Standard Missile projects.

I wonder if there're any details available about exactly what sort of hardware changes there are?
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if there're any details available about exactly what sort of hardware changes there are?
Click to expand...

When they say obsolescence issues, it usually means there's some part (likely a computer chip) that isn't manufactured any more, so they are replacing it with a newer one. These changes don't usually translate into actual functional differences.
 
A question about RIM-2 Terrier. Have its nuclear-tipped version the ability to strike land targets? The nuclear-tipped Talos have such capability, but I'm not sure about Terrier.
 
I'd never really considered the possibility but if conventional Terriers had the ability to strike ships or targets on shore, I don't see why the nuclear version would not. As far as I know the missile itself essentially functions the same as the conventional variant, one of the two just has a much bigger boom.
But I can't find any quick references to surface-to-surface capability for the Terrier (unlike Talos).
 
Dilandu said:
A question about RIM-2 Terrier. Have its nuclear-tipped version the ability to strike land targets? The nuclear-tipped Talos have such capability, but I'm not sure about Terrier.
Click to expand...

The only nuclear version, BT-3A(N), was still a beam-rider, so it should go wherever it was pointed. The conventional versions of BT-3A were considered to have a surface-to-surface capability, mainly for antiship use, but could also presumably work on land targets as well, so long as there was sufficient radar contrast.
 
Dilandu said:
A question about RIM-2 Terrier. Have its nuclear-tipped version the ability to strike land targets? The nuclear-tipped Talos have such capability, but I'm not sure about Terrier.
Click to expand...
ISTR in Friedman's cruiser book it was mentioned that in the mid to late '50s guns (other than perhaps the 3" 70) were seen as being redundant in the future because Terrier with a nuclear warhead could do all necessary shore bombardment such as area effect, defoliating, and dealing with hardened targets (that pillbox is GONE!). 3 inch guns were considered completely adequate for anything else a gun was needed for and were thought to be effective close in weapons. So I imagine it was at least considered.
 
TomS said:
The only nuclear version, BT-3A(N), was still a beam-rider, so it should go wherever it was pointed.
Click to expand...

I found mentions about nuclear Terrier having coastal-strike capability in some early 1960s Navy hearing in Congress, so it seems that it was at least theoretically possible. No mention about how it was done, but I assume that the same method as with nuclear-tipped Talos was used (special computer calculated the target position, missile rode the beam and over target was sent to dive, then a detonation command was transmitted). After all, Terrier and Talos shared the main principles of beam-riding guidance.
 
TomS said:
The only nuclear version, BT-3A(N), was still a beam-rider, so it should go wherever it was pointed.
Click to expand...

Dilandu said:
I found mentions about nuclear Terrier having coastal-strike capability in some early 1960s Navy hearing in Congress, so it seems that it was at least theoretically possible. No mention about how it was done, but I assume that the same method as with nuclear-tipped Talos was used (special computer calculated the target position, missile rode the beam and over target was sent to dive, then a detonation command was transmitted). After all, Terrier and Talos shared the main principles of beam-riding guidance.
Click to expand...
I ran across some mention of a nuclear Talos on probably the okieboat website (USS Oklahoma City, and now I'm not finding this story on that site...), they were in the Med and being harassed by Libyans at the time. Junior weapons officer asked the guys if they could work out a surface strike on one of the harassing air bases. The enlisted say sure, we'll need to dig into the books to set it up right, so give us a bit.

So they come back to brief the junior officer about the plan, and that air base is a bit outside the missile's official range, and that there's a mountain between the base and the ocean. They'd planned it out so that the missile would be out of fuel and gliding as it was directly overhead the offending airbase, where it'd drop out of the guide beam. They mention that while the missile is beam-riding, that's not an issue since the nuclear warhead would detonate if the missile ever left the guidance beam, and that's where they want it to detonate anyways.

And that's about the time the officer loses his mind and tells them to stop all further work and planning, and he'd tell the Captain that it couldn't be done.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I ran across some mention of a nuclear Talos on probably the okieboat website (USS Oklahoma City, and now I'm not finding this story on that site...), they were in the Med and being harassed by Libyans at the time. Junior weapons officer asked the guys if they could work out a surface strike on one of the harassing air bases. The enlisted say sure, we'll need to dig into the books to set it up right, so give us a bit.
Click to expand...
Hm. It can't be USS Oklahoma City; as far as I knew, she never were in Mediterranean during all her career. Most likely it could be "Little Rock", she served in Med most of her career.

Scott Kenny said:
So they come back to brief the junior officer about the plan, and that air base is a bit outside the missile's official range, and that there's a mountain between the base and the ocean. They'd planned it out so that the missile would be out of fuel and gliding as it was directly overhead the offending airbase, where it'd drop out of the guide beam. They mention that while the missile is beam-riding, that's not an issue since the nuclear warhead would detonate if the missile ever left the guidance beam, and that's where they want it to detonate anyways.
Click to expand...
Theoretically doable, but I suspect on practice it would require too many safety measures be circumvented.
 
Dilandu said:
Hm. It can't be USS Oklahoma City; as far as I knew, she never were in Mediterranean during all her career. Most likely it could be "Little Rock", she served in Med most of her career.
Click to expand...
Could be. Now I'm annoyed that I didn't save that website.


Dilandu said:
Theoretically doable, but I suspect on practice it would require too many safety measures be circumvented.
Click to expand...
Apparently the thing about the warhead detonating if the missile ever left the guidance beam was part of the positive control that was required at the time. If the missile left the guidance beam it was no longer under control of the guidance system, so it was seen as better to detonate the warhead and maybe have it still close enough to be effective than to drop an armed nuke out of the sky.

I believe it still would have required permission from a lot farther up the chain of command than the ship's captain, however.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Apparently the thing about the warhead detonating if the missile ever left the guidance beam was part of the positive control that was required at the time. If the missile left the guidance beam it was no longer under control of the guidance system, so it was seen as better to detonate the warhead and maybe have it still close enough to be effective than to drop an armed nuke out of the sky.
Click to expand...
I knew that losing the beam was self-destruct command, butI always thought that for nuclear warhead a specific detonation command needed to be issued?
 
Dilandu said:
I knew that losing the beam was self-destruct command, butI always thought that for nuclear warhead a specific detonation command needed to be issued?
Click to expand...
From what I remember of this story, it was not.

I could see arguments both directions, for why a specific detonation command would not be required and for why one would not be required.
 
Dilandu said:
Yep. It also have self-destruct in case of signal loss, but as far as I knew, self-destruct was not nuclear.
Click to expand...

The MIM-14s equipped with the W37 warhead had to go through a specific electromechanical arming sequence after launch before the warhead was live.
 
Another question, if I may. Some sources mention that later beam-rider Terrier's (BT-3A models, with tail control and extended range) could be used in anti-ship mode. Other sources insist that only radar homing Terrier's (HT models) could be used against surface targets. So... who is right?
 
Dilandu said:
Some sources mention that later beam-rider Terrier's (BT-3A models, with tail control and extended range) could be used in anti-ship mode.
Click to expand...

I could see the RIM-2D being used in that role.

On another note why did the US Congress cancelled production of the W81 warhead as the Standard missile equipped with the warhead would've replaced the obsolete RIM-2D and its' W45 warhead?
 
NMaude said:
On another note why did the US Congress cancelled production of the W81 warhead as the Standard missile equipped with the warhead would've replaced the obsolete RIM-2D and its' W45 warhead?
Click to expand...
Mostly because nuclear warheads for SAM's weren't viewed as good solution anymore. There were two main reasons:

* Firstly, the problem they were build to counter - poor radar resolution against targets in tight formation - was sucessfully solved in 1970s by radar improvement. You see, the whole idea of nuclear-tipped SAM was actually born because 1950s fire control radars could not efficiently discriminate between several targets in tight formation. They viewed such formation as one big signature, and tried to guide missile right into the (empty) center of signature. I.e. the missile could just zoom through the center of formation, too far from actual planes to do any harm. So the idea of nuclear-tipped SAM was born, that could destroy tight plane formation in one big blast. But by 1970s, the radar resolution improved so much, that this problem disappeared.

* Secondly, the nuclear-tipped SAM's were viewed as the way to knock out enemy nukes. By subjecting the enemy atomic bomb to intence neutron flux from nuclear SAM detonation, they could be "poisoned" by creation of short-lived isotopes in their nuclea fuel. If such "poisoned" bomb would try to detonate, it would just fizzle. For 1950-1960s it worked fine - but then boosted-fission bombs were invented. And boosted-fission bombs are immune to fizzle.

So essentially nuclear-tipped SAM's weren't needed anymore. Their use in 1970-1980s would most likely hamper fleet defense more than enemy attack, by interferring with radars and datalinks.
 
Dilandu said:
By subjecting the enemy atomic bomb to intence neutron flux from nuclear SAM detonation, they could be "poisoned" by creation of short-lived isotopes in their nuclea fuel. If such "poisoned" bomb would try to detonate, it would just fizzle.
Click to expand...

Not just the creation of short-lived radio-isotopes but that neutron-flux would also heat up the plutonium causing it to slump and deform.
 
Dilandu said:
About that I'm not sure; I suspect that it would require such intense irradiation, that plane and bomb would be destroyed anyway.
Click to expand...

Not if the airburst was at high altitude, in shot HA in operation Teapot a B-36H dropped a test-device (Probably a TX-12) in a modified Mk-5 bomb-casing (It was parachute retarded) which detonated at ~40,000Ft, this test was noted for the very high neutron-flux it generated.
 
Last edited:
MihoshiK said:
IIRC enhanced Neutron Flux was the reason why the weapons inside SPRINT and SPARTAN were literally gold plated.
Click to expand...

Only the Spartan's W71 had gold in its secondary and that was to ensure a specific X-ray flux was generated when it detonated. The Sprint's W66 was basically an ER warhead aka a neutron-bomb.
 
I just stumbled across this newly uploaded video copy of a 1980s General Dynamics Pomona Division film to do with the Standard Missile.


1980's film about early US Navy surface-to-air missile development leading up to the RIM-66 / RIM-67 Standard Missile and AGM-78 Standard ARM. Nice footage of the Terrier, Tartar, and Standard Missile. General Dynamics - Pomona
Click to expand...
 
I was just checking my smartphone and looking on the Google homepage when this very interesting news article appeared:

US Navy warships shot down Iranian missiles with a weapon they've never used in combat before

We already know that some of the USN's missile cruisers stationed near Israel shot down some of the cruise-missiles and MRBMs fired at Israel by Iran with this being the combat debut of the SM-3 however no information yet as how many if any of the SM-3s fired intercepted a ballistic missile.

  1. US Navy warships fired SM-3s to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles last weekend.
  2. Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro confirmed the use of the SM-3 during a Tuesday hearing.
  3. It's the first time that the exo-atmospheric interceptor has been used in combat.
Click to expand...
US Navy warships used a missile interceptor for the first time in combat over the weekend while defending Israel from an unprecedented Iranian attack.

Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro said American forces fired the Standard Missile 3, or SM-3, to engage Iranian ballistic missiles that were fired as part of the massive barrage, which included more than 300 missiles and drones launched from Tehran and its proxies.

"We've been firing SM-2s, we've been firing SM-6s, and just over the weekend, SM-3s, to actually counter the ballistic missile threat that's come from Iran," Del Toro said at a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense hearing on Tuesday.
Click to expand...




From the SM-3 wikipedia article:

Missile Defence

The first use of the SM-3 in combat occurred during the 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel. USS Carney and USS Arleigh Burke used four to seven missiles[49] to shoot down at least six Iranian ballistic missiles.[50]
Click to expand...

As far as I know there's no indication whether the SM-3s fired were Block-IBs or Block-IIs
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Do they still use IAs?
Click to expand...

Very unlikely, according to the SM-3 wiki article in the variants section the Block-IA was the initial operational variant:
  • 1-color seeker
  • Solid divert attitude control system (SDACS)
Which was followed by the Block-IB variant in 2010:

Passed critical design review on 13 July 2009.
  • 2-color IIR seeker
  • Throttleable divert attitude control system (TDACS)
  • All-reflective optics
  • Advanced signal processor
Any Block-IA rounds that hadn't been fired in development tests would've been sent back to Raytheon in 2010 to be upgraded to the Block-IB variant.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
As far as I know there's no indication whether the SM-3s fired were Block-IBs or Block-IIs
Click to expand...
My guess would be Block 1Bs, not Block 2A. older and less capable, but also more easily replaced because the rockets are older.
 
Scott Kenny said:
My guess would be Block 1Bs, not Block 2A. older and less capable, but also more easily replaced because the rockets are older.
Click to expand...

Good points BUT I could see at least one Block-2A being firing just to see how it performs in an actual combat situation, a trial by fire.
 
NMaude said:
Good points BUT I could see at least one Block-2A being firing just to see how it performs in an actual combat situation, a trial by fire.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if there are any in the theater. Is it even done with testing? Pretty sure they only have a handful at this point.
 
sferrin said:
Is it even done with testing? Pretty sure they only have a handful at this point.
Click to expand...

It's possible there might've been one or two onboard, from the RIM-161 wikipedia article:

On 16 November 2022, the guided-missile destroyer Maya fired an SM-3 Block IIA missile, successfully intercepting the target outside the atmosphere in the first launch of the missile from a Japanese warship.
Click to expand...

That test firing was about 18 months ago so the RIM-161D could be in limited operational service, the USN no doubt wants to see it combat tested ASAP.
 
It has been "bloodied" now if reports are correct.

Anyone ever hid a warhead in a nose-cone hoping to be ignored? For larger missiles.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom