Register here

Author Topic: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook  (Read 49585 times)

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2050
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2014, 09:44:04 pm »
Another interesting wrinkle: Japan announces they are buying E-2D.  It struck me that Clark's analysis of SM-6 PUC didn't necessarily take into account
the use of SM-6 in the Aegis Ashore batteries both for air defense and for Terminal ABM.


http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141121/DEFREG03/311210023/Japan-Officially-Selects-Osprey-Global-Hawk-E-2D

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8489
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10927
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2016, 06:17:59 pm »
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navy-can-now-prove-its-new-anti-ship-missile-real-16680

"The SM-6 is larger than the SM-3 interceptor and is designed to destroy closer-in air targets. "

In fact the size is virtually identical.  (Though I'd wager the SM-3 weighs more.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2016, 06:28:05 am »
Interesting to see the speculation about putting SM-6 in angled tube launchers on ships like LCS.  Possibly the same sort of launcher that LM is showing for LRASM, here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8992.msg284864.html#msg284864

Realistically, however, I really doubt that.  SM-6 is still a rather pricey multi-mode missile and would be somewhat wasted on ships that can't use its air and missile defense capacity to the fullest.  Even with CEC-like Forward Pass capability, why stock the expensive missiles on the less capable ships?

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1716
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2016, 07:14:27 am »
Unless, Iím looking at the data wrong, the SM6 is actually quite cost-effective weapon (of course not for the LCS)  relatively speaking (compared to other interceptor programs like the PAC-3 MSE, THAAD etc) given its long range Air defense capability, as well as demonstrated ABM and now surface attack capability. I know that they all have different capability and roles but it seems the USN has done well to keep costs low by leveraging the SM3 and AMRAAM programs. The more I look into it, the more I wish the US Army leverage components/elements of the SM6 to develop a long range air-defense interceptor to fit the THAAD launcher.



 

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/15-F-0540_SM-6_SAR_Dec_2014.PDF

That's a comparable unit cost to the PAC3MSE over its projected 1100 procurement run.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 07:19:55 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2016, 07:37:46 am »
I wasn't comparing to other interceptors, but to other anti-ship weapons.  SM-6 is around $4-5 million each, while LRASM is supposed to be around $2 million and weapons like NSM down under $1 million.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1716
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2016, 07:44:45 am »
For the LCS, LRASM, NSM or the Latest block upgrade for the Harpoon (ER) will still be better options. Smaller, and relatively easier to upgrade. As you mentioned, its pointless to put an SM6 on there just for offensive AshM role just as Raytheon is partnered with Kongsberg and has the NSM that Is quite competitive given the lineup.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10927
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2016, 09:59:07 am »
Interesting to see the speculation about putting SM-6 in angled tube launchers on ships like LCS.  Possibly the same sort of launcher that LM is showing for LRASM, here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8992.msg284864.html#msg284864

Realistically, however, I really doubt that.  SM-6 is still a rather pricey multi-mode missile and would be somewhat wasted on ships that can't use its air and missile defense capacity to the fullest.  Even with CEC-like Forward Pass capability, why stock the expensive missiles on the less capable ships?

IMO it would be insane to use SM-6 in a dedicated antiship mode.  Now if you're trying to increase the number of launch points you can "feed" the network from to go after air and surface targets that is another matter. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2050
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2016, 10:58:12 am »
Interesting to see the speculation about putting SM-6 in angled tube launchers on ships like LCS.  Possibly the same sort of launcher that LM is showing for LRASM, here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8992.msg284864.html#msg284864

Realistically, however, I really doubt that.  SM-6 is still a rather pricey multi-mode missile and would be somewhat wasted on ships that can't use its air and missile defense capacity to the fullest.  Even with CEC-like Forward Pass capability, why stock the expensive missiles on the less capable ships?

And there's the minor issue of SM-6 being out-of-band with respect to the LCS radars.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 11:01:32 am by marauder2048 »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #24 on: June 24, 2016, 12:11:10 pm »
True, but isn't the point of the Distributed Lethality construct that missiles like SM-6 can be launched from platforms that can't guide them, with guidance provided from offboard platforms via NIFC-CA? 

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2050
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2016, 02:44:24 pm »
True, but isn't the point of the Distributed Lethality construct that missiles like SM-6 can be launched from platforms that can't guide them, with guidance provided from offboard platforms via NIFC-CA?

That's true but everything gets better (particularly in a GPS degraded/denied environment) if the launching platform has, at the very least, an uplink.

The figure is from Bezick, et al. "Inertial Navigation for Guided Missile Systems."
The bio in the paper states that "Mr. Bezick has developed the IFA Kalman filter algorithm that has been implemented in SM-6."
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 03:09:22 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1716
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2016, 02:58:29 pm »
In the desegregated concept you would still like to have the minimum capability required to fulfill the mission, with collective capability being significantly better than the sum of the parts. I don't think you would want to to make it a mule without being able to at least use some of the features organically, especially not when you have the Harpoon-ER, LRASM, or the NSM as an option.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1094
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2016, 09:28:38 am »
In the desegregated concept you would still like to have the minimum capability required to fulfill the mission, with collective capability being significantly better than the sum of the parts. I don't think you would want to to make it a mule without being able to at least use some of the features organically, especially not when you have the Harpoon-ER, LRASM, or the NSM as an option.
Absolutely, resources are too scant for any ship to only bringing a knife to a gun fight/ too light to fight too dumb to run. Collective capability is great but individual survivablity is essential. A stout and versatile mule.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8489
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8489
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot