1980s USN SAMs

that_person

that_person

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
25 May 2021
Messages
244
Reaction score
402
Good day peoples of the internet

A couple nights ago I was looking through my copy of Norman Polmar’s Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (14th Edition), which I have recently learned was published in 1987, NOT 1986 as I have previously said.

Looking through the Weapons chapter, there are several things that jump out at me. The purpose of this particular thread is to detail them.
———————————————————
First up on our list is the Long-Range Dual Mode Missile, or LDRMM for short. There is this short paragraph describing it, but nothing in detail:

It doesn’t real say much, other than it’s a cancelled long-range SAM, that could attack all kinds of airborne targets. This link here;

books.google.com

Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1979

books.google.com

tells us the program dates back to at least 1978, and was developed in conjunction/based off the USAF’s ASALM cruise missile. I have also found something saying it was also supposed to be able to attack ships and land targets, found here;


but I have not been able to confirm this in any way, I would take it with a grain of salt.

In all, this is an interesting project that probably never left the archives.

Note: I believe this thread here is referencing the same project: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/dual-range-missile.3926/
———————————————————
Moving on
———————————————————
This is where things get even fussier. The book has these brief 2 paragraphs on the SM-3 and something called the SM-4/SM-2 ER Block V. This is odd for 4 reasons:

1. The SM-3 is a BMD missile that has just recently entered service.

2. My book was published in 1987.

3. Wikipedia has nothing on either the SM-4 or SM-2 ER Block V. This could just be me being ignorant.

4. What the hell is “Thor”, and why do I suddenly want to know more?
———————————————————
The only conclusions I can draw are:

1. There are 2 SM-3 programs, the modern-day BMD missile, and a 1980s long-range conventional SAM, that was likely cancelled sometime around 1989.

2. There is a cancelled long-range SM-2 variant (with even more range than the SM-2 ER itself) called the SM-4 and SM-2 ER Block V. This was likely also cancelled around 1989.

3. Thor is some other long-range SAM, that I have yet to find anything else on.
———————————————————
This wraps up my post. I know it’s not anything spectacular, but it’s still interesting none-the-less, and figured it was worth posting - the more information on the web, the better. I am very curious to learn more about these concepts, especially Thor. If anyone has any further info, please, do share.

PS: Apologies for the images not being properly embedded. I’m doing this on mobile.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 64
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 63
@that_person

Trying to break this down, because it's a bit confusing (not your fault; USN programs that didn't reach Program of Record status can be really opaque and Standard Missile designations are a notorious mess).

In his annual Proceedings column, "U. S. Naval Weapons and Combat Systems Development in 1985" Norman Friedman wrote about the various ideas that are being talked about in Polmar's book.


https://www.scribd.com/doc/260716927/Friedman-Norman-1986-112-5-999-pdf

Edit: I forgot that this is a USNI member only link, and even if you are a member it may not work if you don't come in from the USNI site first.

The link to the article (also for members) is here.

U. S. Naval Weapons and Combat Systems Development in 1985

This html arti
www.usni.org www.usni.org

Since the late 1970s, the Navy has examined proposals for very long range ship-launched missiles. Guidance always has been the primary limitation, and proposals have included guidance by forward aircraft (SLAT or Forward Pass) and home-on-jam against stand-off jammers. Longer range requires a much larger missile, which is why the existing Mark 26 launcher can accommodate something significantly larger than an SM-2. The vertical launcher is larger yet. One of the outer air battle competitors, Martin Marietta, proposed to stuff it with a big rocket-ramjet based on its earlier advanced strategic air launched missile (ASALM), and similar, at least in outline, to its new supersonic low-altitude target.

Guidance is still a question. The alternative to a new very-long-range missile is an extended-range version of the existing SM-2, unofficially designated SM-3. In 1985 General Dynamics displayed an SM-2 with a short, fat booster, in effect a successor to the existing SM-2(ER), which could be fired rapidly from a vertical launcher rather than from the relatively cumbersome Mark 10. Other manufacturers have demonstrated ramjets and multi-pulse rocket motors, which would add range to a missile. Satellite radars were prominent among the very-long-range range sensors in 1984, but they are extremely expensive and may drop out of any affordable outer air battle system.
Click to expand...

The missile from Martin Marietta is LRDMM. There's a picture and description of LRDMM in the ASALM thead below (though it isn't called LRDMM).

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/asalm.466/

And note that SM-3 was an unofficial designation for the missile that eventually became SM-2 Block IV.

SM-4 may have been a similar unofficial designation for a further improved SM. This might also have been called "SM-2 ER Block V," following on the pattern of SM2 Block IV.

(SM-4 was later reused for the Land-Attack Standard Missile and SM-5 was for another try at an outer air battle missile before SM-6).

Parenthetically, LRDMM is not the same as the Dual-Range Missile. DRM was a strictly air-launched weapon that was supposed to combine the functions of short-range missiles like Sidewinder with longer-ranged ones like AMRAAM.
 
Last edited:
@TomS

Okay, that makes a whole lot more sense. I still can’t understand why the Navy changes names of things like 3 times. It’s very hard to piece together 40 years later :p Kudos for the picture of the LRDMM!
 
that_person said:
. I still can’t understand why the Navy changes names of things like 3 times.
Click to expand...

In some ways it's just how the bureaucracy rolls. And Congress definitely played a role.

In this case, SM-3 was used because the Navy thought it would be a substantially new missile rather than an adaptation of SM-2. However, Congress pushed a developed SM-2 instead. Here's a little excerpt from a 1984 Congressional Q&A:

SM 3 Missile V SM 2 Derivative

QUESTION For a new air defense missile for its Outer Air Battle Mission the Navy would prefer an entirely new SM 3 Development Program rather than a derivative of the SM 2 called SM 2 Block III Both authorization bills favor the SM 2 derivative. How would this alter your budget request?

ANSWER The Navy has identified the need for a surface launched missile capable of very long range intercepts to perform in the Outer Air Battle. The authorization bills limiting this missile development to a derivative of SM 2 are too restrictive. Studies have shown that SM 2 does not have the growth potential to perform in the Outer Air Battle. However, initiation of either development program in FY 1984 would require the same RDT & E N in FY 1984.

QUESTION Please provide the Committee with justifications and funding requirements for the SM 2 derivative

ANSWER Because the Navy is directing its efforts towards a long range surface launch missile for the Outer Air Battle funding requirements have not been developed for SM 2 Block III
Click to expand...

And a bit further down:

PHOENIX REPLACEMENT

QUESTION Could the Navy really afford two costly ongoing R & D programs for the Outer Air Battle, both the SM-3 and the Phoenix follow on? Shouldn't it prioritize and choose one new program or the other?

ANSWER The Soviet threat to maritime forces continues to grow. Particularly stressing are the long-range BACKFIRE and potential follow-on aircraft. Mission analysis and studies have concluded that follow-on developments to both Phoenix and SM-2 Block II STANDARD Missiles are required to meet this increasing threat. The Navy is actively investigating technologies to support both but there has been no commitment to full scale development of either follow-on missile project. The Phoenix follow-on is being examined through the Advanced Common Intercept Missile Demonstration program. The object is to determine with the help of industry if a lighter weight and longer range air-to-air missile can be developed to improve F-14 firepower. Potential applicability to F/A-18 and A- 6 aircraft is also being explored. The technologies required for the SM-2 Block II follow on are being examined under the SM-3 program This weapon will take full advantage of the AEGIS combat system, deploy from the Vertical Launch System, and have significantly increased range and performance. Extensive studies and technology development options are being explored to refine performance and design definitions. Included in this program are multi-mode guidance and propulsion technology exploration to support a missile of this type.
Click to expand...

In the end, SM-2 Block III became the SM-2MR development pathway (Block III [in service 1988], followed by IIIA [1991], IIIB [1998], and IIIC [in development 2017]) and the new ER missile development pathway for SM-2 became SM-2 Block IV instead.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom