Does anyone know anything about Raytheon's Terrier Missile Target (TMT)? From what I understand they've been made converting retired RIM-67 SM-2ERs.
They're very different.Yes but no.I do wonder if its possible to upgrade the RIM66 to have PAC3 performance while maintaining its AA ability.
Isn't the RIM-66 SM-1 long out of production?
Cause the RIM66 designation covers BOTH the SM1 and SM2 with the difference between the two being the guts and programing. The RIM66 SM1 was for the old Tarter systems while the RIM66 SM2 is for the Aegis sets and New Threat upgrade.
Airframe wise? Aka the body with the wings and like?
Thats been basically the same design since the Tarters.
Consider the latest RIM-66 SM-2 Block III has about double the speed and ten times the range of the original RIM-24A.Yeah, there is a noticeable difference between the airframe of a RIM-24 and a RIM-66.
Does anyone know anything about Raytheon's Terrier Missile Target (TMT)? From what I understand they've been made converting retired RIM-67 SM-2ERs.
The term Terrier Missile Target seems to be descriptive rather than referring to one specific design -- TMTs have been used as both ballistic and sea-skimming missile simulants.
The ballistic version was good for around 140 miles range and a 50+ mile apex, so a useful simulant for SRBMs. Around the turn of the century, it was used as a target for testing the Linebacker/Navy Area Defense system (SM2 Block IV missiles).
Linebacker
www.globalsecurity.org
PAC3MSEs are apparently 11.5" in diameter or a bit more.Could one not take the 2 PAC-3 MSE and put them in the dual Container which was developted for i think SM-2s? In case they also want more range i remember you guys where talking about a 10" rocket motor which could be mounted under it. Or remember i something wrong?
I know but was'nt the max diameter under 25in. as the cell on the Outside has a 25in. width? I mean i don't know the cell wall thickness but if it doesnt exceed 1 in. it could be possible tought a very tight fit.PAC3MSEs are apparently 11.5" in diameter or a bit more.
I can draw the needed packing for a duo, but I can't lay out the math to figure out the maximum possible missile diameter.I know but was'nt the max diameter under 25in. as the cell on the Outside has a 25in. width? I mean i don't know the cell wall thickness but if it doesnt exceed 1 in. it could be possible tought a very tight fit.
You dont need to math it out.I can draw the needed packing for a duo, but I can't lay out the math to figure out the maximum possible missile diameter.
Sort of an old idea (the patent is from 1994) but I've never seen art for it before.
Dual-Pack Canister for the Mk 41 VLS.
The missile is not named in the patent, but at the time, they were talking about something derived from SM2MR minus the fins. This one seems to be related to Block IIIB with the side-mounted IR seeker.
Patent does not give missile sizes.You dont need to math it out.
Someone else has.
Patent does not give missile sizes.
I recall the US doing a missile test in like 2016 that involves an Aegis destroyer guiding a Patriot Missile from an Army launcher while the MPQ53/64 guided a Sm2 from the Ship vls.(I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)
There's a lot to be said for that.Notionally, it's an SM2MR minus fins, so about 13.5 inches diameter. Now, this was never actually built, to my knowledge, which means even if this canister is possible it still needs development and testing.
Ostensibly that dual-pack is big enough for PAC-3 MSE, depending on how the MSE fins fold. However, Lockheed has said that the reason their current Naval PAC-3 offering is a single-pack is that they do not want to modify MSE at all, just be able to pull Army and Navy rounds off the same assembly line. That means that from their perspective, there is something about a multipack that would require some Navy-specific missile mods. (I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)
Notionally, it's an SM2MR minus fins, so about 13.5 inches diameter. Now, this was never actually built, to my knowledge, which means even if this canister is possible it still needs development and testing.
Ostensibly that dual-pack is big enough for PAC-3 MSE, depending on how the MSE fins fold. However, Lockheed has said that the reason their current Naval PAC-3 offering is a single-pack is that they do not want to modify MSE at all, just be able to pull Army and Navy rounds off the same assembly line. That means that from their perspective, there is something about a multipack that would require some Navy-specific missile mods. (I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)
They almost certainly have different requirements for corrosion, durability, and sensitivity.Thinking Red Strom Rising, do Army and Navy missiles have differing resistance to salt water......?
So it is possible but Lockheed said it would be to mutch work and cost for nothing. The atleast they could throw a booster at it but that could also be to mutch for themNotionally, it's an SM2MR minus fins, so about 13.5 inches diameter. Now, this was never actually built, to my knowledge, which means even if this canister is possible it still needs development and testing.
Ostensibly that dual-pack is big enough for PAC-3 MSE, depending on how the MSE fins fold. However, Lockheed has said that the reason their current Naval PAC-3 offering is a single-pack is that they do not want to modify MSE at all, just be able to pull Army and Navy rounds off the same assembly line. That means that from their perspective, there is something about a multipack that would require some Navy-specific missile mods. (I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)
So it is possible but Lockheed said it would be to mutch work and cost for nothing. The atleast they could throw a booster at it but that could also be to mutch for them
Still seems odd that the Army is buying SM-6s... Tomahawks I understand.Somehow it seems this hasn't been posted yet:
First Land-Based Tomahawk And SM-6 Launcher Delivered To Army
The Typhon Weapon System will give the Army its first ground-based medium-range missile strike capability in decades.www.thedrive.com
Still seems odd that the Army is buying SM-6s.
Perhaps because the US Army doesn't have an existing requirement missile that fits their requirements for a long-range SAM also the SM-6 has an active-radar seeker. Another about using an existing tested design is that it lowers unit costs due to a larger production volume.
Not sure if it's antiship or ground attack. And when PrSM finally shows up any remaining SM6s can go to the SAM role.The Army is buying SM-6 as an antiship missile, not a SAM.
This is the return of Army Coast Artillery, with Tomahawk MST and SM-6 as complimentary antiship missiles (MST is slow, low, and has a big warhead; SM-6 is high, fast, but a relatively small bang). Ultimately I think the antiship PrSM is going to take a lot of the SM-6 role.
I'm not sure there's a whole lot more thrust that can be delivered, even if you went exotic and used CL20 as the rocket fuel.Is there any plan to Develop a new Rocket motor to replace the MK 104 Solid fuel Rocket motor with the same size ?
I mean Mk104 is not from Yesterday so i was thinking that there range Upgrades. I still Hope for dual/ Quad Pack SM-2's in a MK.57. So more range is allways good. If i remember right there were new actuators for jagm which increases range. And this VTS Nozzle Thing wasn't that able to "adjust" the Trust of the missile? I think stuff Like that could give ous some extra range which ich allways nice to have as not only sm 2 has something from this but also SM-6 and "older" SM-3 Versions.I'm not sure there's a whole lot more thrust that can be delivered, even if you went exotic and used CL20 as the rocket fuel.
So what's wrong with the Mk104?
They may be trying to build to cost for the moment, so that the USN can afford full magazines of SM2s. As the costs for those mods come down, it may be possible to include them in a new production batch of missiles without greatly increasing price.I mean Mk104 is not from Yesterday so i was thinking that there range Upgrades. I still Hope for dual/ Quad Pack SM-2's in a MK.57. So more range is allways good. If i remember right there were new actuators for jagm which increases range. And this VTS Nozzle Thing wasn't that able to "adjust" the Trust of the missile? I think stuff Like that could give ous some extra range which ich allways nice to have as not only sm 2 has something from this but also SM-6 and "older" SM-3 Versions.
Does anyone know if there are any improvements in the MK104 Mod4 engine used in the SM-6 compared to the MK104 Mod3 engine used in the SM-2ER Block IV? I've searched for a long time but haven't found any relevant information
Standard has always had some form of SSM role, but have there ever been specialized warheads for land attack?
Seems like Standard high ceilings and long ranges would make them incredibly efficient for precision strike with a hard target penetrating payload.
Standards don't really have the right sensor set for going after hard targets.Land-Attack Standard had a warhead modified for land targets, but it was designed for fragmentation, not hard target penetration. I've never seen a hard-target warhead for Standard.