The determination of the total aerodynamic load which negatively influences the movement of artillery projectiles is inevitable and indispensable in order to be able to increase or control their ranges. The main part of this aerodynamic load that has the most influence on projectile movement is the drag force, which acts in the opposite direction to the velocity vector and therefore opposes its movement. From this, in this present work, the total drag coefficient of the 155mm M107 axisymmetric projectile under axisymmetric flow, at zero yaw, was predicted by semi-empirical and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approaches in the three flow regimes, also the influence of its components on the total drag was analysed. The average deviation of the total drag coefficient in the three flow regimes, compared to the reference experimental results, is 5.7% for the semi-empirical results and 1.7% for the computational results. Analysis of the influence of the total drag components, such as pressure drag, friction drag and base drag, permitted to calculate their influence rates on the total drag as a function of Mach number and flow regime.
Aziz M, Ibrahim A, Ahmed M, Riad A. Multi-fidelity drag prediction for base bleed projectile. In: *IOP Conference Series. 2020.
2.
Belaidouni H, Živković S, Samardžić M. Numerical simulations in obtaining drag reduction for projectile with base bleed. *Scientific Technical Review*. 2016;66(2):36–42.
3.
Chang S, Li D. Aerodynamic coefficients of a microspoiler for spin-stabilized projectiles. *Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets*. 2023;
4.
Dali M, Jaramaz S. Optimization of artillery projectiles base drag reduction using hot base flow. *Thermal Science*. 2019;23(1):353–64.
5.
DeSpirito J. CFD aerodynamic characterization of 155-mm projectile at high angles of attack. In: *Proceedings of the 35th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference*. 2017.
6.
Fonte-Boa R, Borges J, Chaves J. Analysis of external ballistics for a projectile of caliber 155 mm. *Proelium*. 2017;7(12):227–41.
7.
McCoy R. *“MC DRAG” – A computer program for estimating the drag coefficients of projectiles*. 1981.
8.
McCoy RL. *Modern exterior ballistics*. 1998.
9.
Nicolás-Pérez F, Velasco F, García-Cascales J, Otón-Martínez R, López-Belchí A, Moratilla D, et al. On the accuracy of RANS, DES and LES turbulence models for predicting drag reduction with base bleed technology. *Aerospace Science and Technology*. 2017;67:126–40.
10.
Paul S, Vinoth Raj A, Senthil Kumar C. Inward turning base-bleed technique for base drag reduction. *The Aeronautical Journal*. 2023;127:370–97.
11.
Regodić D. *Zbirka rešenih zadataka iz spoljne balistike*. 2003.
12.
Regodić D. *Spoljna balistika*. 2006.
13.
Regodić D, Jevremović A, Jerković D. The prediction of axial aerodynamic coefficient reduction using base bleed. *Aerospace Science and Technology*. 2013;31:24–9.
14.
Roy A. *A first course on aerodynamics*. 2012.
15.
Sahu J, Heavey K. Numerical investigation of supersonic base flow with base bleed. *Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets*. 1997;34(1):62–9.
16.
Serdarević-Kadić S, Terzić J. Effects of base shape to drag at transonic and supersonic speeds by CFD. 2019.
17.
Sivasubramanian J, Sandberg R, Terzi D, Fasel H. Numerical investigation of flow control mechanisms for drag reduction in supersonic base-flows. In: *Proceedings of the 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit*. 2006.
18.
Szklarski A, Głęboćki R, Jacewicz M. Impact point prediction guidance parametric study for 155 mm rocket assisted artillery projectile with lateral thrusters. *Archive of Mechanical Engineering*. 2020;67(1):31–56.
19.
Torangatti K, Basawaraj B. Drag prediction and validation of standard M549 155 mm projectile. *International Journal of Engineering Research and Reviews*. 2014;2(3):26–32.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
