Register here

Author Topic: Standard Missile projects.  (Read 43244 times)

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 888
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #120 on: July 19, 2018, 11:18:23 am »
Is LRASM not long-ranged enough?
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2761
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #121 on: July 19, 2018, 11:21:43 am »
Is LRASM not long-ranged enough?

It is.  Point being, they aren't exactly showing a lot of excitement about buying it (or a comparable weapon) for surface ships. 


Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 888
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #122 on: July 19, 2018, 11:33:45 am »
Looks like LRASM for the USN is capped at 25 per year through 2021 (115 total) and the USAF picked up 46 through FY2019.  Clearly this is the "stopgap" phase.

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

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2761
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #123 on: July 19, 2018, 12:10:11 pm »
Looks like LRASM for the USN is capped at 25 per year through 2021 (115 total) and the USAF picked up 46 through FY2019.  Clearly this is the "stopgap" phase.

And those are all air-launched.  Rather than press on with the surface-launched version directly from LRASM as OASuW Increment 2, they've rolled it into Next-Generation Strike Capability, and they keep kicking that can down the road. 

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 888
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #124 on: July 19, 2018, 12:21:49 pm »
What, the USN kicked the can down the road???

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!!    :o

Sadly, it's not like we haven't seen this before (NATF, A-12v2, S-3 replacement, etc).
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline litzj

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
    • http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #125 on: July 20, 2018, 06:36:55 am »
If SM series is converted to Surface-to-Surface purpose, How to solve smaller warhead problem?

This surface-to-air missile had experience for air and anti-radiation targets, relatively soft-skinned ones.

Destroying 'big ship' is another problem.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 837
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #126 on: July 20, 2018, 08:13:23 am »
If SM series is converted to Surface-to-Surface purpose, How to solve smaller warhead problem?

This surface-to-air missile had experience for air and anti-radiation targets, relatively soft-skinned ones.

Destroying 'big ship' is another problem.
It's not a "conversion," as they retain their primary anti-air role, it's an added capability via upgraded software. This is an important distinction because all the SM-6s, like all the SM-2s, already out in the fleet's VLS cells are also available to use against Surface targets as opposed to having to make room in the existing missile loadout for a dedicated ASM. As for the warhead question, sure you're unlikely to achieve the immediate destruction of any decent-sized surface combatant via a single SM-6. Shooting one at such a target, you're hoping the mass of the missile and the warhead will combine to damage critical systems (like radar) and degrade or mission-kill the ship. That's not nothing.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 06:38:14 am by Moose »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2761
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #127 on: July 20, 2018, 08:30:52 am »
Given that full-caliber SM-6 would be a rather heavy, fast, high-diver, I foresee a whole lot of kinetic energy damage, in addition to the warhead.  With luck, a big chunk of the debris blows out through the bottom of the target's hull. 

Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #128 on: July 20, 2018, 09:35:19 am »
Given that full-caliber SM-6 would be a rather heavy, fast, high-diver, I foresee a whole lot of kinetic energy damage, in addition to the warhead.  With luck, a big chunk of the debris blows out through the bottom of the target's hull.

Absolutely a nice close to vertical hole from the top of the ship through the bottom of the hull would be problematic for continued operations to say the least.  :o
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 moonbeamsts

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #129 on: July 20, 2018, 04:10:32 pm »
Add a fusing option for the warhead for ship attack ,it opens all kinds of mayhem.

Offline litzj

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
    • http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #130 on: July 20, 2018, 05:03:16 pm »
thx for answers. with its kinetic energy, sm6 could be deadly for some parts of ship and for good penetration.

but I still doubt it is less powerful than Russian supersonic monsters, having much heavier weight.

is there any news that USN try to develop counter part of Russian or Indian big supersonic missiles?


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2761
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #131 on: July 20, 2018, 06:45:39 pm »
thx for answers. with its kinetic energy, sm6 could be deadly for some parts of ship and for good penetration.

but I still doubt it is less powerful than Russian supersonic monsters, having much heavier weight.

is there any news that USN try to develop counter part of Russian or Indian big supersonic missiles?

Not recently.  Certianly not since the dropped LRASM-B, the supersonic counterpart to the JASSM-derived LRASM-A.

As a practical matter, the USN is limited to antiship weapons that fit a 21-inch canister (maybe a tad more with a thin-wall canister).  Anything dramatically bigger than Tomahawk or full-caliber Standard is a non-starter.  So about 2 tons is about the practical size limit.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #132 on: July 20, 2018, 10:37:43 pm »
Given the additional internal volume that they have to play with, it's not hard to imagine an enlarged warhead
or an enlarged seeker. 

Also, sans booster, the Army could have a potential replacement for GEM-T.


Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1682
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #133 on: July 25, 2018, 05:36:53 am »
A 21' Booster-less SM6 would be a capable PAC-2 replacement though the Army seems to not be in any sort of hurry to replace the legacy missiles or fund a new launcher. There are a few other things the PATRIOT system can borrow from AEGIS besides the SM6. The EASR or something based on it/AMDR would make a capable secondary 360-degree surveillance sensor and is as risk_reduced as one could hope.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 10:22:52 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10788
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #134 on: August 02, 2018, 05:05:12 am »
A 21' Booster-less SM6 would be a capable PAC-2 replacement though the Army seems to not be in any sort of hurry to replace the legacy missiles or fund a new launcher.

IIRC PAC-2 has a higher top speed, longer range, and a larger warhead than SM-2MR (RIM-66).  (Which is what SM-6 is albeit with a different seeker.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.