Standard Missile projects.

I just watched a YT video about 10 new US weapon systems/weapons going into production and to my surprise one of them was the Standard Missile Block IIIC, I thought that the USN had retired all of its' SM-2 Block III missiles and that it was still only in use by export customers.
 
Last edited:
My understanding the IIIC is the new block variant of the SM-2 with its active seeker taken from the AIM-120C-5? with a larger antenna as SM-2 is larger in dia than the AMRAAM, Block IIIC due to be fitted to Constellation with its SPY-6 V(3) and the CSC with its SPY-7 and expect others. Raytheon re-started production of the SM-2 Blk IIIA and IIIB five years ago with their semi-active seekers in 2017.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-paris-raytheon-idUSKBN1990XO
 
Cordy said:
Raytheon re-started production of the SM-2 Blk IIIA and IIIB five years ago with their semi-active seekers in 2017.
Click to expand...

Why would they restart the Block IIIA and IIIB production line, I was under the impression that the Block III had been superseded by the SM-2 Block IV.
 
NMaude said:
Cordy said:
Raytheon re-started production of the SM-2 Blk IIIA and IIIB five years ago with their semi-active seekers in 2017.
Click to expand...

Why would they restart the Block IIIA and IIIB production line, I was under the impression that the Block III had been superseded by the SM-2 Block IV.
Click to expand...

Block IV has the big Mk 72 booster but was only procured in relatively small numbers (~100 rds). Blocks IIIA and IIIB are the bulk of the Standard Missile inventory.
 
TomS said:
Blocks IIIA and IIIB are the bulk of the Standard Missile inventory.
Click to expand...

The problem with the Block III is that it can't be launched from the Mk-41 VLS due to the Mk-70 booster's tail-fins.
 
NMaude said:
TomS said:
Blocks IIIA and IIIB are the bulk of the Standard Missile inventory.
Click to expand...

The problem with the Block III is that it can't be launched from the Mk-41 VLS due to the Mk-70 booster's tail-fins.
Click to expand...

OK, time for a breakdown.

The SM family used to consist of two main versions: MR and ER. MR has no booster and the form factor to fit in rapid-fire rail launchers (Mk 13 or Mk 26) or VLS. ER had the long Mk 70 booster and manual tail finning, which didn't work at all with VLS (too long, plus the fin issue)

Block numbers could be duplicated between the MR and ER families -- there were SM-2MR Block II and SM-2ER Block II, for example. But I think ER never reached Block III. Then they jumped to the VLS compatible Block IV with the short Mk 72 booster (sometimes called AEGIS ER but not at all the same as the older ER family).

The old long ER missiles have totally disappeared and now the practice is to drop the MR term entirely. So when we say SM-2 Block III today this refers to a short SM (no booster)
 
NMaude said:
Cordy said:
Raytheon re-started production of the SM-2 Blk IIIA and IIIB five years ago with their semi-active seekers in 2017.
Click to expand...

Why would they restart the Block IIIA and IIIB production line, I was under the impression that the Block III had been superseded by the SM-2 Block IV.
Click to expand...
My understanding the SM-2 Blk IV was the ER, extended range, variant with the 21" dia Mk72 booster added, which morphed into the SM-6 with Mk72 booster and new Mk104 13.5" dual thrust rocket motor.
PS The SM-2 Blk III's classed as MR, medium range.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Regarding the planned Aegis ship replacements for Japan's abortive Aegis Ashore procurement:
japannews.yomiuri.co.jp

New Aegis system-equipped ships will likely carry long-range cruise missiles

To increase deterrence against North Korea’s missiles, the government plans to place domestic long-range cruise missiles on two naval vessels equipped with the Aegis system it plans to build, it was learned Tuesday. These missiles are capable of striking land-based targets as the ships will be...
japannews.yomiuri.co.jp japannews.yomiuri.co.jp

The government decided in December 2020 to build two Aegis system-equipped ships as an alternative to deploying Aegis Ashore, a land-based interceptor system. The government gave up deploying Aegis Ashore due to factors including opposition from the public.

The plan is for the eight existing Aegis-equipped ships of the Maritime Self-Defense Force to operate in such waters as those around the Senkaku Islands of Okinawa Prefecture, while the new Aegis system-equipped ships are expected to be constantly deployed in the Sea of Japan to keep an eye out for ballistic missile launches by North Korea.

The SPY-7 radar for Aegis Ashore will be equipped on the new vessels. The government has already signed a contract to purchase the state-of-the-art radar from a U.S. firm. SM-6 missiles, which can intercept cruise missiles, have also been decided on as equipment for the two ships.

In addition to the advanced radar and missiles, the Aegis system-equipped ships are likely to carry cruise missiles that will be upgraded versions of the Type 12 surface-to-ship missile currently used by the Ground Self-Defense Force. After the upgrades, the missile’s range will extend to about 1,000 kilometers and it will be mounted on naval vessels.
Click to expand...

Concerning the hull’s design, however, the government had originally considered constructing the ships with multiple hulls to make them less susceptible to the impact of waves.

Because few actual naval vessels have been developed with multiple hulls and the construction costs of such ships are likely to balloon, the government has decided on a single hull.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
bobbymike said:
TomS said:
Given that full-caliber SM-6 would be a rather heavy, fast, high-diver, I foresee a whole lot of kinetic energy damage, in addition to the warhead. With luck, a big chunk of the debris blows out through the bottom of the target's hull.
Click to expand...

Absolutely a nice close to vertical hole from the top of the ship through the bottom of the hull would be problematic for continued operations to say the least. :eek:
Click to expand...
Like Talos did to this destroyer escort.

 
Dumb question. Why did the Navy give up on air breathing high speed missiles. I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.
Click to expand...

As far as I know there wasn't anything wrong with the Typhon missile itself but with the fire-control system and IIRC there massive cost overruns.
 
NMaude said:
Bruno Anthony said:
I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.
Click to expand...

As far as I know there wasn't anything wrong with the Typhon missile itself but with the fire-control system and IIRC there massive cost overruns.
Click to expand...
But why wasn’t the air breathing missile continued? Separate from the radar system that was canceled.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
But why wasn’t the air breathing missile continued? Separate from the radar system that was canceled.
Click to expand...

They managed some really dramatic improvements in solid rocket performance over the years, which was probably sufficient to fully exploit the available radar/illuminator range at the time.
 
Another thing about the Typhoon is that it was, like the Tacos, a very large missile so in order to have an adequate number of them in the ship's magazine it would've needed a very large magazine meaning a large (And expensive) cruiser.
 
NMaude said:
Another thing about the Typhoon is that it was, like the Tacos, a very large missile so in order to have an adequate number of them in the ship's magazine it would've needed a very large magazine meaning a large (And expensive) cruiser.
Click to expand...

Typhon ER was roughly the size of Terrier. Not that big.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Dumb question. Why did the Navy give up on air breathing high speed missiles. I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.
Click to expand...
There are several reasons. As missiles got longer ranges and could go to higher altitudes, a ramjet (the usual air breather) became impractical as there was not enough air to make it work at those altitudes.
The use of liquid fuel aboard ship is a more serious fire hazard than that of solid fuel missiles.
Modern solid fuel missiles require little maintenance time. Most US missiles are loaded on the ship and the crew performs little or no maintenance on the missile itself while deployed.
Solid fuels have a higher specific impulse than ramjets. That is, they've gotten better enough that they exceed the thrust a compact sized ramjet can deliver.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Bruno Anthony said:
Dumb question. Why did the Navy give up on air breathing high speed missiles. I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.
Click to expand...
There are several reasons. As missiles got longer ranges and could go to higher altitudes, a ramjet (the usual air breather) became impractical as there was not enough air to make it work at those altitudes.
The use of liquid fuel aboard ship is a more serious fire hazard than that of solid fuel missiles.
Modern solid fuel missiles require little maintenance time. Most US missiles are loaded on the ship and the crew performs little or no maintenance on the missile itself while deployed.
Solid fuels have a higher specific impulse than ramjets. That is, they've gotten better enough that they exceed the thrust a compact sized ramjet can deliver.
Click to expand...
So why the continued interest in air breathers in the US and other countries? Anyone have specs or reports detailing the pros/cons?
 
TomS said:
NMaude said:
Another thing about the Typhoon is that it was, like the Tacos, a very large missile so in order to have an adequate number of them in the ship's magazine it would've needed a very large magazine meaning a large (And expensive) cruiser.
Click to expand...

Typhon ER was roughly the size of Terrier. Not that big.
Click to expand...

I just checked on the wiki RIM-50 Typhon article and I stand corrected, I suspect that if the Vietnam war hadn't happened it would've likely entered service.

Does anyone know if there are any online historical monographs describing the development of the RIM-50?
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Dumb question. Why did the Navy give up on air breathing high speed missiles. I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.
Click to expand...
Storage of liquid propellant was a major safety issue and precluded rapid launches.

I asked a similar question about the lack of Terrier ships built in the 70s and 80s and discovered how focused the Navy was on rapid launchers like the Mk26 and Mk41; specifically for the RIM-66. Finning and fueling liquid ramjets takes way too much time when a horde of Vampires are only seconds away...

That being said, solid state ramjets look very promising for artillery shells and missile applications.
 
isayyo2 said:
Finning and fueling liquid ramjets takes way too much time when a horde of Vampires are only seconds away...
Click to expand...

The Talos missiles were prefueled IIRC before being loaded into the ship's magazine, several were kept in launch ready positions in the magazine and the fins could attached fairly quickly.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
isayyo2 said:
Finning and fueling liquid ramjets takes way too much time when a horde of Vampires are only seconds away...
Click to expand...

The Tacos missiles were prefueled IIRC before being loaded into the ship's magazine, several were kept in launch ready positions in the magazine and the fins could attached fairly quickly.
Click to expand...
Yup the UKs Seadart was similar.

And its launcher had similar performance to the Mk26 irc.

So it is possible to have a rapid fire ramjet missile.

Question is, that are the other cons of ramjets, like less agility and services ceiling worth it over standardizing, heh, on solids.
 
NMaude said:
TomS said:
NMaude said:
Another thing about the Typhoon is that it was, like the Tacos, a very large missile so in order to have an adequate number of them in the ship's magazine it would've needed a very large magazine meaning a large (And expensive) cruiser.
Click to expand...

Typhon ER was roughly the size of Terrier. Not that big.
Click to expand...

I just checked on the wiki RIM-50 Typhon article and I stand corrected, I suspect that if the Vietnam war hadn't happened it would've likely entered service.

Does anyone know if there are any online historical monographs describing the development of the RIM-50?
Click to expand...

Technical Digest

www.jhuapl.edu www.jhuapl.edu
 
phantonphan said:
Wouldn't this system basically allow any fairly large ship (including commercial) to become a missile platform? Park it on the deck and let 'er rip.
Click to expand...
Well yes, but don't forget that this system is mostly for point-to-point bombardment.
You don't get any fancy guidance stuff with it, that all has to be added or offloaded onto other ships.
 
NMaude said:
TomS said:
NMaude said:
Another thing about the Typhoon is that it was, like the Tacos, a very large missile so in order to have an adequate number of them in the ship's magazine it would've needed a very large magazine meaning a large (And expensive) cruiser.
Click to expand...

Typhon ER was roughly the size of Terrier. Not that big.
Click to expand...

I just checked on the wiki RIM-50 Typhon article and I stand corrected, I suspect that if the Vietnam war hadn't happened it would've likely entered service.

Does anyone know if there are any online historical monographs describing the development of the RIM-50?
Click to expand...

RIM-50 mostly died because it was expensive to make, like all ramjet missiles, and not because of Vietnam.

Ramjet motored missiles were extremely nice to have for about 5-10 years and then solid fuel rockets pretty much had surpassed them in performance. The USN procured oodles of RIM-66Cs and RIM-67s in the post-Vietnam malaise and never bought a batch of RIM-50s or anything for the SCANFAR CGN-9 or Talos boats, which would have been a fairly trivial modification all this considered, for instance.

Sea Dart's mere existence is something of a bizarre anomaly TBH. I guess that's just because the UK entered the 1960's as the reigning world champion of naval combat systems and left them a second rate player, at best. Perhaps if the Typhon Combat System had actually worked the RIM-50 would have been deployed, but it didn't. By the 1970's there just wasn't much point as solid motors were showing a lot of muscular performance increases with things like the RIM-66B nearly doubling range performance of RIM-24B.

I don't think that would be the case though, as I suspect the USN would figure a way to finagle the Standards to work with Typhon too. Or they'd just scrap all maybe three or four Typhon escorts like they did the Long Beach and stuff.
 
Kat Tsun said:

RIM-50 mostly died because it was expensive to make, like all ramjet missiles, and not because of Vietnam.

Ramjet motored missiles were extremely nice to have for about 5-10 years and then solid fuel rockets pretty much had surpassed them in performance. The USN procured oodles of RIM-66Cs and RIM-67s in the post-Vietnam malaise and never bought a batch of RIM-50s or anything for the SCANFAR CGN-9 or Talos boats, which would have been a fairly trivial modification all this considered, for instance.

Sea Dart's mere existence is something of a bizarre anomaly TBH. I guess that's just because the UK entered the 1960's as the reigning world champion of naval combat systems and left them a second rate player, at best. Perhaps if the Typhon Combat System had actually worked the RIM-50 would have been deployed, but it didn't. By the 1970's there just wasn't much point as solid motors were showing a lot of muscular performance increases with things like the RIM-66B nearly doubling range performance of RIM-24B.

I don't think that would be the case though, as I suspect the USN would figure a way to finagle the Standards to work with Typhon too. Or they'd just scrap all maybe three or four Typhon escorts like they did the Long Beach and stuff.
Click to expand...

RIM-67 would have been compatible with the Mk 10 GMLS, whilst RIM-66 would probably be compatible with the Mk 14 GMLS, the only question is whether the Typhon escorts would have enough topweight margins for AEGIS, given that in the late 60s it was to take the form of two Mk 20 Mod 0 deckhouses, carrying SPY-1 and the illuminators, with each deckhouse weighing 200 tons which was too much for CGN-38. Given the last Typhon DLGN design SCB 240.65 displaced 12,000 tons, there may well have been margins even for that, alternatively sanity could prevail like it did for DDG/CG-47, and they could put some of the AEGIS hardware lower down in the ship, without having everything in self-contained modules.

Failing that, they can just use NTU radars.
 
Another reason ramjet missiles died off is that they are inherently less maneuverable than pure rockets. This is because the rate of change in direction directly impacts the intake inlet of the engine and can cause loss of air flow resulting in something like a compressor stall in a jet engine. The missile flames out and that is bad.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Another reason ramjet missiles died off is that they are inherently less maneuverable than pure rockets. This is because the rate of change in direction directly impacts the intake inlet of the engine and can cause loss of air flow resulting in something like a compressor stall in a jet engine. The missile flames out and that is bad.
Click to expand...
Do we have any g- or maneuvering limits available for Sea Dart (or Standard-family) to compare? A quick search on the net gets zero.
 
starviking said:
T. A. Gardner said:
Another reason ramjet missiles died off is that they are inherently less maneuverable than pure rockets. This is because the rate of change in direction directly impacts the intake inlet of the engine and can cause loss of air flow resulting in something like a compressor stall in a jet engine. The missile flames out and that is bad.
Click to expand...
Do we have any g- or maneuvering limits available for Sea Dart (or Standard-family) to compare? A quick search on the net gets zero.
Click to expand...
I don't have any specifics, but this issue was mentioned in the Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest Vol 13 Nov 1 1991 in an article by James Keirsey, Airbreathing Propulsion for Defense of the Surface Fleet. Where he mentions during wind tunnel testing this problem came up and was another reason Typhon was cancelled. He also discusses how the missile burner section had to be redesigned using burner cans as altitudes and speeds increased.
 
starviking said:
T. A. Gardner said:
Another reason ramjet missiles died off is that they are inherently less maneuverable than pure rockets. This is because the rate of change in direction directly impacts the intake inlet of the engine and can cause loss of air flow resulting in something like a compressor stall in a jet engine. The missile flames out and that is bad.
Click to expand...
Do we have any g- or maneuvering limits available for Sea Dart (or Standard-family) to compare? A quick search on the net gets zero.
Click to expand...
I'd guess it's less to do with G-load and more to do with AOA.

1663525875239.png
 
A ramjet missile probably faces relatively few problems with engaging an air breathing target. It sounds more like it was just a problem with the missile itself, rather than inherent to ramjet powered weapons. If the ramjet is having trouble maneuvering, it applies doubly so to the bomber or fighter, and this balances out in favor of the rocket.

Meteor has a much larger NEZ than Skyflash, despite being a similar size missile, because it is powered through flight rather than the boost-coast of a rocket design.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom