• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
35
Reaction score
38

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
826
Reaction score
447
AGM-88E/G, SM-6, SM-2 IIIC, MST...and then the mission specific LRASM and NSM from the new frigates and some of the LCS. It makes me wonder what niche they intend to fill with Increment-2. Since LRASM was adopted 'as is' from the DARPA program, I wonder if increment 2 is simply a competition to produce a similar weapon capability on a larger scale more custom tailored to the mission requirement.
 

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
35
Reaction score
38
AGM-88E/G, SM-6, SM-2 IIIC, MST...and then the mission specific LRASM and NSM from the new frigates and some of the LCS. It makes me wonder what niche they intend to fill with Increment-2. Since LRASM was adopted 'as is' from the DARPA program, I wonder if increment 2 is simply a competition to produce a similar weapon capability on a larger scale more custom tailored to the mission requirement.

It's certainly interesting and an indication the US Navy is taking the large and growing Chinese fleet seriously.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
162
Reaction score
59
Wasn’t the old Incr2 for a surface launched weapon? Another air launched weapon seems redundant. At some point they should probably adopt a hypersonic weapon but I’d just buy into the USAFs HACM for that.

The NG-LAW focused on the land attack component. Inc 2. evolved into an AL application. The Navy is trying to also develop a hypersonic weapon for its strike fighter fleet. The problem is that the AFRL-DARPA HAWC systems (LM and Raytheon) are around 20 ft. in length thus about 5 ft longer than what the AC weapon elevators can accommodate. Air Force's HACM is likely going to be derived from one of them. The Navy has been trying to figure out how to cut their length by about 25% so if one of its new hypersonic efforts bear fruit or look promising then I'm sure that solution would be looked at for this as well.

Likely the programmatic cover to buy JSM?

Two years to develop preliminary designs and 4 year to develop what they down select seems to indicate a clean sheet approach. The JSM is shorter ranged than the LRASM and will be a step backwards in just about every possible way.
And also a lot lighter.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,350
Reaction score
479
That may be less important given that both the F-18 SH and the F-35C are capable of carrying the LRASM externally. The AARGM-ER and JSOW exists for IWB compliant ASuW so I don't think the Navy would care much for the JSM at this time. The NSM/JSM make some sense for the MH-60 fleet and as a weapon for its eventual replacement. perhaps also for MQ-25 down the road. But for the LRASM follow-on requirement, difficult to see the Navy going backwards in capability than what it has with LRASM and what it can get on that system over time (via just buying into the JASSM-XR and other enhancements).
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,692
Reaction score
1,903
AGM-88E/G, SM-6, SM-2 IIIC, MST...and then the mission specific LRASM and NSM from the new frigates and some of the LCS. It makes me wonder what niche they intend to fill with Increment-2. Since LRASM was adopted 'as is' from the DARPA program, I wonder if increment 2 is simply a competition to produce a similar weapon capability on a larger scale more custom tailored to the mission requirement.

Apparently now to be all of the LCS except the first four (which are clearly going away as soon as they can justify it)

They've done an LRASM Increment 1.1, which is a more tailored version. This really does seems (Now that I've read up) to be something different. Maybe it's a return to something supersonic like LRASM-B?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,350
Reaction score
479
AGM-88E/G, SM-6, SM-2 IIIC, MST...and then the mission specific LRASM and NSM from the new frigates and some of the LCS. It makes me wonder what niche they intend to fill with Increment-2. Since LRASM was adopted 'as is' from the DARPA program, I wonder if increment 2 is simply a competition to produce a similar weapon capability on a larger scale more custom tailored to the mission requirement.

Apparently now to be all of the LCS except the first four (which are clearly going away as soon as they can justify it)

They've done an LRASM Increment 1.1, which is a more tailored version. This really does seems (Now that I've read up) to be something different. Maybe it's a return to something supersonic like LRASM-B?

It would seem logical for them to go after some of the longer term capability given the LRASM was, to some extent, an interim capability. But we would need to see this play out in next budget. It could also evolve into something like a LRASM++ feeding off some of the JASSM RDT&E funding the AF has been putting into that system. I'm leaning for a clean sheet program though given they want it to be competitive and build on the Increment 1. Wondering whether scramjets have advanced to a point where they can get a seeker integrated sub 20 ft. length Mach 5+ weapon to cost in the $3-5 Million a shot. That would be quite a high risk effort but then they are also giving themselves 2+4 years to begin testing some initial hardware.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
however SM-2 BlockIIIC would be a candidate - it uses the SM-6 terminal homing.
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

With SM-6 in anti-ship mode, you are counting primarily on the kinetic energy at impact, which should be considerable.

The Navy's tested that but has not made the results public. They don't seem to have abandoned the idea of using SM-6 in anti-ship mode. Read into that what you will.

A one ton weapon hitting at supersonic speed in a steep dive should ensure that a destroyer sized target never plays the violin again, even if it fails to sink it. I believe USS Ruben James was sunk as a an SM-6 target, so clearly it is adequate for frigate sized targets.
Where the hell do you get "one ton"? It doesn't even weigh that at launch, and most of it's weight is fuel, which will be gone.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,582
Reaction score
2,544
Wondering whether scramjets have advanced to a point where they can get a seeker integrated sub 20 ft. length Mach 5+ weapon to cost in the $3-5 Million a shot. That would be quite a high risk effort but then they are also giving themselves 2+4 years to begin testing some initial hardware.
Offset sensors? (sat)
 
D

Deleted member 18851

Guest
Wondering whether scramjets have advanced to a point where they can get a seeker integrated sub 20 ft. length Mach 5+ weapon to cost in the $3-5 Million a shot. That would be quite a high risk effort but then they are also giving themselves 2+4 years to begin testing some initial hardware.
Offset sensors? (sat)
I'd be interested to know if the kinetic heating causes any signal degradation, similar to the telemetry blackout during reentry.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
826
Reaction score
447
however SM-2 BlockIIIC would be a candidate - it uses the SM-6 terminal homing.
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

With SM-6 in anti-ship mode, you are counting primarily on the kinetic energy at impact, which should be considerable.

The Navy's tested that but has not made the results public. They don't seem to have abandoned the idea of using SM-6 in anti-ship mode. Read into that what you will.

A one ton weapon hitting at supersonic speed in a steep dive should ensure that a destroyer sized target never plays the violin again, even if it fails to sink it. I believe USS Ruben James was sunk as a an SM-6 target, so clearly it is adequate for frigate sized targets.
Where the hell do you get "one ton"? It doesn't even weigh that at launch, and most of it's weight is fuel, which will be gone.

Duly noted. It seems to function perfectly well as a ship killer none the less based on its live fire test.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
459
Reaction score
218
however SM-2 BlockIIIC would be a candidate - it uses the SM-6 terminal homing.
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

With SM-6 in anti-ship mode, you are counting primarily on the kinetic energy at impact, which should be considerable.

The Navy's tested that but has not made the results public. They don't seem to have abandoned the idea of using SM-6 in anti-ship mode. Read into that what you will.

A one ton weapon hitting at supersonic speed in a steep dive should ensure that a destroyer sized target never plays the violin again, even if it fails to sink it. I believe USS Ruben James was sunk as a an SM-6 target, so clearly it is adequate for frigate sized targets.
Where the hell do you get "one ton"? It doesn't even weigh that at launch, and most of it's weight is fuel, which will be gone.

Duly noted. It seems to function perfectly well as a ship killer none the less based on its live fire test.
Can SM-6 acquire surface ship with its own terminal seeker? Or does it rely on SARH and datalink in anti surface mode
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
826
Reaction score
447
My understanding is that it accepts mid course guidance updates like it would in surface to air mode but that terminal guidance comes from the active radar seeker head. SM-6, unlike most of the SM-2 family, uses active homing not SARH.

Edit: SM-6 might have an additional SARH mode; I think ESSM block 2 does. But presumably you would just use an SM-2 if you had line of site to the target.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
459
Reaction score
218
My understanding is that it accepts mid course guidance updates like it would in surface to air mode but that terminal guidance comes from the active radar seeker head. SM-6, unlike most of the SM-2 family, uses active homing not SARH.
I know SM-6 has an active seeker, but I'm not sure if its active seeker can acquire surface target like a ship.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,692
Reaction score
1,903
My understanding is that it accepts mid course guidance updates like it would in surface to air mode but that terminal guidance comes from the active radar seeker head. SM-6, unlike most of the SM-2 family, uses active homing not SARH.

Edit: SM-6 might have an additional SARH mode; I think ESSM block 2 does. But presumably you would just use an SM-2 if you had line of site to the target.

SM-6 does indeed retain the SARH mode of earlier SMs. But SARH is definitely not being used in the long-range anti-surface mode.

In recent articles about an SM-6 engagement in an exercise, the Navy talked about how the entire remote targeting kill chain was passive (against an emitting target) and carried out in excess of 200 miles, well beyond own-ship radar range of the shooter. Whether the missile itself was passive in the endgame is unclear. I think this is something the Navy is being deliberately obscure about -- it's not obvious whether SM-6 anti-surface mode is actually using the active seeker or just relying on high-precision GPS and target location updates from external sensors. (SM-6 can also engage land targets, which is definitely GPS-based).

Looking down at targets in sea clutter from high angles has historically been a really hard problem for radar, but SM-6 supposedly does well enough in look-down against cruise missiles, which is a similar challenge.

I keep remembering that Standard was considered as a dedicated anti-ship missile (RGM-66F) in the early 1970s, when Harpoon was first being developed. The idea then was for the missile to fly a ballistic trajectory (like SM-6) and use a coherent monopulse active radar seeker to find ship targets in surface clutter. It actually worked, but the Navy powers that be thought Harpoon was a better solution at the time (more range and lower altitude, meaning less response time). Given that RGM-66F would have had much less range and no dual-mode capability, they were probably correct ... at the time.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
however SM-2 BlockIIIC would be a candidate - it uses the SM-6 terminal homing.
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

With SM-6 in anti-ship mode, you are counting primarily on the kinetic energy at impact, which should be considerable.

The Navy's tested that but has not made the results public. They don't seem to have abandoned the idea of using SM-6 in anti-ship mode. Read into that what you will.

A one ton weapon hitting at supersonic speed in a steep dive should ensure that a destroyer sized target never plays the violin again, even if it fails to sink it. I believe USS Ruben James was sunk as a an SM-6 target, so clearly it is adequate for frigate sized targets.
Where the hell do you get "one ton"? It doesn't even weigh that at launch, and most of it's weight is fuel, which will be gone.

Duly noted. It seems to function perfectly well as a ship killer none the less based on its live fire test.
Really? You've seen the video?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
My understanding is that it accepts mid course guidance updates like it would in surface to air mode but that terminal guidance comes from the active radar seeker head. SM-6, unlike most of the SM-2 family, uses active homing not SARH.

Edit: SM-6 might have an additional SARH mode; I think ESSM block 2 does. But presumably you would just use an SM-2 if you had line of site to the target.

SM-6 does indeed retain the SARH mode of earlier SMs.
Thought the big deal of SM-6 was that it replaced that with the active seeker from AIM-120? "It is an extended range active missile (ERAM) that uses the sophisticated signal processing and guidance technologies of the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile)."

SM-6_Missile_Profile.png


Interesting stat from Raytheon's site:

"The SM-6 missile is a key component of the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air mission and is deployable on 60 surface ships. Raytheon Technologies has delivered more than 500 SM-6 missiles to the Navy. Final assembly of the missile takes place at the company’s production facility at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama."
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,692
Reaction score
1,903
Thought the big deal of SM-6 was that it replaced that with the active seeker from AIM-120?

Yes, it does use an AMRAAM-derived active seeker. That doesn't mean it can't use SARH guidance if needed.


• The SM-6 seeker and terminal guidance electronics derive from technology developed in the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile program.
• SM-6 retains the legacy Standard Missile semi-active radar homing capability.
• SM-6 receives midcourse flight control from the Aegis Weapon System (AWS) via ship’s radar; terminal flight control is autonomous via the missile’s active seeker or supported by the AWS via the ship’s illuminator
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
Thought the big deal of SM-6 was that it replaced that with the active seeker from AIM-120?

Yes, it does use an AMRAAM-derived active seeker. That doesn't mean it can't use SARH guidance if needed.


• The SM-6 seeker and terminal guidance electronics derive from technology developed in the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile program.
• SM-6 retains the legacy Standard Missile semi-active radar homing capability.
• SM-6 receives midcourse flight control from the Aegis Weapon System (AWS) via ship’s radar; terminal flight control is autonomous via the missile’s active seeker or supported by the AWS via the ship’s illuminator
Right. Thought you were saying it was SARH only.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
826
Reaction score
447
however SM-2 BlockIIIC would be a candidate - it uses the SM-6 terminal homing.
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

With SM-6 in anti-ship mode, you are counting primarily on the kinetic energy at impact, which should be considerable.

The Navy's tested that but has not made the results public. They don't seem to have abandoned the idea of using SM-6 in anti-ship mode. Read into that what you will.

A one ton weapon hitting at supersonic speed in a steep dive should ensure that a destroyer sized target never plays the violin again, even if it fails to sink it. I believe USS Ruben James was sunk as a an SM-6 target, so clearly it is adequate for frigate sized targets.
Where the hell do you get "one ton"? It doesn't even weigh that at launch, and most of it's weight is fuel, which will be gone.

Duly noted. It seems to function perfectly well as a ship killer none the less based on its live fire test.
Really? You've seen the video?

The Reuben James, a frigate sized target, was sunk. That would lead me to believe that a destroyer sized target would still have a bad day. I’m not sure what your objection is.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,692
Reaction score
1,903
Really? You've seen the video?

Not video, but we do have multiple reports that they sank Reuben James (FFG-57) in an SM-6 test back in 2016 (confirmed by the Naval Vessel Register entry that lists her disposed of in a Fleet Training Exercise).

Now, SINKEXes like that are fraught -- we don't always know whether actual live damage control could have saved a SINEXed ship, for example, nor do we know whether active defenses could have prevented the hit. But we do have reason to believe that an SM-6 hit a frigate-sized ship and resulted in it sinking. Which certainly suggests that several hundred pounds of missile hitting more or less vertically at multiple Mach performed about as one would expect. I'd expect a decent-sized hole blown through the bottom of the hull, which is likely to be at least a mission kill.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
Even seeing video (I've had a video of SM-1 sinking a ship on my youtube channel for years) it's difficult not to be skeptical. SM-1/2/6 is fairly small as far as antiship missiles go. It's got a relatively tiny warhead. Yes, it goes fast (though by the time it's to the ship it's speed would have fallen considerably as it's coasting) but there are missiles that hit faster with larger warheads (Brahmos for instance to say nothing of Zircon). Also, as it's coming in in a roughly ballistic trajectory, with no terminal maneuvering, how susceptible is it to interception? PAC-3 would shoot those things down all day long. Antiship SM-6 might be a useful secondary capability but I certainly wouldn't want to depend on it for my primary antiship weapon.


71z+VPTzSnL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,350
Reaction score
479
The SM-6 1B addresses the warhead side of things which is a pretty good indication of where the SM-6 1A lacked given that the US Navy wanted to use the R&D $$ to beefing up that side of the SM-6 despite adding range and speed to the missile (speed in particular should increase the lethality even with the same warhead). The new warhead, larger diameter motor, the faster speed and improved thermals should allow the 1B to be a lot more optimized both in terms of lethality but also survivability (non-ballistic profiles).
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
The SM-6 1B addresses the warhead side of things which is a pretty good indication of where the SM-6 1A lacked given that the US Navy wanted to use the R&D $$ to beefing up that side of the SM-6 despite adding range and speed to the missile (speed in particular should increase the lethality even with the same warhead). The new warhead, larger diameter motor, the faster speed and improved thermals should allow the 1B to be a lot more optimized both in terms of lethality but also survivability (non-ballistic profiles).
Is the 1B the full-caliber SM-6?
 

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
35
Reaction score
38
The SM-6 1B addresses the warhead side of things which is a pretty good indication of where the SM-6 1A lacked given that the US Navy wanted to use the R&D $$ to beefing up that side of the SM-6 despite adding range and speed to the missile (speed in particular should increase the lethality even with the same warhead). The new warhead, larger diameter motor, the faster speed and improved thermals should allow the 1B to be a lot more optimized both in terms of lethality but also survivability (non-ballistic profiles).
Is the 1B the full-caliber SM-6?

If you are asking what I think you are asking the answer is yes.

The nose will retain the bullet-like shape but the warhead is larger.

The rocket motor will be 21" in diameter possibly leveraged from the SM3 Block IIA.

The thing should be a barn burner with greater speed, range and warhead than the SM6 Block IA.

It will be a formidable weapon.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,350
Reaction score
479
The SM-6 1B addresses the warhead side of things which is a pretty good indication of where the SM-6 1A lacked given that the US Navy wanted to use the R&D $$ to beefing up that side of the SM-6 despite adding range and speed to the missile (speed in particular should increase the lethality even with the same warhead). The new warhead, larger diameter motor, the faster speed and improved thermals should allow the 1B to be a lot more optimized both in terms of lethality but also survivability (non-ballistic profiles).
Is the 1B the full-caliber SM-6?

Yes. 21" SRM, plus a new warhead (though the initial test articles will probably reuse the SM-6 1A warhead), and TPS to allow for speeds in excess of Mach 5.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
459
Reaction score
218
My understanding is that it accepts mid course guidance updates like it would in surface to air mode but that terminal guidance comes from the active radar seeker head. SM-6, unlike most of the SM-2 family, uses active homing not SARH.

Edit: SM-6 might have an additional SARH mode; I think ESSM block 2 does. But presumably you would just use an SM-2 if you had line of site to the target.

SM-6 does indeed retain the SARH mode of earlier SMs. But SARH is definitely not being used in the long-range anti-surface mode.

In recent articles about an SM-6 engagement in an exercise, the Navy talked about how the entire remote targeting kill chain was passive (against an emitting target) and carried out in excess of 200 miles, well beyond own-ship radar range of the shooter. Whether the missile itself was passive in the endgame is unclear. I think this is something the Navy is being deliberately obscure about -- it's not obvious whether SM-6 anti-surface mode is actually using the active seeker or just relying on high-precision GPS and target location updates from external sensors. (SM-6 can also engage land targets, which is definitely GPS-based).

Looking down at targets in sea clutter from high angles has historically been a really hard problem for radar, but SM-6 supposedly does well enough in look-down against cruise missiles, which is a similar challenge.

I keep remembering that Standard was considered as a dedicated anti-ship missile (RGM-66F) in the early 1970s, when Harpoon was first being developed. The idea then was for the missile to fly a ballistic trajectory (like SM-6) and use a coherent monopulse active radar seeker to find ship targets in surface clutter. It actually worked, but the Navy powers that be thought Harpoon was a better solution at the time (more range and lower altitude, meaning less response time). Given that RGM-66F would have had much less range and no dual-mode capability, they were probably correct ... at the time.

I found this,
So if I understand correctly, they used some sensor to identify surface target
then transfer data back to the ship by link 16? (or does SM-6 compatible with link 16?)
Did they make some modification in software so that the terminal seeker of SM-6 can engage surface target
Navy engineers are working to bring new aircraft sensors and new weapons into the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) architecture, with near-term goals of bringing in the F-35’s radio frequency (RF) sensor and the anti-surface variant of the Standard Missile-6.

In a January test, the Navy proved that the new SM-6 Block I anti-surface missile worked, but it also proved that NIFC-CA – which, as its name implies, was engineered to go after fast-moving air threats – could be adjusted to counter surface threats too.

Whereas a normal NIFC-CA anti-air engagement might use an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye as the sensor that finds a target and then use the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) as the link to bring targeting data to the ship that ultimately fires a weapon, the anti-surface technology demonstration required some modifications. A different sensor was needed to identify surface targets, and that sensor could not use CEC, meaning the whole engagement relied instead on Link-16, Anant Patel, major program manager for future combat systems in the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems, told USNI News in an interview this month.

Patel did not name the sensor used in the demonstration, but the Navy’s P-8A Poseidon, which is equipped with Link-16, or eventually the unmanned MQ-4C Triton would be ideally suited for the job. Patel said NIFC-CA is sensor-agnostic, as long as the sensor meets quality of service standards. But finding weapons that can hit large but slow-moving targets has its challenges.

“When things go slower, it’s easier” to track them, he said.
“But it has its own complexity also. Some of our weapons are not designed to look for slow targets, so we have to do some analysis and make sure we capture that. Also, if you look at SM-6, it’s more an anti-air weapon, so the capability’s designed to counter fast-moving targets, and then to go against this slow-moving target we had to make sure we can meet that requirement.”


Some minor modifications were made to the Aegis Combat System Baseline 9 to accept the data from the new sensor, but Patel said the culmination of this work – a test in January at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii – was a successful hit against a surface target, the decommissioned frigate Reuben James (FFG-57). This success is an early step in fielding a bigger All Domain Offensive Surface Warfare Capability
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
826
Reaction score
447
I would think SM-6 likely doesn’t have the same trajectory as SM-1. SM-1 AFAIK was SARH all the way. A missile brought onto its target with mid course updates and/or an INS guidance phase should be able to arrive almost directly over its target and tip over like a Kh-22. I don’t know that is the case but I don’t see why such a flight profile would be more than a software change, and it would have a couple advantages in terms of terminal effect and defenses. I think the SAM mode is similar - a long fairly flat run out after a high lofted trajectory and then a dive onto the target. For a surface target that effectively has no motion, I don’t see why the terminal dive couldn’t be as steep as the missile body could sustain.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
459
Reaction score
218
I would think SM-6 likely doesn’t have the same trajectory as SM-1. SM-1 AFAIK was SARH all the way. A missile brought onto its target with mid course updates and/or an INS guidance phase should be able to arrive almost directly over its target and tip over like a Kh-22. I don’t know that is the case but I don’t see why such a flight profile would be more than a software change, and it would have a couple advantages in terms of terminal effect and defenses. I think the SAM mode is similar - a long fairly flat run out after a high lofted trajectory and then a dive onto the target. For a surface target that effectively has no motion, I don’t see why the terminal dive couldn’t be as steep as the missile body could sustain.
Isn't that exactly the trajectory like?
Screen-Shot-2016-06-22-at-6.16.39-PM.png
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
826
Reaction score
447
The graphics suggest such a flight path but I have no hard information. I would expect SM-1 as a SARH only missile to have a much more direct flight to the target-it needed to cue and slew to gather the radar reflection from what I understand.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
301
Reaction score
391
The graphics suggest such a flight path but I have no hard information. I would expect SM-1 as a SARH only missile to have a much more direct flight to the target-it needed to cue and slew to gather the radar reflection from what I understand.
Reading up on Talos' surface-surface mode had much the same drawbacks: limited by the horizon and the ships illuminators
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
459
Reaction score
218
SM-6 for Surface Attack:

This most recent development comes on the heels of a successful test last year where an SM-6 destroyed and sank a surface ship target off the coast of Hawaii, providing additional strategic relevance for a new offensive use of a missile previous oriented toward air and ballistic missile defense, Raytheon and Navy officials said.

"The anti-surface warfare test proved that SM-6 could attack a surface ship. It destroyed a Perry-class fast Frigate. The big deal for us is that the SM-6 proved its capability with sea targets," Campisi said.

The test, which took place at Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii, involved the rare event of actual destruction and sinking of a decommissioned or retired Navy ship.

In this instance he firing of the SM-6 was designed to analyze new software configurations on the missile, giving it an ability to track and destroy targets on the surface of the water - as opposed to its typical use of hitting or intercepting incoming enemy fire from the air above a ship or near the earth's atmosphere as a ballistic missile defense weapon.

Using the SM-6 as an offensive weapon against surface targets is a new application for the Navy, bringing another kind of surface fire-power to the fleet. The SM-6 is larger than the SM-3 interceptor and is designed to destroy closer-in air targets. However, this test launches the ability for the SM-6 to function in an additional capacity as an offensive weapon against a wide range of surface targets.

"The entire system was tested. It performed exactly as we expected and the result more than met our expectations. We added to the sea-based terminal capability (ballistic missile defense) and anti-air defense," Campisi added. "In effect, this will allow the fleet to attack ships with offensive capability and prove out the flip side of area defense -- which is distributed lethality."
 

trose213

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
162
Reaction score
59
however SM-2 BlockIIIC would be a candidate - it uses the SM-6 terminal homing.
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

With SM-6 in anti-ship mode, you are counting primarily on the kinetic energy at impact, which should be considerable.

The Navy's tested that but has not made the results public. They don't seem to have abandoned the idea of using SM-6 in anti-ship mode. Read into that what you will.

A one ton weapon hitting at supersonic speed in a steep dive should ensure that a destroyer sized target never plays the violin again, even if it fails to sink it. I believe USS Ruben James was sunk as a an SM-6 target, so clearly it is adequate for frigate sized targets.
Where the hell do you get "one ton"? It doesn't even weigh that at launch, and most of it's weight is fuel, which will be gone.

Duly noted. It seems to function perfectly well as a ship killer none the less based on its live fire test.
Really? You've seen the video?

The Reuben James, a frigate sized target, was sunk. That would lead me to believe that a destroyer sized target would still have a bad day. I’m not sure what your objection is.

The AMRAAM seeker should be able to distinguish individual parts of a ship.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,888
Reaction score
2,165
It also has CEC capability. If you can see it SM-6 can hit it.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,350
Reaction score
479
The AMRAAM seeker should be able to distinguish individual parts of a ship.
Probably not, AMRAAM seeker is designed to engage quick moving target and likely just filter the ship out

They have clearly invested in this capability and not just put it out there as an afterthought. Quite logical to expect them to have invested $$ into making enhancements and adding the targeting modes required from the guidance system to make the weapon effective. It's not like they are swapping out an AMRAAM seeker and putting it into an SM-6 without enhancements.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
826
Reaction score
447
A ship on the sea probably would filter out of a normal air to air radar mode and analysis. Low speed alone would be enough. Apparently SM-6 had sufficient software flexibility that other criteria could be used...though I always wondered what high altitude cruise missiles used as a metric for ships. Presumably a slightly larger amplitude of return at a specific range? I wish I had studied electrical engineering.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
459
Reaction score
218
The AMRAAM seeker should be able to distinguish individual parts of a ship.
Probably not, AMRAAM seeker is designed to engage quick moving target and likely just filter the ship out

They have clearly invested in this capability and not just put it out there as an afterthought. Quite logical to expect them to have invested $$ into making enhancements and adding the targeting modes required from the guidance system to make the weapon effective. It's not like they are swapping out an AMRAAM seeker and putting it into an SM-6 without enhancements.
I know they don't just stick an AMRAAM seeker on SM-6
But wasn't the anti surface mode is sort of an after thought?, at wasn't available on SM-6 block I apparently
asurwaeaqrx.jpeg

SM-6.PNG

sm-6iA.PNG
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top