Register here

Author Topic: Standard Missile projects.  (Read 34031 times)

Offline GAU-8 Avenger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Standard Missile projects.
« on: September 03, 2009, 11:56:32 pm »
The Standard Missile family has grown to include a great number of variants over the years. I figured I would create this topic to discuss the designs and proposals based around the Standard Missile.

One program I have had a very difficult time finding any info on, is the Standard Missile 5. The only reference I could find to the SM5 was a mention of the missile as a weapon to destroy cruise missiles.  Can anybody shed some light on this design?

Another variant I am looking for details of is the AIM-97 Seekbat. Which was intended to be a long-range missile for the F-15 Eagle.


Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3555
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2009, 12:44:45 am »
The SM-5 was the name given to the US Navy’s plan for an over-the-horizon, networked missile to leverage AEGIS CEC that would be targeted by E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes and would replace the SM-2(ER) Block IV. SM-3 is the upper tier BMD missile and SM-4 the cancelled RGM-165 Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM). The key to the whole SM-6 supplanting the SM-5 was the SM-2(ER) Block IVA (confused now?).

SM-2 Block IVA was to be a lower altitude BMD tier (terminal phase) to complement SM-3 that would also have an extended range AAW capability to replace Block IV. Block IVA was cancelled in 2001 and the Navy needed a gap fill so Raytheon proposed the SM-2 Block IV meets the AIM-120C-7 to create the RIM-174 Extended Range AAW Missile (ERAM) aka SM-6. SM-6 will have the over-the-horizon, networked capability of the SM-5 but will have the AMRAAM’s active seeker autonomous terminal interception rather than the E-2D supported solution of the SM-5. But don’t write off the SM-5 yet... it may re-emerge, especially if the threat start to field active seeker decoys.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2009, 06:22:24 am »
Thanks, I'd always wondered what SM-5 was.  Apparently they're going back and modifying the SM-2 Block IVs that were built to fill the role of the IVAs that were cancelled.  Any idea what these modifications are and do those modified missiles get a new designation? (SM-2 Block IVB?)
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 06:25:23 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2009, 06:27:06 am »
The Standard Missile family has grown to include a great number of variants over the years. I figured I would create this topic to discuss the designs and proposals based around the Standard Missile.

One program I have had a very difficult time finding any info on, is the Standard Missile 5. The only reference I could find to the SM5 was a mention of the missile as a weapon to destroy cruise missiles.  Can anybody shed some light on this design?

Another variant I am looking for details of is the AIM-97 Seekbat. Which was intended to be a long-range missile for the F-15 Eagle.



There's a picture floating around of an F-106 carrying a Standard missile of some sort in relation to either the Seekbat program or the Standard-based ASAT program.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1157
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2009, 08:11:26 pm »
That picture is one of the Seekbat test rounds.

Here's soem AIM-97 info:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-97.html

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3555
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2009, 10:24:47 pm »
Thanks, I'd always wondered what SM-5 was.  Apparently they're going back and modifying the SM-2 Block IVs that were built to fill the role of the IVAs that were cancelled.  Any idea what these modifications are and do those modified missiles get a new designation? (SM-2 Block IVB?)

SM-2 Block IV is basically SM-2 Extended Range, that is the SM-2 missile with the Mk 72 booster (same booster used on SM-3 and SM-6) sized for use in Mk 41 strike length VLS cells. It is only used on US Navy AEGIS Cruisers providing an extended range (within line of sight) air defence capability. It's formal designation is RIM-156. The Block IV modification you refer to is probably juse the same as the SM-2 Block IIIB (RIM-66 or unboosted SM-2MR) Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP) that adds a side mounted IR seeker for improved terminal engagement against missiles. Which is nothing like the BMD and over the horizon capability of the Block IVA.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2009, 05:55:03 am »
SM-2 Block IV is basically SM-2 Extended Range, that is the SM-2 missile with the Mk 72 booster (same booster used on SM-3 and SM-6) sized for use in Mk 41 strike length VLS cells. It is only used on US Navy AEGIS Cruisers providing an extended range (within line of sight) air defence capability. It's formal designation is RIM-156. The Block IV modification you refer to is probably juse the same as the SM-2 Block IIIB (RIM-66 or unboosted SM-2MR) Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP) that adds a side mounted IR seeker for improved terminal engagement against missiles. Which is nothing like the BMD and over the horizon capability of the Block IVA.

I'd thought the main difference between a Block IV and a IVA WAS the additional side-mounted IR seeker?  ???  And how would the IVA have OTH capability, as I understand it it was still a SAR missile (or was it's IR seeker sufficient for terminal guidance on it's own?)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2009, 11:41:40 am »
Looks like the new SM-2 Block III varient with TVC will be called the "SM-2 Block IIIC" according to this weeks AvWeek.

"The centerpiece of the yet-to-be-funded SM-2 Block IIIC is a steering control upgrade—derived from the SM-6—the addition of jet-tab thrust vector control, improved guidance system and different autopilot. The thrust vector control is primarily aimed at enhancing short-range performance.

As a second step, the Navy and Raytheon are considering a dual-pulse rocket motor enhancement and introduction of more advanced guidance software, says Ron Shields, the company’s program manager. Shields says the upgrade program has already attracted international interest­—the SM-2 has a broad customer base, and many countries operating Block IIIAs would like to modernize them."

Hope it does get funded seeing how the -IIIB has been around for quite a while now.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3555
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2009, 03:23:38 pm »
I'd thought the main difference between a Block IV and a IVA WAS the additional side-mounted IR seeker?  ???  And how would the IVA have OTH capability, as I understand it it was still a SAR missile (or was it's IR seeker sufficient for terminal guidance on it's own?)

Sorry for the late reply, didn't notice your post.

The SM-2 Block IVA was not like the SM-2 Block IIIA which added the secondary side mounted IR seeker for improved terminal performance. The SM-2 Block IVA's IR seeker was a 'side looking' system able to provide interception guidance against ballistic missiles over an area 100 km by 50 km. So presumably its sensitivity was able to support independent detection and engagement of air targets over the Mk 99's illumination horizon. You can see from this picture just how much space the Block IVA’s IR seeker occupied.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7675
“I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2014, 12:19:51 pm »
The SM-5 was the name given to the US Navy’s plan for an over-the-horizon, networked missile to leverage AEGIS CEC that would be targeted by E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes


Is this the concept that was also referred to as "Forward Pass"?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2373
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2014, 12:53:07 pm »
"Forward pass" is a fairly generic term -- it's been used for various over-the-horizon concepts since the 1970s. 
 
SM-5 came about in conjunction with the Navy's Mountain Top Cruise Missile Defense ACTD.  Mountain Top got its name because they simulated the use of a future AEW&C aircraft with Standard Missile fire control capabilities by mounting an E-2-type radar, CEC systems, and a shipboard-type fire control radar on top of a mountain in Hawaii.  The idea was to have a missile (a modified SM-2 Block III in the tests, eventually SM-5 if it went operational) that could receive both mid-course and terminal guidance from an airborne platform rather than just the launching ship.  That turns out to be a very complicated task.  In the end, it was easier (or at least cheaper) to just put an active seeker on the missile and skip the airborne illumination aspect (hence SM-6, with an AMRAAM seeker).

Here's a nice technical paper on Mountain Top for more details.
http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/TD/td1804/zinger.pdf
 
 
 
« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 06:02:57 pm by TomS »

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3555
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2014, 05:34:26 pm »
Great post Tom. Thanks.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2014, 06:06:22 pm »

http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/TD/td1804/zinger.pdf

Hmm. . .from the PDF:

"A modified form of forward pass emerged in the late
1970s to early 1980s during a series of “outer air battle”
studies, which addressed next-generation Navy battle
group air defense requirements against Soviet bombers
armed with long-range antiship cruise missiles. If the
bombers could be intercepted before they approached
to within range of launching their missiles at U.S.
ships, a critical new layer of defense would be provided.
This variant of forward pass featured a conceptual, longrange
ramjet missile that could be launched from an
Aegis cruiser
and flown toward a carrier-based surveillance
and fire control aircraft."



Maybe?   ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2373

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1984
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2014, 05:30:19 pm »
I think this absolutely was the missile they had in mind for the outer air battle studies. 


http://books.google.com/books?id=CQYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=asalm+outer+air+battle&source=bl&ots=fpeuJH-xoX&sig=JP4Le-E73vL3WYCfGSycPMhejCY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DvvzU9CvD8aMyASbhYG4DQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA


The missile evolved into a series of Navy ramjet studies. I don't have the names handy. The sensor aircraft evolved into CONDOR. At the same time DARPA was doing similar, but not directly related work.

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7675
“I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2015, 07:18:18 am »
MDA, Navy Now Testing SM-6 Against Ballistic Missiles In Terminal Phase

Quote
The Missile Defense Agency and the Navy this week began a series of tests in the Pacific Ocean to assess a previously unevaluated feature of Raytheon's Standard Missile-6 ship self-defense weapon: its ability to intercept short-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of flight, an objective key to the Pentagon's aim of fielding a comprehensive sea-based ballistic missile defense capability.

On July 29, MDA and the Navy initiated a series of tests at the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii -- scheduled to conclude Aug. 4 -- that aim to test and certify the first increment of a sea-based terminal defense capability.

The test is dubbed Multi-Mission Missile Warfare (MMW) and divided into four events, according to MDA spokesman Rick Lehner.

"These events will demonstrate advanced Aegis tracking and engagement capabilities in the terminal phase of ballistic flight," Lehner said.

To date, MDA and the Navy have repeatedly demonstrated the ability of the Aegis BMD system to intercept short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles during the midcourse phase above the atmosphere with the Standard Missile-3 weapon system.

As part of a plan to incrementally improve the system, an objective is to also intercept short-range ballistic missiles inside the atmosphere. If effective, the SM-6 would replace the SM-2 Block IV interceptor currently deployed for terminal defense. 

The new capability builds on the Navy's Aegis Baseline 9 architecture, adding terminal defense with the SM-6 guided missile and the BMD 5 series weapon system, according to MDA.

In 2014, MDA completed the SM-6 Dual I software build 1 -- also called Sea Based Terminal Increment 1 -- and demonstrated its performance in a simulated environment. This week's MMW events are intended to validate the capability; MDA also plans follow-on testing in fiscal year 2016.

"Events 1 and 2 will demonstrate the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capability to engage a short-range ballistic missile target with an SM-6 Dual I missile and the SM-2 Block IV missile in the endo-atmosphere," Lehner said.

"Events 3 and 4 will demonstrate the SM-6 Dual I capability against AW targets," he added.

MDA and the Navy are also planning to field a second increment of the sea-based terminal defense capability to be certified and fielded in 2018. -- Jason Sherman
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2015, 05:57:50 pm »
Quote
Is the Navy pursuing an anti-ship SM-6? I asked Aucoin and his colleague Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Chief of Naval Research.

“I don’t know if we can talk about it,” Aucoin said uncertainly. “I wouldn’t,” Winter said emphatically. We’ll take that for a “yes.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2015, 06:05:21 pm »
Quote
Is the Navy pursuing an anti-ship SM-6? I asked Aucoin and his colleague Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Chief of Naval Research.

“I don’t know if we can talk about it,” Aucoin said uncertainly. “I wouldn’t,” Winter said emphatically. We’ll take that for a “yes.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/

Ugh.  Just. .. ugh.  First of all just about any SAM can be used to poke at a ship but it's hardly the best way to go about it.  SM-6s warhead is TINY compared to any decent antiship missile's.  Yes, yes, we all know about kinetic energy.  And maybe this would poke a hole in the ship but then they just close off those sections and continue fighting. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7675
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2015, 06:15:39 pm »
Quote
Is the Navy pursuing an anti-ship SM-6? I asked Aucoin and his colleague Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Chief of Naval Research.

“I don’t know if we can talk about it,” Aucoin said uncertainly. “I wouldn’t,” Winter said emphatically. We’ll take that for a “yes.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/

Ugh.  Just. .. ugh.  First of all just about any SAM can be used to poke at a ship but it's hardly the best way to go about it.  SM-6s warhead is TINY compared to any decent antiship missile's.  Yes, yes, we all know about kinetic energy.  And maybe this would poke a hole in the ship but then they just close off those sections and continue fighting. 
Would a near vertical Mach 6+ tungsten dart diving through multiple decks be possible or a bunch of flechettes hitting all the radar and communication masts?
“I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2015, 06:43:56 pm »
Quote
Is the Navy pursuing an anti-ship SM-6? I asked Aucoin and his colleague Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Chief of Naval Research.

“I don’t know if we can talk about it,” Aucoin said uncertainly. “I wouldn’t,” Winter said emphatically. We’ll take that for a “yes.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/

Ugh.  Just. .. ugh.  First of all just about any SAM can be used to poke at a ship but it's hardly the best way to go about it.  SM-6s warhead is TINY compared to any decent antiship missile's.  Yes, yes, we all know about kinetic energy.  And maybe this would poke a hole in the ship but then they just close off those sections and continue fighting.

Cost may also be another factor but if they can do the same mission with the same missile it gives some magazine flexibility
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2015, 07:09:50 pm »
Quote
Is the Navy pursuing an anti-ship SM-6? I asked Aucoin and his colleague Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Chief of Naval Research.

“I don’t know if we can talk about it,” Aucoin said uncertainly. “I wouldn’t,” Winter said emphatically. We’ll take that for a “yes.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/

Ugh.  Just. .. ugh.  First of all just about any SAM can be used to poke at a ship but it's hardly the best way to go about it.  SM-6s warhead is TINY compared to any decent antiship missile's.  Yes, yes, we all know about kinetic energy.  And maybe this would poke a hole in the ship but then they just close off those sections and continue fighting.

Cost may also be another factor but if they can do the same mission with the same missile it gives some magazine flexibility

SM-6 is probably more expensive than LRASM.  Plus even SM-6 can't touch LRASM's range.  (That previous response wasn't directed at you BTW. )
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 419
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2015, 08:36:45 pm »
SM-6 is probably more expensive than LRASM.  Plus even SM-6 can't touch LRASM's range.  (That previous response wasn't directed at you BTW. )

SM-6 is a suboptimal anti-ship missile, but, VLS cells cannot be reloaded at sea. In that case, it stands to reason to make the SM-6 as flexible as possible so that a warship could equip as many as possible.


Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #24 on: August 06, 2015, 02:58:27 am »
Quote
SM-6 is probably more expensive than LRASM.  Plus even SM-6 can't touch LRASM's range.  (That previous response wasn't directed at you BTW. )

I know..What I meant was that it is likely to be significantly more expensive with the only utility being that the missile could be used for both air to air and anti surface.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #25 on: August 06, 2015, 04:59:15 am »
SM-6 is probably more expensive than LRASM.  Plus even SM-6 can't touch LRASM's range.  (That previous response wasn't directed at you BTW. )

SM-6 is a suboptimal anti-ship missile, but, VLS cells cannot be reloaded at sea. In that case, it stands to reason to make the SM-6 as flexible as possible so that a warship could equip as many as possible.

If that were the case every ship in every navy would only carry one type of missile.  They don't.  Hmmmm, I wonder why.  BTW all Standards, with the exception of SM-3, already have secondary antiship capability.  We still have Harpoons, Tomahawks, and soon, LRASMs for reasons already mentioned.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #26 on: August 06, 2015, 10:40:48 am »
Well he also wants the LRASM and the tomahawk to compete. The video of the CSIS event is on the FA-XX/NGAD thread. I wonder if Lockheed can consider making the LRASM bigger for added range. Raytheon in the past has also suggested a supersonic version of the tomahawk..
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #27 on: August 06, 2015, 10:58:35 am »
Well he also wants the LRASM and the tomahawk to compete. The video of the CSIS event is on the FA-XX/NGAD thread. I wonder if Lockheed can consider making the LRASM bigger for added range. Raytheon in the past has also suggested a supersonic version of the tomahawk..

There is room in a VLS cell for them to stretch a LRASM about 4 feet.  They'd need to use the Tomahawk booster instead of the ASROC booster to do it though.  As for a supersonic Tomahawk. . .they'd need to make it a completely new missile.  Different engine, intake, nose, wings, etc.  Probably be better to just do like the Rooskies do with the Sizzler and have the high speed "dart" for the final run.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7675
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #28 on: August 06, 2015, 12:12:06 pm »
Well he also wants the LRASM and the tomahawk to compete. The video of the CSIS event is on the FA-XX/NGAD thread. I wonder if Lockheed can consider making the LRASM bigger for added range. Raytheon in the past has also suggested a supersonic version of the tomahawk..

There is room in a VLS cell for them to stretch a LRASM about 4 feet.  They'd need to use the Tomahawk booster instead of the ASROC booster to do it though.  As for a supersonic Tomahawk. . .they'd need to make it a completely new missile.  Different engine, intake, nose, wings, etc.  Probably be better to just do like the Rooskies do with the Sizzler and have the high speed "dart" for the final run.
Lock on and then a 'Super Roadrunner' booster accelerates it to M8+ would be a sight to behold :o

Last 10 seconds of this

“I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #29 on: August 07, 2015, 12:37:06 pm »


That last launch is pretty interesting.  I've never seen any of the Standards with the booster tip over that aggressively before.


And for the AQM-37C. . www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004rangeops/17Nov04/Berkel.ppt
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 02:17:10 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1739
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2016, 10:00:49 pm »
We've discussed it before and now it comes to pass:

Quote
Carter said the Pentagon's five-year budget plan also included $2.9 billion to modify Raytheon Co's new SM-6 missiles for use as powerful anti-ship weapons and buy 625 more of the weapons, which are now used for missile defense.

In fiscal 2017, the Navy would spend $587 million to buy 125 SM-6 missiles, according to a senior defense official.

Secret testing last month had proven the Navy's ability to use the new Raytheon missiles as offensive anti-ship weapons, Carter told sailors at the Navy's massive San Diego base.

Emphasis mine. Full article
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-budget-navy-idUSKCN0VC2LX
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 10:10:03 pm by marauder2048 »

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7675
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2016, 06:29:22 am »
https://news.vice.com/article/us-defense-secretary-announces-navy-can-blow-up-anything-it-wants-any-time-it-wants

Click bait title with similar info as Reuters story (probably where it came from) but included this interesting paragraph I haven't heard before:

The US has already run tests with the SM missile and the F-35 fighter-bomber, in which an SM missile has been fired from a ship but with no target identified. An F-35 in flight took control of the missile in midair, and then as the missile proceeded downrange, handed control of that missile to another F-35. Thus you could imagine a small, hardened launcher on an island popping up a missile and flinging it way into China, where it gets vectored on to target by a stealthy F-35.
“I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 730
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2016, 07:47:33 am »
There is an ongoing plan to increase the 2nd stage (main missile) of the SM-3 to a 21" motor (SM-3 Blk II).



I found some test results on the new 21 motor

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA320272

They also talked about making a surface strike version of the missile with a range of 550+ km.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 07:53:48 am by SpudmanWP »
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2016, 07:57:27 am »
In fact they've flight tested it twice already.  The strike version (Arc Light) was killed sometime ago.  Considering the Block II is about $31 million I don't know how wise it would be to use it as a strike missile.

« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 08:52:26 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2373
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2016, 08:03:22 am »
Hey Spudman, why'd you change the slide?  I was interested in that 27-inch development. 

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 730
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2016, 08:06:13 am »
I w
Hey Spudman, why'd you change the slide?  I was interested in that 27-inch development. 
I saw that too but I figured it was too big (the pic, not the missile).

I'll dig up some more info and post it again.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 08:10:34 am by SpudmanWP »
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 730
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2016, 08:17:13 am »
Here is some more info on the 27" SM-3 BlkII

Basic Info
http://defense-update.com/20101118_aegis_sm3b2.html

WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2016, 08:25:19 am »
Don't recall if I've posted this before:

http://www.systima.com/prod/Space%20Systems.html

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2373
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2016, 08:33:26 am »
Pretty sure you did post it somewhere, but not in this thread, so good to see it again.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2016, 08:51:46 am »
Pretty sure you did post it somewhere, but not in this thread, so good to see it again.

Probably in the LRASM-B or ASALM threads.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2016, 11:28:45 am »
Considering the Block II is about $31 million

But a quite a bit of that would be due to its mission needs. On the other hand, utilizing the front end of the SM6 and the larger stage would most likely not result in that big of a bump in cost. The SM6 is currently under $5 Million a round. It would be quite expensive to use an EKV equipped space interceptor for anti-ship purposes but I guess you could follow a growth strategy utilizing the larger stages and re-using SM6 parts for both better terminal intercept capability and longer ranged anti shipping roles. I'd put them on land as well without the other AEGIS BMD elements and develop a more Air defense oriented sensor with a smaller footprint.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 11:41:29 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1739
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #41 on: February 04, 2016, 01:12:56 pm »
Reposting the Figure from the SM-3 Block IIB trade study (by A.J. Pue et al.)


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #42 on: February 04, 2016, 01:24:23 pm »
Is the rest of the trade study publicly available?

edit:  http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/TD/td3205/32_05-Pue.pdf
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 02:45:52 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1739
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #43 on: February 04, 2016, 02:49:24 pm »
Yep. Attaching a compressed version to stay within server file size limits.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 02:56:04 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 805
  • I really should change my personal text

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2373
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #46 on: February 06, 2016, 02:38:33 am »
I wonder whether this anti-ship mode uses the radar seeker or just off-board targeting.  If the former, weight be seeing it come full circle back to the RGM-66F Standard Active anti-ship missile tested in the 1970s.  Gotta say that even a semi-ballistic anti-ship missile dropping in at Mach 3+ certainly has the potential to ruin someone's day.  Sure, high-end air-defense ships have a decent shot at intercepting it, but for a lot of navies that's just an unsolvable problem.

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 55
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #47 on: February 06, 2016, 03:31:48 pm »
Here's a link to an article describing the use of earlier standard missiles in an anti-ship role during operation Praying Mantis:  http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/29/politics/uss-simpson-decommissioned-warship/

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #48 on: February 06, 2016, 05:41:16 pm »
Here's a link to an article describing the use of earlier standard missiles in an anti-ship role during operation Praying Mantis:  http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/29/politics/uss-simpson-decommissioned-warship/

Here's a video showing Standards in a surface attack role (not from Praying Mantis)



One comment I recall reading about Praying Mantis was, "by the time the Harpoons got there the ships were already underwater".   ;D
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #49 on: February 18, 2016, 03:08:33 pm »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #50 on: March 07, 2016, 03:22:45 pm »
Navy Sinks Former Frigate USS Reuben James in Test of New Supersonic Anti-Surface Missile

"The former frigate USS Reuben James (FFG-57) was sunk in January during a test of the Navy’s new anti-surface warfare (ASuW) variant of the Raytheon Standard Missile 6 (SM-6), company officials told USNI News on Monday.

The adaptation of the SM-6 was fired from guided missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG-32) and hit James during the Jan. 18 test at the U.S. Pacific Missile Range Facility off the coast of Hawaii, a Raytheon spokeswoman told USNI News.

“The test was a demonstration of the U.S. Navy’s concept of ‘distributed lethality,’ employing ships in dispersed formations to increase the offensive might of the surface force and enabling future options for the joint force commander,” read a release from Raytheon."

http://news.usni.org/2016/03/07/navy-sinks-former-frigate-uss-reuben-james-in-test-of-new-supersonic-anti-surface-missile

Seems like an expensive fig leaf.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 786
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2016, 03:47:58 pm »
Which warhead the raytheon SM-6 used ?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2373
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2016, 04:55:22 pm »
Mk125 focused blast-frag, 125 kg.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #53 on: March 09, 2016, 05:13:18 am »
Mk125 focused blast-frag, 125 kg.

Where'd you get that?  Most I've seen said 115kg.  (Though I'm wondering if the "115" was a mixup from the former Mk115 warhead.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2373
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #54 on: March 09, 2016, 06:00:09 am »
I've seen numbers from 115 kg to 135 kg in various sources.  Andreas Parsch has 135 kg for Mk 125 in LASM (which is the same basic warhead), Jane's has 115kg, and I'm sure I've seen 1256 kg as well.  Ultimately, it doesn't matter much -- the differences might even just be a matter of what you count.  How much of the warhead safing and arming mechanism is counted as warhead, for example.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #55 on: March 09, 2016, 06:35:46 am »
I've seen numbers from 115 kg to 135 kg in various sources.  Andreas Parsch has 135 kg for Mk 125 in LASM (which is the same basic warhead), Jane's has 115kg, and I'm sure I've seen 1256 kg as well.  Ultimately, it doesn't matter much -- the differences might even just be a matter of what you count.  How much of the warhead safing and arming mechanism is counted as warhead, for example.

True.  Re the Mk125 in LASM I'd read it was a "modified Mk125".  What that means is anybody's guess.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7412
  • _ \\ //
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #56 on: March 10, 2016, 01:02:31 am »
Seems like an expensive fig leaf.

There are a lot of those around lately...
To the Stars

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 522
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #57 on: March 10, 2016, 01:15:46 am »
Seems like an expensive fig leaf.

So the USN now has a Mach 3.5 ASM in addition to its subsonic Harpoon, and it gets called a fig leaf? There's just no pleasing some people.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #58 on: March 10, 2016, 03:48:38 am »
Seems like an expensive fig leaf.

So the USN now has a Mach 3.5 ASM in addition to its subsonic Harpoon, and it gets called a fig leaf? There's just no pleasing some people.

If the USN had a Mach 3.5 ASM you'd be correct.  It does not.  It has a SAM they shot at a boat.  Apples and oranges.  It'd be like the USAF saying they had a new AAM because they shot down a helicopter with a laser guided bomb.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Useful Dave

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 4
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #59 on: March 11, 2016, 01:50:53 am »
Seems like an expensive fig leaf.

So the USN now has a Mach 3.5 ASM in addition to its subsonic Harpoon, and it gets called a fig leaf? There's just no pleasing some people.

I believe the issue is that, if it is utilised in a similar way to the earlier SM2ERs in the anti-surface role, the weapon is a purely surface-horizon ranged weapon due to needing to have the target illuminated by the ship, rather than over the horizon fired and self-guiding like Harpoon.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2373
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #60 on: March 11, 2016, 03:31:16 am »
It is clearly not being used in the same way.  For starters, SM-6 has an active radar seeker.  It sounds like it will relying mainly on offboard targeting data in antiship mode, but the seeker might come into play for the end game. SM-6's seeker can track subsonic low altitude air targets in clutter; being able to track surface targets over water isn't a huge stretch from there.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2016, 05:24:47 am by TomS »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #61 on: March 11, 2016, 05:20:46 am »
Seems like an expensive fig leaf.

So the USN now has a Mach 3.5 ASM in addition to its subsonic Harpoon, and it gets called a fig leaf? There's just no pleasing some people.

I believe the issue is that, if it is utilised in a similar way to the earlier SM2ERs in the anti-surface role, the weapon is a purely surface-horizon ranged weapon due to needing to have the target illuminated by the ship, rather than over the horizon fired and self-guiding like Harpoon.

SM-6 doesn't require that but it's still a poor substitute.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7675
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #62 on: March 21, 2016, 03:06:05 pm »
“I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #63 on: March 21, 2016, 04:23:14 pm »
http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160318-mk41.html

Reopening Mk-41 production facility

It's a bit disturbing that they closed it.  Aegis ships are still being built. 

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #64 on: March 22, 2016, 12:43:45 pm »
http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160318-mk41.html

Reopening Mk-41 production facility

It's a bit disturbing that they closed it.  Aegis ships are still being built.
That's why it's re-opening. But a few years ago when Burke production was supposed to sunset LM closed the line.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #65 on: March 22, 2016, 12:53:22 pm »
http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160318-mk41.html

Reopening Mk-41 production facility

It's a bit disturbing that they closed it.  Aegis ships are still being built.
That's why it's re-opening. But a few years ago when Burke production was supposed to sunset LM closed the line.

But there are still Aegis ships coming off the lines in other countries, and they've known the Zumwalt class was getting chopped for years.   Maybe they built all they needed for future foreign applications?  (Having experienced the inefficiency of starting, stopping, and restarting production first hand it is maddening.  And then people wonder why things cost so much.) 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 55
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #66 on: March 22, 2016, 07:02:08 pm »
Important systems like the MK-41 VLS are built and warehoused.  You would need to match up production numbers of the VLS to ships that use them to find how many were built for future use.  My take is that the number in storage fell (spares) to a level where they felt they needed to restart production. 

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #67 on: March 22, 2016, 08:17:32 pm »
http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160318-mk41.html

Reopening Mk-41 production facility

It's a bit disturbing that they closed it.  Aegis ships are still being built.
That's why it's re-opening. But a few years ago when Burke production was supposed to sunset LM closed the line.

But there are still Aegis ships coming off the lines in other countries, and they've known the Zumwalt class was getting chopped for years.   Maybe they built all they needed for future foreign applications?  (Having experienced the inefficiency of starting, stopping, and restarting production first hand it is maddening.  And then people wonder why things cost so much.)
You should see the rest of the Burke supply chain. Re-start costs have been nasty across the board, the actually amazed it hasn't gotten more press. But LCS has tended to eclipse all other surface combatant coverage until recently.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1739
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #68 on: May 22, 2016, 05:57:38 pm »
Looks like the new SM-2 Block III varient with TVC will be called the "SM-2 Block IIIC" according to this weeks AvWeek.

"The centerpiece of the yet-to-be-funded SM-2 Block IIIC is a steering control upgrade—derived from the SM-6—the addition of jet-tab thrust vector control, improved guidance system and different autopilot. The thrust vector control is primarily aimed at enhancing short-range performance.

As a second step, the Navy and Raytheon are considering a dual-pulse rocket motor enhancement and introduction of more advanced guidance software, says Ron Shields, the company’s program manager. Shields says the upgrade program has already attracted international interest­—the SM-2 has a broad customer base, and many countries operating Block IIIAs would like to modernize them."

Hope it does get funded seeing how the -IIIB has been around for quite a while now.

According to fbo.gov, looks like integral TVC is coming to SM-2 and SM-6 in the form of a movable nozzle (a supersonic split line nozzle for SM-6). Earlier RFI with more details and imagery is attached.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #69 on: May 22, 2016, 06:51:30 pm »
"supersonic split line nozzle"?   ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6812
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #70 on: May 22, 2016, 07:56:46 pm »
"supersonic split line nozzle"?   ???

Like so:
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #71 on: May 23, 2016, 05:30:03 am »
"supersonic split line nozzle"?   ???

Like so:

Yeah, I saw the picture in the doc but was like, "okay, and?"  Your explanation on your blog helped the light bulb go on.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1739
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #72 on: May 23, 2016, 07:10:36 pm »
"supersonic split line nozzle"?   ???

Like so:

Yeah, I saw the picture in the doc but was like, "okay, and?"  Your explanation on your blog helped the light bulb go on.

Care to post a link to the explanation? My understanding is that the supersonic split line nozzle achieves thrust deflection angles greater than nozzle deflection angles by exploiting supersonic shockwave propagation.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #73 on: May 23, 2016, 07:23:30 pm »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1739
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #74 on: May 26, 2016, 06:32:31 pm »
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=32201

It's a fine explanation. I would only add some motivation. Specifically, because thrust deflection angles are greater than nozzle deflection angles, the supersonic split line nozzle is well suited
for volume constrained installations that prevent large nozzle deflections.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #75 on: May 26, 2016, 08:32:16 pm »
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=32201

It's a fine explanation. I would only add some motivation. Specifically, because thrust deflection angles are greater than nozzle deflection angles, the supersonic split line nozzle is well suited
for volume constrained installations that prevent large nozzle deflections.

This oughta do it:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/865977.pdf


They actually made it into a book.  Yours for the low low price of $129.70.

http://www.amazon.com/Test-Firing-Supersonic-Split-Line-Nozzle/dp/B00ARRLDJS


« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 08:36:38 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #76 on: July 08, 2016, 09:10:33 am »
USN plans active seeker refit for SM-2 missile



The US Navy (USN) plans to introduce an active radar seeker into the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) family as part of upgrade and obsolescence mitigation programme intended to maintain the effectiveness of SM-2 into the 2030s.

This move comes alongside activity to re-start SM-2 all-up-round (AUR) production in fiscal year (FY) 2017 to meet international customer demand through Foreign Military Sales (FMS).

Although the USN ceased procurement of new SM-2 missiles after its FY 2011 buy, the service expects to maintain the weapon in inventory for at least another 20 years. Under the FY 2017 budget plan, initial funding has been earmarked for SM-2 improvement requirements definition and risk reduction work.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #77 on: July 08, 2016, 09:13:37 am »
USN plans active seeker refit for SM-2 missile



The US Navy (USN) plans to introduce an active radar seeker into the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) family as part of upgrade and obsolescence mitigation programme intended to maintain the effectiveness of SM-2 into the 2030s.

This move comes alongside activity to re-start SM-2 all-up-round (AUR) production in fiscal year (FY) 2017 to meet international customer demand through Foreign Military Sales (FMS).

Although the USN ceased procurement of new SM-2 missiles after its FY 2011 buy, the service expects to maintain the weapon in inventory for at least another 20 years. Under the FY 2017 budget plan, initial funding has been earmarked for SM-2 improvement requirements definition and risk reduction work.

Did they ever implement the maneuverability upgrade?  (TVC.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #78 on: July 08, 2016, 11:26:11 am »
Not for SM-2, Block IIIc was never funded. Unfortunately, hard budgetary choices got made. I wonder how they're approaching this upgrade from a programmatic point of view.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 11:28:02 am by Moose »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1739
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #79 on: July 08, 2016, 05:57:54 pm »
Not for SM-2, Block IIIc was never funded. Unfortunately, hard budgetary choices got made. I wonder how they're approaching this upgrade from a programmatic point of view.

There was a software based maneuverability upgrade for SM-2 Block IIIB, which IIRC, was mostly about 3D trajectory shaping to put the IIR seeker at the best aspect angle e.g. non head-on. 

From  NSWC Technical Digest 1994.

Offline Austin

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #80 on: July 11, 2016, 06:13:55 am »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #81 on: July 11, 2016, 07:36:31 am »
Well FWIW, at a recent missile defense conference in Poland there were talks of reviving EPAA Phase 4 which would mean SM3 Block II B. They also talked about making the missiles mobile. Of course a lot would depend on the next POTUS and the one after him/her.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #82 on: July 11, 2016, 08:13:31 am »
Haven't seen or heard any of that discussion from Poland yet, but it's not surprising. The desire to increase performance beyond SM-3 IIA and the desire to increase EPAA beyond its Phase 3 capabilities haven't gone away, they were effectively pushed back in favor of other MDA priorities. Now that three years of RKV and additional GBI funding are taken care of, it makes sense to begin looking at the next step for Aegis/EPAA again.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 08:38:57 am by Moose »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1739
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #83 on: July 11, 2016, 11:35:47 am »
 :'(

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #84 on: January 10, 2017, 10:43:22 am »
Pentagon approves SM-6 international sales


Quote
The Defense Department has approved the Standard Missile-6 for international sales, as contractor Raytheon eyes Australia, Japan and South Korea as potential customers, the company said Jan. 10.

The Pentagon cleared the SM-6 for foreign sales to "several international customers" in December, Raytheon told reporters Jan. 10 at the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium in Arlington, VA. The SM-6 is a surface-launched missile capable of anti-air, sea-based terminal and anti-surface engagements.

Thad Smith, Raytheon's head of business development for SM-6, said Australia, Japan and South Korea are potential customers because they are buying or are interested in buying the latest version of the Aegis weapon system, Baseline 9, the only combat system capable of operating the SM-6.

"Those are the only three countries that either have the correct baseline that they're going to procure or have said that they want to go procure to date," Smith said. "Now, have there been other briefings to other countries? Yes."

Australia is constructing three Hobart-class air warfare destroyers outfitted with Aegis Baseline 8. A 2016 white paper outlining the requirement for the Hobart class also delineates a need for an extended-range, active missile, according to Smith. But in order to use SM-6, Australia would need to upgrade its destroyers to Aegis Baseline 9.

Japan is buying two Baseline 9 destroyers and upgrading two others to the latest Aegis system. South Korea, meanwhile, is building three Sejong the Great-class guided missile destroyers with the Aegis Baseline 9 combat system.

Smith said some countries have sent letters of request to the U.S. government for the SM-6, but he declined to name specific nations. Letters of request formally initiate foreign military sales discussions.

The U.S. Navy is buying 1,800 SM-6 interceptors as part of its program of record. Raytheon has delivered 300 so far, according to Smith. The service requested $501 million in fiscal year 2017 to buy 125 SM-6 interceptors, with each missile costing about $4 million, according to the Navy's budget justification documents.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 941
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #85 on: January 10, 2017, 11:26:09 am »
It's impossible not to notice that Raytheon's SM-6 salesman is named "Thad" (yes it's missing an "A" but even so).

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 941
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #86 on: March 01, 2017, 09:50:30 am »
A short history into the origins of the Standard Missile


Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #87 on: April 09, 2017, 03:00:14 pm »
A short history into the origins of the Standard Missile



The historical footage is like stepping into a time machine - so Fifties!

I have a bunch of old missile engineering books from that era; the dust jacket of one of them has LITHOGRAPHS of early Talos and Falcon plan-forms on it, and an aerodynamic shape described inside another is clearly an early Talos, though not named as such. I had thought that interesting snippets about particular early variants of the 3T missiles might be obtainable from the text, but alas not.

Back on topic, I would rather be able to fling up to sixty-four SM-6 missiles over the horizon at an enemy battlegroup than be restricted to eight Harpoons, especially if I knew that a swarm of the enemy's supersonic sea-skimming SSMs were coming for me and I wasn't going to be able to stop all of them. If I can sacrifice one AEGIS destroyer to cripple the enemy surface fleet, it will be worth the trade because with the amount of work today's ships need to make them battleworthy after damage, they aren't going to be able to rebuild or repair it before the end of the war.

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2393
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #88 on: August 10, 2017, 11:35:15 am »
Have there every been any proposals for a land based version of any of the Standard missile family?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2373
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #89 on: August 10, 2017, 12:09:03 pm »
Have there every been any proposals for a land based version of any of the Standard missile family?

Other than this?
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/raytheon-wants-us-army-adopt-standard-missile

Well, there's obviously AEGIS Ashore, which is land-based Standard SM-3 (and maybe SM-6).


Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #90 on: August 10, 2017, 12:35:33 pm »
Sea Sparrow and ESSM have from time to time. Not able to dig out any information at the moment though.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #91 on: August 10, 2017, 01:06:50 pm »
In the recent past, ESSM Block 1 was launched from NASAMS and was offered but Raytheon then switched it to the AMRAAM-ER configuration since according to it most of the customers were interested in an active seeker weapon.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Kat Tsun

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #92 on: August 10, 2017, 07:21:58 pm »
In the recent past, ESSM Block 1 was launched from NASAMS and was offered but Raytheon then switched it to the AMRAAM-ER configuration since according to it most of the customers were interested in an active seeker weapon.

This is a bit off topic, but I wonder if MBDA will ever offer up a SL-Meteor as a competitor to SLAMRAAM. It would be a superior missile to any AMRAAM within the same range and a bit further and electrically compatible (IIRC Meteor is backwards compatible with AMRAAM plugs and rails) with the NASAMS box launchers.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1430
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #93 on: August 11, 2017, 02:20:40 am »
A longer ranged AMRAAM is on offer for NASAMS in the AMRAAM-ER. Sure an SL-Meteor could be designed, but one advantage for current and future customers of the system is that they can take their standard AMRAAM stocks and orders and use them on the NASAMS, something that is a drawback even for the ER version. Moreover, cost is also likely to play a role here since many NASAM customers and perspective operators are already AMRAAM users and have it integrated with their fighters. I think from a capabilities and cost perspective, integrating the SkyCeptor with NASAMS is probably a better idea than the Meteor given the Stunners cost and the ability to go after the cheaper, shorter ranged ballistic missiles. The Sentinel A4 would open up NASAMS to longer range intercepts so most operators will likely shop around for options when they look to upgrade the system..

« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 02:51:21 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1739
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #94 on: November 20, 2017, 09:47:10 am »
From FBO for November 20, 2017


Quote
The Naval Sea Systems Command intends to award STANDARD Missile-2 Block IIIC EMD and LRIP
requirements on a sole source basis to Raytheon Company, 1151 East Hermans Road, Tucson,
Arizona 85706. The requirement consists of leveraging existing fielded designs from both the
STANDARD Missile-2 and STANDARD Missile-6 to develop the SM-2 Block IIIC All-Up-Round (AUR) design
and produce Low Rate Initial Production AURs.

my emphasis

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #95 on: November 20, 2017, 09:52:19 am »
Sounds like the intent is basically an SM-6 sans booster to replace the current SM-2 Block IIIBs.  BTW whatever happened to the plan to add TVC (among other things) to SM-2 to enable more effectiveness against sea-skimmers?  Anybody know what THAT mod was supposed to be called?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 10:16:25 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2373
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #96 on: November 20, 2017, 10:58:47 am »
Sounds like the intent is basically an SM-6 sans booster to replace the current SM-2 Block IIIBs.  BTW whatever happened to the plan to add TVC (among other things) to SM-2 to enable more effectiveness against sea-skimmers?  Anybody know what THAT mod was supposed to be called?

They really need to standardize their nomneclature a bit.

The FY18 Budget request refers to this missile as SM-2 Active or SM-6 MR.

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/18pres/WPN_Book.pdf

Quote
SM-2 ACTIVE: SM-2 Improvements will bring the SM-2 medium range missile into the family of active missiles as an active MR missile. SM-2 Active (or SM-6 MR) provides enhanced Stream-Raid performance against numerous threats to include agile prism via target resolution in range and Doppler and missile/target pairing logic, over-the-horizon capability for increased depth of fire, enhanced capability against electronic attack, improved firepower due to decreased dependence on illuminators, and enhanced fuzing via guidance integrated fuzing. Effort leverages to the maximum extent existing SM-6 infrastructure and industrial manufacturing capability. The inventory objective is 1,000 units.

It also refers to SM-2 Block IIIAZ, which is a IIIA modified to work with the non-AEGIS radar in DDG-1000 (and presumably future non-AEGIS ships). 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #97 on: November 20, 2017, 12:31:37 pm »
Sounds like the intent is basically an SM-6 sans booster to replace the current SM-2 Block IIIBs.  BTW whatever happened to the plan to add TVC (among other things) to SM-2 to enable more effectiveness against sea-skimmers?  Anybody know what THAT mod was supposed to be called?

They really need to standardize their nomneclature a bit.

The FY18 Budget request refers to this missile as SM-2 Active or SM-6 MR.

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/18pres/WPN_Book.pdf

Quote
SM-2 ACTIVE: SM-2 Improvements will bring the SM-2 medium range missile into the family of active missiles as an active MR missile. SM-2 Active (or SM-6 MR) provides enhanced Stream-Raid performance against numerous threats to include agile prism via target resolution in range and Doppler and missile/target pairing logic, over-the-horizon capability for increased depth of fire, enhanced capability against electronic attack, improved firepower due to decreased dependence on illuminators, and enhanced fuzing via guidance integrated fuzing. Effort leverages to the maximum extent existing SM-6 infrastructure and industrial manufacturing capability. The inventory objective is 1,000 units.

It also refers to SM-2 Block IIIAZ, which is a IIIA modified to work with the non-AEGIS radar in DDG-1000 (and presumably future non-AEGIS ships).

I wonder why they'd go with the IIIA instead of the newer IIIB. (Both are pretty much ancient.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1739
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #98 on: November 20, 2017, 01:13:14 pm »

I wonder why they'd go with the IIIA instead of the newer IIIB. (Both are pretty much ancient.)

Cost reasons.

It was originally IIIB but IIIA already had the X-band datalink and supported ICWI.