Register here

Author Topic: Standard Missile projects.  (Read 44892 times)

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #135 on: August 02, 2018, 05:45:42 am »
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.)

Most of the parameters seem to be very similar, but yes, PAC-3 is much faster than SM-2MR (Mach 5 vs Mach 3.5).  It's also rather heavier overall, as one much suspect since ti' considerably wider and a bit longer. 

Now, the question would be how a full-caliber SM-6 performs.  It's wider than Patriot and probably even heavier.  How they decide to balance the motor (for speed versus range) is kind of an unknown at this point.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10932
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #136 on: August 02, 2018, 06:04:33 am »
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.)

Most of the parameters seem to be very similar, but yes, PAC-3 is much faster than SM-2MR (Mach 5 vs Mach 3.5).  It's also rather heavier overall, as one much suspect since ti' considerably wider and a bit longer. 

Now, the question would be how a full-caliber SM-6 performs.  It's wider than Patriot and probably even heavier.  How they decide to balance the motor (for speed versus range) is kind of an unknown at this point.

You seem to be conflating PAC-2 and PAC-3.  (Looks like it could be a typo though.) The range I've seen associated with PAC-2 is about 100 miles.  Best I've ever seen with SM-2MR is about 80.  Also PAC-2 carries a bigger warhead, one that is optimized for killing ballistic missile warheads (though it is not hit-to-kill).  A "full caliber" SM-2 upper stage would probably require a new Patriot launcher or a reduction in missiles per trailer.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #137 on: August 02, 2018, 06:34:00 am »
Yeah, just a typo; I was looking at PAC-2 GEM numbers, which match what you cited.  But I've seen 90 nm range cited for SM-2MR (from the US Navy Fact File, so apparently official).  That's not a huge difference in real terms.  As far as warhead weight, I was surprised to see that the Mk 125 warhead is supposedly around 300 pounds, which is actually heaver than PAC-2 (185 pounds, roughly). 

I agree that full caliber SM-2MR would be a very heavy missile, and might well require modifying the Patriot launcher to beef up hydraulics and the suspension.  But it wouldn't be totally incompatible -- if you can quadpack 10-inch PAC-3s into the same space as a PAC-2 canister, you should be able to fit a single 21-inch missile in the same cross-section.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10932
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #138 on: August 02, 2018, 07:00:34 am »
Yeah, just a typo; I was looking at PAC-2 GEM numbers, which match what you cited.  But I've seen 90 nm range cited for SM-2MR (from the US Navy Fact File, so apparently official).  That's not a huge difference in real terms.  As far as warhead weight, I was surprised to see that the Mk 125 warhead is supposedly around 300 pounds, which is actually heaver than PAC-2 (185 pounds, roughly). 

I agree that full caliber SM-2MR would be a very heavy missile, and might well require modifying the Patriot launcher to beef up hydraulics and the suspension.  But it wouldn't be totally incompatible -- if you can quadpack 10-inch PAC-3s into the same space as a PAC-2 canister, you should be able to fit a single 21-inch missile in the same cross-section.

Hmm.  The information I'm finding has the Mk 125 warhead at 115kg (253lb).  (Though I've seen the 300 figure tied to SM-4 LASM.)  SM-6's warhead seems to be closer to 140lbs. (64kg) (Which could indicate that it has a higher performance than the latest RIM-66 since the warhead is roughly half the weight.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #139 on: August 02, 2018, 08:30:15 am »
Yeah, just a typo; I was looking at PAC-2 GEM numbers, which match what you cited.  But I've seen 90 nm range cited for SM-2MR (from the US Navy Fact File, so apparently official).  That's not a huge difference in real terms.  As far as warhead weight, I was surprised to see that the Mk 125 warhead is supposedly around 300 pounds, which is actually heaver than PAC-2 (185 pounds, roughly). 

I agree that full caliber SM-2MR would be a very heavy missile, and might well require modifying the Patriot launcher to beef up hydraulics and the suspension.  But it wouldn't be totally incompatible -- if you can quadpack 10-inch PAC-3s into the same space as a PAC-2 canister, you should be able to fit a single 21-inch missile in the same cross-section.

Hmm.  The information I'm finding has the Mk 125 warhead at 115kg (253lb).  (Though I've seen the 300 figure tied to SM-4 LASM.)  SM-6's warhead seems to be closer to 140lbs. (64kg) (Which could indicate that it has a higher performance than the latest RIM-66 since the warhead is roughly half the weight.)

Warhead weights are notoriously fuzzy things.  Could be looking at differences between explosive weight, warhead (explosive fill plus casing), and weight including the TDD.


Offline JakobS

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 12
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #140 on: August 05, 2018, 02:24:25 pm »
Wouldn't it be easier to just put a new seeker on PAC-2?

Seems to me it dosen't need more range or to be hit-to-kill. An active seeker would greatly improve it's ability to counter cruise missiles and smaller UAV's.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10932
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #141 on: August 05, 2018, 03:04:52 pm »
Yeah, just a typo; I was looking at PAC-2 GEM numbers, which match what you cited.  But I've seen 90 nm range cited for SM-2MR (from the US Navy Fact File, so apparently official).  That's not a huge difference in real terms.  As far as warhead weight, I was surprised to see that the Mk 125 warhead is supposedly around 300 pounds, which is actually heaver than PAC-2 (185 pounds, roughly). 

I agree that full caliber SM-2MR would be a very heavy missile, and might well require modifying the Patriot launcher to beef up hydraulics and the suspension.  But it wouldn't be totally incompatible -- if you can quadpack 10-inch PAC-3s into the same space as a PAC-2 canister, you should be able to fit a single 21-inch missile in the same cross-section.

Hmm.  The information I'm finding has the Mk 125 warhead at 115kg (253lb).  (Though I've seen the 300 figure tied to SM-4 LASM.)  SM-6's warhead seems to be closer to 140lbs. (64kg) (Which could indicate that it has a higher performance than the latest RIM-66 since the warhead is roughly half the weight.)

Warhead weights are notoriously fuzzy things.  Could be looking at differences between explosive weight, warhead (explosive fill plus casing), and weight including the TDD.

True.  There's also a "Mod 2" version of the Mk125, whatever that means.  And sometimes one reads so many things over the years trying to keep the details straight can be. . .problematic.  I was convinced the MIM-104 had a 285lb warhead (where I'd seen that God only knows) and that they'd also ported over the AIM-120 warhead to SM-6.   :-[
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1718
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #142 on: August 05, 2018, 05:16:19 pm »
Wouldn't it be easier to just put a new seeker on PAC-2?

Seems to me it dosen't need more range or to be hit-to-kill. An active seeker would greatly improve it's ability to counter cruise missiles and smaller UAV's.

Yes, it will be relatively easy and not very different from what the Navy is doing with the ESSM Block 2 or what was done on the SM-6. The Army could even borrow and scale the seeker as Raytheon has done it a few times now. This is very much a possibility given that it appears that PAC-2 integration does not seem to be a current requirement for LTAMDS (see below). That said, I'm sure they could do a lot better if they took a little more risk and explored a longer ranged AAW interceptor that would still offer the loadout advantage on the launcher side (like 8 interceptors pre launcher). Raytheon, could on their own explore the PAC-2 upgrade given that the MSE has now had its full rate production and will be more available really putting a lot of pressure on the big interceptor from an export perspective. If they don't keep the PAC-2 relevant I don't see it being a big export revenue earner for them in the coming decade.

Quote
The prototype LTAMDS radar must be interoperable with Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD) Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) command / control and PATRIOT Advanced Capability - 3 (PAC-3) class of interceptors, and meet the performance requirements as defined in the LTAMDS performance specification. The Government intends to use the DOTC OTA to potentially fund up to three (3) vendors for TMRR beginning in FY18 and beyond. The expected prototype deliverable quantity is one (1) demonstration report per technology selected. The feasibility of the prototype will be demonstrated and tested by the Contractor and witnessed by the Government.  LINK
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 05:19:03 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Sea Skimmer2

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 3
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #143 on: August 20, 2018, 11:19:05 pm »
Wouldn't it be easier to just put a new seeker on PAC-2?

Seems to me it dosen't need more range or to be hit-to-kill. An active seeker would greatly improve it's ability to counter cruise missiles and smaller UAV's.

Done done
https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-acm.htm

PACM standing for Patriot Anti Cruise Missile project cancelled around 2000. Got as far as two successful live firings, but it also cost over 1 million dollars to upgrade an existing missile with the active homing system, and said missile would not have the same service lifespan of a new missile. After PAC-3 proved able to hit low altitude targets the Army cancelled PACM and launched multiple programs under the heading of 'Low Cost Interceptor' to give MEADS something cheaper to fire, one of these was a new solid fuel missile and one was an interceptor version of the MALD decoy drone. Those efforts had several live firings as well, then got downscaled to solid fuel AMRAAM class missile that had some more basic tests...then the war in Iraq ate all the funding and SLAMRAAM itself was cancelled too.

10 years later the US Army is talking about a lower cost missile for Patriot again....


Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1718
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #144 on: August 24, 2018, 06:14:44 pm »
The various LCI and other related efforts are extensively documented in the various threads here. Fast forward to 2018, the Army now has a much better grasp on how best to approach low-cost RF seekers and they continue to invest down that road. I believe Lockheed has been working on affordable active phased array seekers under a couple of contracts from the Army. Similarly, Raytheon can probably do a lot better now given their scale with the AMRAAM, SM6, possibly SM2 Active and the ESSM Block 2. There is volume and scale there. 
« Last Edit: August 25, 2018, 09:43:43 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: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #145 on: September 11, 2018, 01:25:43 pm »
Sort of an old idea (the patent is from 1994) but I've never seen art for it before.

Dual-Pack Canister for the Mk 41 VLS. 

The missile is not named in the patent, but at the time, they were talking about something derived from SM2MR minus the fins.  This one seems to be related to Block IIIB with the side-mounted IR seeker.


Offline Dilandu

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 16
  • I really should change my personal text
    • fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #146 on: October 12, 2018, 11:40:38 pm »
I wonder, was there any proposals to mate the AIM-54 active seeker head with SM-2ER missile body in 1970-1980s? After all, the "Sea Phoenix" was proposed, so the basic idea of active-seeker surface-to-air missile was around. `

Granted, the AIM-54 have an inch more diameter than RIM-67, so it may represent quite a few technical challenges.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10932
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #147 on: October 13, 2018, 05:31:35 am »
Sort of an old idea (the patent is from 1994) but I've never seen art for it before.

Dual-Pack Canister for the Mk 41 VLS. 

The missile is not named in the patent, but at the time, they were talking about something derived from SM2MR minus the fins.  This one seems to be related to Block IIIB with the side-mounted IR seeker.

Wish they gave dimensions of the "real" cell.  If they're able to stuff an ATACMs in there (or LRASM, which is also bigger than the released cell size) "22-in" is a bit on the low side.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sea Skimmer2

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 3
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #148 on: October 25, 2018, 08:22:47 am »
It's a 25.12in box including the canister walls. Which from the way some programs for bigger missiles have been worded, it sounds like it's feasible to reduce for some amount of extra money. Nothing a little extruded titanium can't solve.


Offline GWrecks

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • 無尾霊狐
Re: Standard Missile projects.
« Reply #149 on: November 27, 2018, 01:43:35 pm »
My professor worked in the Navy as part of missile development in the Cold War and mentioned something about a Standard Missile derivative with ramjet propulsion...I'm not sure what he means by this and I didn't want to ask further because I'm merely his student and asking about missiles in after-hours of a GD&T class seems a bit odd to me. Not to mention, a bunch of stuff he did is still under wraps today.

Does anyone know of such a project? I've known another person in the Navy and when I showed her the Submersible Nuclear Ramjet she told me that things about as bizarre were still being proposed into the 80s, but they were generally axed much more quickly. So if the ramjet version of the Standard missile was just something proposed but not part of a serious study I wouldn't be surprised.

EDIT: Silly me, I decided to search the board after I made this post...

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,466.msg230848.html#msg230848

It seems that there was an ASALM variant meant for Mk 41 VLS, which suggests to me that it may be the ramjet-propelled missile he's talking about. He never specifically said the missile itself was based upon the Standard, so he might have meant that it can be used in the same launcher (Mk 41 VLS) as a Standard Missile.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 03:48:10 pm by GWrecks »
↑↑↓↓LRLRBA