Register here

Author Topic: Standard Missile projects.  (Read 39729 times)

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2030
  • 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.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
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 bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1646
  • 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: 1646
  • 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: 10563
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.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
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?
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 bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1646
  • 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: 10563
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: 474
  • 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: 1646
  • 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: 10563
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: 1646
  • 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: 10563
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.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8283
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

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: 10563
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.