- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 21,085
- Reaction score
- 19,492
Looks like a generic SM-2/6 video. Or did you mean more specifically?What is this video supposed to be about?
Looks like a generic SM-2/6 video. Or did you mean more specifically?What is this video supposed to be about?
I wonder if this is the 22inch SMASH!22 motor mentioned here:
I wonder if this is the 22inch SMASH!22 motor mentioned here:
Post#210
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/raytheon-rim-161-sm-3-news-development.24767/post-859931
So what is the SMASH!22 for? Or is it just a demonstrator/R&D?Nope. This one looks to match the shape of the existing 21-inch Mk 72. It is shorter than the SMASH motor and has a rounded front end.
So what is the SMASH!22 for? Or is it just a demonstrator/R&D?
Yes it was a proof of concept(s)/ technology demonstrators tho if performance is right it doesn't seem unlikely to come in the futureIt looks to be a proof of concept rather than a specific application.
Because its part of the SMART Demo programmYes it was a proof of concept(s)/ technology demonstrators tho if performance is right it doesn't seem unlikely to come in the future
Thought there was talk of the 21" SM-6 getting cancelled?Northrop Grumman Corporation was awarded a $94.3 million contract by the U.S. Navy to develop and qualify a new 21-inch diameter second-stage solid rocket motor (SSRM) for the Navy’s extended-range missile programs to deter and defeat fast-moving air, surface and hypersonic threats.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-for-second-stage-solid-rocket-motor-program/
Sounds like this could be going on the SM-3/6 and GPI.
Tho the engine was still developted independent of the haltThought there was talk of the 21" SM-6 getting cancelled?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...hypersonic-program-halted-in-strategic-pause/Tho the engine was still developted independent of the halt
Raytheon entered into five landmark framework agreements with the U.S. Department of War to significantly increase production capacity and speed deliveries of Land Attack and Maritime Strike variants of Tomahawk, AMRAAM missiles, Standard Missile-3 Block IB interceptors (SM-3 IB), Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptors (SM-3 IIA), and Standard Missile-6 (SM-6).
Stated in the Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, the United States Navy desires funds required to purchase 136 RIM-161D Standard Missile 3 Block IIAs (SM-3IIA) and 540 RIM-174 Standard Missile 6s (SM-6), for a total of 676 Standard Missile series naval interceptors.
This first-of-type integration, which successfully fired an SM-2 interceptor missile, offers an alternative to buying expensive Patriot-type air defense systems, for example.
Good. We need more Skynet operators.The Netherlands is Considering AEGIS System For Future Air Defence Frigates
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...aegis-system-for-future-air-defence-frigates/
Not sure this is the right thread for this but the navy seems to be planning the next generation of standard missiles.
https://aviationweek.com/defense/mi...als-details-standard-missile-replacement-plan
The Raytheon press release doesn't say anything, but this would be around 5,000 missiles at the current prices near $5 million each. This should replace everything that's been fired so far out of the original order for 1,800 missiles, build the Navy's stockpiles well beyond the current levels, and give the Army enough to start arming their Typhon launchers and carrying around plenty of reloads. It could be enough to allow the Army to start using SM-6s as ultra long range GBAD missiles if they can be worked into IBCS, but I doubt there are enough Typhon launchers for that to be a priority.
Mk57 is a dead end. There are too many mk41s to try to accommodate any other size.NMM sounds more like a shakeup of a vendor monopoly more than anything. It doesn't seem to threaten Standard SM-2 dominance in the short term.
Zumwalt's PVLS needs further development for frigates and destroyers. The current form has room for 7.9 meter weapons, which is a substantial space. PVLS is a great evolution and should have a variant for shorter missiles. Maybe RTX should do sort of an SM-3L (L = Lite) to cut down reliance on SM-2 variations and counter NMM. SM-3L would be specifically designed around a shorter PVLS system for smaller vessels. The shorter PVLS could house a single SM-3L, two SM-2, or a quad pack of ESSM. But of course RTX would lobby for only SM-3L to simplify logistics for the Navy.
Mk57 is a dead end. There are too many mk41s to try to accommodate any other size.