways with different results.

The calculations showed that the ramjet for the projectile can have a different design. It could use liquid or powder fuel. Good characteristics were made possible by obtaining the simplest coal powder - a cheap and affordable fuel. Various flammable liquids were studied. The possibility of creating a combined propulsion system with liquid and solid fuel components was not ruled out.


Different variants of the ARS architecture of Lippisch design


The first version of the ARS was a simple blank with an internal channel forming a ramjet. In the center of this cavity there was a channel for pieces of coal powder. To eject such a projectile from a cannon, a special tray was required that is worn on the bottom with a nozzle.

For stabilization in flight, APC could be spun around its axis due to rifling of the barrel or using stabilizers deployed in flight. An option with ridges or shoulder blades on the head fairing was also offered.

The presence of a through channel and a pallet complicated the design and complicated the operation of the APC. To exclude it, LFW developed a new version of the architecture of the ammunition. It provided for the abandonment of the traditional bottom nozzle and the use of a different layout of the ramjet.

This version of the ARS was to consist of two parts. The main body was a body of revolution with a closed bottom without a nozzle. Inside, a cavity was provided for liquid or powder fuel, as well as means for supplying it. The head fairing received a frontal air intake, and channels or cavities were provided inside it. The fairing was put on the body with a gap.

Through the intake opening, the air had to enter the projectile and provide fuel combustion in its cavity. Gaseous products of combustion under the pressure of incoming air should fall into the cavity of the fairing, and then exit through the annular gap, which acts as a nozzle.


Another variant of ARS with annular nozzle


Such a sophisticated ramjet design had some advantages. Blowing the projectile with hot gases improved aerodynamics and could give some gain in range. The fairing could be moved along the axis of the APC, changing the width of the gap-nozzle and, accordingly, the thrust ramjet. The possibility of creating controls for this gap was not ruled out.

Inside the main body of the APC with a separate fairing, it was possible to place a powder bomber, powdered coal or a tank with liquid fuel. Several options for storage and supply of fuel to the chamber were considered.

Of some interest are options for ARS, more like missiles. It was proposed to place ramjet on liquid fuel in the head part of such a product, and a conventional solid propellant rocket engine in the tail. With the help of the latter, a start with a guide was carried out, and a liquid ramjet engine was supposed to provide acceleration in flight.

For obvious reasons, most of the internal volumes of the APC should have been occupied by ramjet and its fuel. However, there was some space inside the housing to accommodate the bursting charge and fuse. At the same time, the available volumes in different projects differed, which could affect the combat qualities of the products.

Expected Finale


Using a set of basic ideas and combining them in different ways, A. Lippisch proposed eight basic architectures of an active-rocket projectile. All of them had certain features, advantages and disadvantages. Continuing the research work, the LFW Institute could develop the proposed ideas and build on their basis real ammunition for artillery.


Modern version of APC with ramjet from Nammo


It is known that when working on new ARS, scientists conducted some research and testing. In particular, the optimal fuel options were determined by the results of such work. Whether the finished shells were built and whether their tests were carried out is unknown. Well-known factors impeded such work.

Perhaps the continuation of work on the ARS could lead to real results and even ensure the rearmament of the German army. However, the report on the new project appeared too late. The command was reported to him only at the very end of 1944, when the outcome of the war was obvious to Germany.

In the remaining months before the surrender, the LFW Institute was not able to complete a single promising project in the field of aviation or artillery. Many samples weapons and techniques that had previously seemed promising remained on paper. After the war and moving to the USA A.M. Lippish focused on aviation technology and did not return to the artillery theme.

Unnecessary project


The overly bold projects of A. Lippisch and V. Trommsdorff did not affect the Wehrmacht’s fighting efficiency. Even their most successful developments did not advance beyond the field tests, and in practice did not reach the implementation of ARS with ramjet. Moreover, in the future, these ideas have not been developed. Apparently, experts from the victorious countries familiarized themselves with the work of LFW - and discarded them as useless.

In the postwar period, the armament of all the leading countries appeared their own active-missile shells. These were solid fuel rocket engines. Also, simpler shells with a bottom gas generator have gained some distribution. Ramjet engines were not able to gain a foothold in the field of artillery shells.

However, the concept is not forgotten. Last year, the Norwegian industry introduced the 155-mm ARS project with solid fuel ramjet. In the near future, it should be tested, after which the issue of launching production and procurement can be decided. Whether this shell will manage to get to operation and not to repeat the fate of A. Lippish's developments is unknown.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    4 November 2019 18: 09
    Interesting. The first time I read about such shells. hi
  2. +6
    4 November 2019 18: 11
    The accuracy of firing unguided ARS is plus or minus bast shoes.
    1. +1
      4 November 2019 18: 23
      I say so. and saw this)

      lol
      Not taken off - yes. And it couldn’t. A classic of the gloomy Teutonic - but true - genius
      1. +6
        4 November 2019 20: 04
        Trommsdorff and Lippisch promoted technically illiterate Aloysych to grandmas laughing
    2. +3
      4 November 2019 20: 01
      Quote: Operator
      The accuracy of firing unguided ARS is plus or minus bast shoes.

      Most likely, Lippisch began to deal with these shells in order to obtain data on supersonic flow around and related effects. No wonder it was he who came closest to supersonic.





      Different forms of the warhead and the projectile were tested, ranges and speeds were measured ... But he was not interested in artillery subjects in the 1930s, just by firing a cannon, he could get the speeds he needed.
      1. +7
        4 November 2019 20: 55
        Touches the thickness of the profile of the delta wing in the Nazi project. And this is with unfinished engines. To supersonic with such a profile he is like ... well, in general, far away. The only thing he did good was squandering German money, bringing the victory over Nazism closer.
    3. 0
      5 November 2019 07: 33
      In the case of non-disposable projectiles, much will depend on the accuracy of the manufacture of parts responsible for jet propulsion, but of course in our time no one will make such a complex projectile uncontrollable. This will be one of the main shortcomings, the second follows from the first, the small volume of the warhead.
  3. +3
    4 November 2019 18: 51
    Such shells make sense only in the corr version. But the Germans did not have such. And so far we have (GLONASS)
    1. -2
      5 November 2019 21: 56
      Explain your point.
      1.We do not have corr shells?
      2. We have no GLONASS correspondent?
      3. Do we only have GLONASS?
      4. What do you know about "Krasnopol", "Kitolov", "Centimeter", "Thunderstorm"?
      1. +1
        6 November 2019 15: 57
        For all of the above, you need a highlight near the target ...
        1. -3
          6 November 2019 20: 50
          And in what cases, it is not needed?
          Explain.
          1. +1
            6 November 2019 21: 16
            With satellite-guided missiles, for example. Need target coordinates and all.
            1. 0
              7 November 2019 13: 26
              Does it take the coordinates of the target? .....
              But the target does not move?
              And GPS is not jammed .... So?

              And Americans themselves are not too happy with this sword.
              And they, they do not have too much, like the artillery itself (the strategy is different). hi
              1. 0
                7 November 2019 14: 23
                1. For moving targets, such shells are not used.
                2. The reconnaissance targets, gives coordinates, shoot at coordinates. And do not impersonate themselves.
                3. targets for artillery shells 155mm are targets of the battlefield and the enemy’s close rear and battery .... no one has so many jammers.
                4. Very pleased and the latest versions of the shells have combined guidance and laser and satellite.
                1. 0
                  7 November 2019 19: 55
                  2. Exactly - intelligence !!! And how does she take coordinates? Not using laser rangefinders? And if intelligence is present in the area of ​​the target, then do not care how to indicate the target, if the laser is still turned on?

                  1-3 Especially since the goals of the battlefield are usually quite mobile. And jammers can cover very large areas.

                  4. And if they are so pleased with the "sword of the lake maiden" with the satellite - why did they shove laser target designation there.

                  5. The more electronics in the shell, the less explosives.

                  6. Given their number of artillery, the probability (our incredible opponents have it by no means a "goddess of war", aviation rules there) that in a maneuver war: a cannon, a projectile (there are not too many of them - "dogs" are very expensive), and a fixed target (worthy of this waffle wunder) - they will be in one place and will not appear often at the same time.
                  1. 0
                    7 November 2019 22: 48
                    What are the moving targets for firing from a closed firing position? Howitzer?
                    1. 0
                      8 November 2019 20: 06
                      Should the goal be to move at least 30m and that's it, the "miracle sword" does not rule ...
                      And if you take into account that its accuracy is about 5 m with GPS (plus steering machines, electronics, minus explosives), what is the effectiveness against a protected target? And here the formula - "one projectile, one target" is already in flight, but massively expensive. And again we take high-explosive blanks and arrange an art raid on the enemy (the enemy rushes about the position and is warm in his soul, which is not boring for good people). Or do you propose to shoot this wunder on the infantry ......?

                      Just don’t tell me, Shaw Vi is worried about artillery intelligence. It shines for five seconds, and makes legs, and at this time the enemy takes pleasure - he has no code, and not a fact, he has the means to detect that light. (formula: the right place, the right time, and the front is so long).

                      "Centimeter" - for example, it is corrected by powder engines at the finish of the trajectory, practically at the moment of impact, and so it is guided like a normal ballistic projectile. It is much cheaper than other correction systems, and is not inferior in efficiency.
                      1. 0
                        8 November 2019 21: 40
                        The purpose of such shells is not tanks ..... a + and - 5 / 10m for a 155 / 152mm shell is good. And here there are enough coordinates, and they can be received by both radio reconnaissance and UAVs and at such ranges where there are no longer anyone to highlight. For example, counter-battery struggle. Serif, coordinates and shot. And at such ranges where the dispersion of conventional shells will be great.
                      2. 0
                        9 November 2019 23: 25
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        5 / 10m for a 155 / 152mm projectile is good

                        This is good for the standard, but not very well for castrated by BB.
                        In the best case, you get a 120mm shell at a price of 155 / 152mm with gold filling.
                        And who talked about tanks? 5m miss the dugout, and what is the effect?
                        True, tanks also have a habit of standing most of the time.

                        A rocket - not? ....
                        The range is greater, the power is higher.
                        Even a 122mm hail with a satellite correction system will fly further with great power.
                        And why the drone can not "hold the candle", sorry to highlight (I think it will be more accurate)?

                        And what such ranges are you talking about? The "Holy Warrior" shoots at 17km.

                        Just don’t tell me for an active rocket.
                        There BB with gulkin ..... with gulkin ......
                        Well, in general, there is little of it.

                        And they ruined the "crusader".
                      3. 0
                        10 November 2019 08: 32
                        Here the question is in the range that they want to achieve .... with such accuracy with a 120mm projectile, it will cause troubles.
                      4. 0
                        11 November 2019 12: 59
                        Oh recourse ... And how many troubles the adjustable 122mm "Grad" will cause! And a dozen more easy ones in a volley - for fun! How much "fun" for less money.

                        I think this can end the debate. The parties are running out of arguments.
                      5. 0
                        11 November 2019 13: 25
                        The main argument here is the range and speed at which, after receiving the coordinates, you will hit the target. All. The same applies to bombs with such a GSN. All of the latest U.S. ammunition variants have a dual seeker. Satellite and laser.
                      6. 0
                        11 November 2019 14: 14
                        The bomb - yes (albeit dumb)
                        Rocket - yes (range, power, accuracy - all hurt yourself)
                        Shell - no (castrate - in every way).
                        This is us about controlled-corrected - yes
                      7. 0
                        11 November 2019 19: 02
                        There is another question: to what ranges is the gun + projectile profitable and at which PU + Rocket .... with the same accuracy and explosive.
                      8. 0
                        11 November 2019 19: 46
                        Wait a minute .... How is it with the same explosive?
                        You are a nice man - cheating!

                        Since when in the "hailstones" there is as much explosive as the "sword"?
                        With the same: range, accuracy, and different masses of explosives!
                        Cheaper, faster, and mobile pu.
                        That will be right!

                        Well, how do you give up? wink
                      9. 0
                        11 November 2019 20: 04
                        There is not exactly the same mass of explosives ..... or the cost of destroying a typical target at different distances. For example, Radar or KP. At a distance of 30-40-50 -60km
                        Here and count. Typical shell 155mm / corr155mm / MLRS 122-330mm / corrRocket MLRS / Tochka-U ...... there are typical targets and their typical location from the front line. Platoon OP, emetic, Radars, various air defense systems, jump airfields, battery art 105mm, 155mm, etc.
                      10. 0
                        11 November 2019 20: 48
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        For example, Radar or KP. At a distance of 30-40-50 -60km


                        You're cheating again! No.
                        Do not put everything in a heap!
                        Let's compare - comparable, and cram shoved!
                        For example: "Hail" and "Excalibur" with comparable guidance systems.

                        KP "Excalibr" is too tough if it is not a dugout. (You understand there BB is half, or even less of the norm).
                        And then you will drag "Pioneer".
                      11. 0
                        11 November 2019 20: 51
                        Compare ..... hail and excavation .... target, range, pieces to destroy ....
                      12. 0
                        11 November 2019 20: 53
                        Quote: Old Skeptic
                        Let's compare - comparable, and cram shoved!
                        For example: "hailstone" and "Excalibur" WITH ASSIST GUIDANCE SYSTEMS.
                      13. 0
                        11 November 2019 21: 00
                        Let's .... the coordinates are known, a range of 30km. Purpose: dot.
                      14. 0
                        11 November 2019 22: 59
                        "ESKALIBUR":
                        Caliber: 155 mm
                        Control System: GNSS GPS / ANN
                        Cost:
                        Block 1a-1 - $ 232 (Summary table of import of military equipment of Australia in 000-2004
                        p. 17) http://www.armstrade.org/files/analytics/146.pdf
                        Block 1a-2 - $ 160
                        Firing range:
                        Block 1a-1: 23 km
                        Block 1a-2: 40-60 km
                        CVO: 20 m (here I was very flattered by him)[I]
                        Weight BB: unknown
                        Do not tell the count. people in counting?
                        Calculation "Tornado-g" 2 persons.


                        "TORNADO-G" shell OU-122:
                        Caliber: 122 mm
                        Control system: GLONAS GPS / ANN
                        Cost: Unknown
                        Firing range: 40 km
                        QUO: 10 m
                        Explosive weight: 25kg.

                        Questions?
                      15. 0
                        11 November 2019 23: 23
                        More useful links:
                        http://www.kbptula.ru/ru/razrabotki-kbp/artillerijskie-kompleksy-upravlyaemogo-vooruzheniya/krasnopol-m2

                        http://www.missiles.ru/Santimetr-M.htm

                        And everyone's favorite Wiki:
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
                        There is a beautiful tablet. wink
                      16. 0
                        12 November 2019 07: 01
                        Grad range up to 40km ... calculation is still plus tzm, and this is still a car and a couple of three people. To destroy the point target of missiles 40 ... and you take the hail (its cost) is also American.
                      17. 0
                        12 November 2019 13: 12
                        Dear, you are again cheating!
                        You set a task. What is the problem.
                        1. Rostec claims that Splav already has rockets up to 100km (this is for Tornado-G).
                        2. For example, the calculation of "Pvladin" 5-6 people. do not count the supply of ammunition.
                        3. To destroy a point target, theoretically, less "hail" is needed than "escalibers" (the accuracy is higher, the explosives are greater. And here are 40 missiles.) https://rostec.ru/news/rostekh-povysit-tochnost-reaktivnoy-artillerii/). The cost of the SU per hail by default will be cheaper than for the ATR system (the projectile acceleration is softer, the electronics and steering gears experience lower dynamic loads.).
                      18. 0
                        12 November 2019 15: 26
                        Are we talking about corr rocket Grad? Which is not yet? And compare with excalibur? Or about Tornado G with improved topographic location and rockets?
                      19. 0
                        12 November 2019 16: 43
                        https://rostec.ru/news/rostekh-povysit-tochnost-reaktivnoy-artillerii/
                      20. 0
                        12 November 2019 18: 46
                        It is not entirely clear ... but most likely in a tornado. A gyroscope in a rocket ....
                        For comparison with a corr shell, there should be a 122mm corr rocket. And then an improved art system, which will be worse than the gunship, than the shell of modern 152 / 155mm long-barreled howitzers.
                      21. 0
                        12 November 2019 19: 11
                        It is written in black and white.
                        Accurate guidance is provided by correcting the data of the inertial navigation system controlling the projectile and the signals of the GLONASS and GPS satellite systems.
                        This allows to increase the accuracy of following a given trajectory up to 10 meters over the entire range of the projectile.

                        I understand that if the projectile moves along the trajectory with an accuracy of 10m (and the end point of the trajectory is? ....... well?) Then come to the finish point it should come with the same accuracy.
                        Is that logical?
                      22. 0
                        12 November 2019 19: 14
                        No ... it will be more crowded, but the rest of the amendments are temperature, wind at different heights, etc. and they accumulate with a range ... and plus initially the worst accuracy of the MLRS in comparison with the Trunk. The projectile has the same role as incisions and rotation of the projectile.
                      23. 0
                        13 November 2019 01: 48
                        Well, how else to explain to you:
                        It says correction is carried out by satellite throughout the flight.

                        What’s the temperature here?
                        Correction is carried out at the current location at each specific point.
                        You, when you go along the satellite, do not care where the wind blows, you look at your point on the device (that is, at your position in space) and, depending on this, change your course.
                        I do not know how to explain it even more clearly.

                        And where is the accuracy? Accuracy is critical when pure ballistics work, and when correction begins, accuracy is sideways. The control system will still bring the projectile to the desired point.
                        This is what I am trying to convey to you:
                        With pure ballistics, the barrel artillery steers against the MLRS (for accuracy, etc.), but with correction, the barrel nervously smokes on the sidelines (in all respects: power, range, flexibility of tasks).
                      24. 0
                        13 November 2019 06: 54
                        It is dimly written there ... the most interesting thing is that there are no such 240mm and 300mm rockets in large calibers yet. Why should they appear in 122mm?
                      25. 0
                        13 November 2019 17: 32
                        I suggest ending this argument. At the moment, we will not prove anything to each other.
                        All arguments are given and each stands its own way.
  4. +1
    4 November 2019 18: 57
    Half-shell, half-rocket.
  5. +11
    4 November 2019 18: 58
    Alexander Martin Lippish was a talented designer. The most famous was the development of ekranoplanes.
    1. +3
      4 November 2019 22: 17
      Quote: lexus
      The most famous was the development of ekranoplanes.

      Dumb some ekranoplan in the photo. It seems that the screw a couple of centimeters does not reach the water .. Some kind of ostentatious design.
      1. +10
        5 November 2019 02: 17
        It seems that the screw a couple of centimeters does not reach the water .. Some kind of ostentatious design.

        X-112 was created almost on the naked enthusiasm of the designer and rose above the water with a 40-hp engine. After receiving encouraging results, Lippisch created the X-113 with a motor above the cab, and then the six-seater X-114, which could come off the screen and rise to a height of 800 meters.

        It was his developments that formed the basis of modern Iranian ekranoplanes.

        The well-known leader in the development and construction of ekranoplanes and ground-effect vehicles was the Soviet Union. "Eaglet", "Lun", "KM" are unique machines, created, unfortunately, on the eve of its collapse.
        Now there is a lot of talk about the return of leadership by Russia, but so far these are only concepts, and the idea is again being pulled by enthusiasts.
    2. 0
      27 January 2020 21: 38
      Even though the whole structure strongly resembles Alekseev's ekranoplanes ... And judging by the color photo and the general, let's say, partial implementation of ideas, it is stupidly licked off from magazines like "Young Technician", where the ideas of ekranoplanes are just about in such a truncated form from real devices and published ..
      1. 0
        27 January 2020 21: 40
        We have given them under the guise of the ideas of older schoolchildren and students in such magazines ..
  6. 0
    4 November 2019 20: 01
    -Special requirements for solid fuels.
    -Fast gun wear
    -For warheads a little weight / volume.
    And most importantly, price / effectiveness.
  7. 0
    4 November 2019 20: 01
    Modern technologies for organizing the flight of a projectile or any aircraft are fundamentally different from Lippisch technology. Moreover, Schauberger’s identical ideas can be seen in his technology. It is also obvious that with the departure of various scientists their undertakings also died. Breakthrough ideas not only did not develop, but also sunk into the summer. Now we are promoting these ideas at a new level and are also facing fierce resistance and lack of understanding.
  8. +3
    4 November 2019 20: 44
    Already in 1936, the original version of the ARS was proposed by the designer Wolf Trommsdorff. Together with the tail section with a powder bomb, he planned to use a ramjet (ramjet engine).
    In 1944, the idea of ​​ARS with ramjet was remembered in LFW
    There was no need to remember anything at LFW, since Trommsdorf worked on the design of active rockets throughout the war.

    This 150 mm shell was developed in 1944 (drawing signed on 21.09.1944).
    1. +2
      4 November 2019 20: 56
      And how many explosives could this projectile bring to the target and with what accuracy?
      1. +6
        4 November 2019 21: 14
        150 mm shell did not carry explosives, this is a prototype for testing the design, like 210 mm.
        With 280 mm, an explosive charge appears.

        As for the CVO - I have no such data.
        1. +1
          8 November 2019 17: 22
          Thank you for the info, of course, only the QUO was terrible, that is, this scheme has no practical application.
    2. +8
      4 November 2019 20: 59
      In 2006, on the territory of the former Hillersleben artillery range, where many German guns were tested, such shells were found.
      1. +6
        4 November 2019 21: 02
        This allowed to completely restore the design of the shells.
      2. 0
        4 November 2019 21: 16
        But these shells are no longer using Lippish technology. This is obvious.
        1. +5
          4 November 2019 21: 19
          I kind of wrote in Russian in the first comment that these are shells of the Trommsdorff design, on which he worked until 1945 in Germany and until 1956 in the USSR.
          1. -5
            4 November 2019 21: 55
            This is clear! But it’s important for me to see who understands the difference between some shells from others. And it’s fundamental. Therefore, hide your psychos. They are not interesting to anyone
            1. +7
              4 November 2019 22: 40
              Gridasov, turn your bot back on, it is more interesting to communicate with him.
  9. +1
    4 November 2019 20: 47
    Thanks for the interesting article. That means where the APC roots come from ...
  10. Eug
    +1
    4 November 2019 21: 28
    An interesting option to increase the speed of anti-tank shells, an armor-piercing core can be part of the central body.
    1. +1
      5 November 2019 23: 25
      While the engine turns on, the shell will already meet the target.
      Is that specialized long-range ...... But what accuracy is the question?
  11. +1
    4 November 2019 22: 24
    Beautiful ... I like it. It would be nice to adapt them to something. It’s a pity if a beautiful thing goes missing.
  12. +3
    5 November 2019 01: 08
    Very interesting article! Auto RU - good ! I "once" "heard" something about the development of ARS with a ramjet engine; but, precisely, "something" ... that is. , very little and therefore did not attach importance to this at the time ... So, the information given in the article turned out to be a "revelation" for me! As is clear from the article, the Germans and in the development of ARS with a ramjet engine did not escape their "predilections" (!): 1. The scheme of using a rocket booster - "tractor" ... (as in the "solid-fuel" MLRS missiles ...); 2. the "passion" for the use of coal dust ...
    By the way, after WW2 NATO developed ARS not only with solid-fuel (powder) accelerators ... but also with "LPRE" on hydrogen peroxide ... So to speak ...: on "one-component liquid fuel" ...
  13. sen
    +1
    5 November 2019 09: 26
    Projectiles with ramjet engines are significantly limited in diameter and projectile length. If they do, in my opinion, then missiles. Like Onyx.
  14. 0
    27 January 2020 21: 27
    Yeah, the second option is just at the level of a 6-grader and a circle of modelers: get the air pressure from the speed, burn the fuel in it, direct it forward, against the pressure and then redirect it back with an annular nozzle, which will provide traction .. Scribe, as if "gloomy "Teutonic genius !!!
    Loss of traction is straight "minimal"!
    Enchanting idiocy is obvious even to a person far from technology !!!

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"