Standard Missile projects.

Speculation on my part as don't understand why Navy not planning on procuring the Army PrSM Spiral 1 for anti-ship role in preference to SM-6. PrSM with its multimode seeker designed to target ships, antenna area a big plus in any radars capability and the PrSM seeker antenna area ~60% larger than the SM-6 13.5" dia as opposed to 17" of the PrSM and expect its seeker might give additional advantage of a larger search basket area coming in vertically from great height with its ballistic trajectory. Cost of the current standard PrSM ~ $1.8, expect Spiral 1 will be more expensive with its multimode seeker, but will be less than the $5 million for SM-6 Dual II/Block 1B, so would expect Navy could procure two PrSM's for the cost of a single SM-6 . On question of range expect PrSM to be greater and have heavier warhead, PrSM would easily fit in the standard Navy Mk41 VLS launch cell.

PrSM disadvantages for Navy?
 
1) SM-6 exists today. It's also fully integrated with AEGIS.

2) SM-6 has both AAW/TBMD and ASuW capability. So it is more versatile on ships with constrained numbers of VLS cells and no easy ability to swap them out.

3) Assuming that the PrsM ASuW seeker uses the full diameter of the missile is an assumption that might not be valid. or possibly relevant. How big does the antenna need to be to pick a ship out of sea clutter from above?

4) SM-6 also drops in from above, over a very long range indeed. Especially with Block 2, with the 21-inch diameter motor.
 
TomS said:
1) SM-6 exists today. It's also fully integrated with AEGIS.

2) SM-6 has both AAW/TBMD and ASuW capability. So it is more versatile on ships with constrained numbers of VLS cells and no easy ability to swap them out.

3) Assuming that the PrsM ASuW seeker uses the full diameter of the missile is an assumption that might not be valid. or possibly relevant. How big does the antenna need to be to pick a ship out of sea clutter from above?

4) SM-6 also drops in from above, over a very long range indeed. Especially with Block 2, with the 21-inch diameter motor.
Click to expand...
5. You still need Tomahawk. The only thing SM-6 can do that Tomahawk can't (currently) is hit a ship. Block II will be more interesting but that's an expensive missile for hitting a land target.
 
sferrin said:
5. You still need Tomahawk. The only thing SM-6 can do that Tomahawk can't (currently) is hit a ship. Block II will be more interesting but that's an expensive missile for hitting a land target.
Click to expand...

Oh, for sure. I was only contrasting with PrSM for ASuW.

And we also probably need a horizontal-flight, preferably sea-skimming ASCM for ASuW as well. Diversified target profile is important.
 
Are there available online any documents about the history and development of the Mk-72 booster introduced by the SM-2 Block-IV?
 
Cordy said:
Speculation on my part as don't understand why Navy not planning on procuring the Army PrSM Spiral 1 for anti-ship role in preference to SM-6. PrSM with its multimode seeker designed to target ships, antenna area a big plus in any radars capability and the PrSM seeker antenna area ~60% larger than the SM-6 13.5" dia as opposed to 17" of the PrSM and expect its seeker might give additional advantage of a larger search basket area coming in vertically from great height with its ballistic trajectory. Cost of the current standard PrSM ~ $1.8, expect Spiral 1 will be more expensive with its multimode seeker, but will be less than the $5 million for SM-6 Dual II/Block 1B, so would expect Navy could procure two PrSM's for the cost of a single SM-6 . On question of range expect PrSM to be greater and have heavier warhead, PrSM would easily fit in the standard Navy Mk41 VLS launch cell.

PrSM disadvantages for Navy?
Click to expand...

While PrSM beats out SM-6 as an anti-surface missile on paper, the problem is that SM-6 is not intended as a primary ASuW weapon, it's intended as an AAW weapon that can snapshot ASuW targets if necessary if nothing better is available. PrSM *is* a primary ASuW weapon, but it's beaten out in nearly every respect (the exception how quick it reaches the target) by the Tomahawk, which has two and a half times the range and likely several times the warhead weight.

Then there's all the integration work, launch canister design, possible additional corrosion and fireproofing to meet navy regs, etc...
 
Hey Guys, i have gotten recently into all things naval warfare and have one question, that seems kind of obvious, but an answer is not clear to me.
(hope this is the right thread to post on)

What is the US-Navys theory on how to sink chinese ships (in the vicinity of the first island chain - like a blockade of taiwan)?


I ask because its genuinely unclear to me (especially the weapons used).
- Lrasm is procured in low numbers (and the relative ease with which the ukraine air defense has shot down russian stealth cruise missiles makes me question wether they would be really effective in sinking something like a Type 055).
- Tomahawk MST seems like a slow unstealthy missile of which you would need a huge amount to kill something capable.
- harpoon has the same problem minus the range.
- Sm 6 has a really small seeker, that is not desigend for ASuW - seems to me, that the risk would be big, that the chinese could jam/degrade it - it remains something that is not built for ASuW.
- nuke subs seem to loose their advantage in (near) litoral enviroments.

I have not read enough to have serious opinions on these matters - I would appreciate any pointers to good sources.
 
DerTheodor said:
Hey Guys, i have gotten recently into all things naval warfare and have one question, that seems kind of obvious, but an answer is not clear to me.
(hope this is the right thread to post on)

What is the US-Navys theory on how to sink chinese ships (in the vicinity of the first island chain - like a blockade of taiwan)?


I ask because its genuinely unclear to me (especially the weapons used).
- Lrasm is procured in low numbers (and the relative ease with which the ukraine air defense has shot down russian stealth cruise missiles makes me question wether they would be really effective in sinking something like a Type 055).
- Tomahawk MST seems like a slow unstealthy missile of which you would need a huge amount to kill something capable.
- harpoon has the same problem minus the range.
- Sm 6 has a really small seeker, that is not desigend for ASuW - seems to me, that the risk would be big, that the chinese could jam/degrade it - it remains something that is not built for ASuW.
- nuke subs seem to loose their advantage in (near) litoral enviroments.

I have not read enough to have serious opinions on these matters - I would appreciate any pointers to good sources.
Click to expand...

It's probably worth opening a separate topic to address the issue as it is outside the scope of just Standard missiles. Broadly speaking, while all of those missiles have liabilities, taken together they offer a large number of options and in the case of SM-6/BGM-109 are dual or multi purpose and carried in very large numbers. So there isn't a huge capability gap.
 
And the few images of Ships eating Standard Missiles we have seen show.

While it may not SINK the ship.

That Ship not doing much of anything else either for a few YEARS at minimum.
 
IIRC the Iranians found out the hard way back in the 1980s what the SM-1 does to warships in ASM mode.
 
I’ve always wondered if SM-2 blk 3B didn’t have an OTH surface to surface capability with its IR guidance. That would be a big addition to AShMs if so. And of course out to the horizon most anything the USN carries can put a hole in a ship.
 
Josh_TN said:
I’ve always wondered if SM-2 blk 3B didn’t have an OTH surface to surface capability with its IR guidance. That would be a big addition to AShMs if so. And of course out to the horizon most anything the USN carries can put a hole in a ship.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know where the IR seeker came from? Was it a new development? Or is it (more likely in my opinion) an existing seeker from another system bolted on?

How does the logic work? How does the system decide which seeker has precedence over the other for guidance?
 
timmymagic said:
Josh_TN said:
I’ve always wondered if SM-2 blk 3B didn’t have an OTH surface to surface capability with its IR guidance. That would be a big addition to AShMs if so. And of course out to the horizon most anything the USN carries can put a hole in a ship.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know where the IR seeker came from? Was it a new development? Or is it (more likely in my opinion) an existing seeker from another system bolted on?

How does the logic work? How does the system decide which seeker has precedence over the other for guidance?
Click to expand...

It came out of MHIP (Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP), which was also intended to provide a supplemental IR seeker for Sparrow. (In Sparrow, it was on the tip of the nose under a blow-off cap, with the radar seeker behind it and looking through it.)

Without going into details, the Navy's public line about MHIP in Block IIIB was that it was intended "to counter specific proliferating electronic warfare systems in existing aircraft and anti-ship cruise missile threats." So, I get the impression it was an adjunct to help the radar seeker reject countermeasures. Techniques left as an exercise for the reader.

PS: Although SM-2 Block IVA also had a side-mounted IR seeker, my recollection is that this was NOT the same MHIP seeker as in the IIIB, just the same general configuration.
 
TomS said:
timmymagic said:
Josh_TN said:
I’ve always wondered if SM-2 blk 3B didn’t have an OTH surface to surface capability with its IR guidance. That would be a big addition to AShMs if so. And of course out to the horizon most anything the USN carries can put a hole in a ship.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know where the IR seeker came from? Was it a new development? Or is it (more likely in my opinion) an existing seeker from another system bolted on?

How does the logic work? How does the system decide which seeker has precedence over the other for guidance?
Click to expand...

It came out of MHIP (Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP), which was also intended to provide a supplemental IR seeker for Sparrow. (In Sparrow, it was on the tip of the nose under a blow-off cap, with the radar seeker behind it and looking through it.)

Without going into details, the Navy's public line about MHIP in Block IIIB was that it was intended "to counter specific proliferating electronic warfare systems in existing aircraft and anti-ship cruise missile threats." So, I get the impression it was an adjunct to help the radar seeker reject countermeasures. Techniques left as an exercise for the reader.

PS: Although SM-2 Block IVA also had a side-mounted IR seeker, my recollection is that this was NOT the same MHIP seeker as in the IIIB, just the same general configuration.
Click to expand...
IIRC the one in Block IVA was much more elaborate.
 
NMaude said:
TomS said:
Cooling the dome was a lot harder, IIRC, given the speed of Block IVA.
Click to expand...

That's why the terminal-seeker was under an ejectable cover till the last few seconds of flight.
Click to expand...

"The SM-2 Block IVA was not like the SM-2 Block IIIA which added the secondary side mounted IR seeker for improved terminal performance. The SM-2 Block IVA's IR seeker was a 'side looking' system able to provide interception guidance against ballistic missiles over an area 100 km by 50 km. So presumably its sensitivity was able to support independent detection and engagement of air targets over the Mk 99's illumination horizon. You can see from this picture just how much space the Block IVA’s IR seeker occupied."

 
I will have to dig around to find it but I have several brochures mentioning the SM-2 Block-IVA I got from Raytheon ~1998-1999 when I emailed them asking them if they had anything on the missile that was cleared for public release.

If I can find them and scan them is it okay if I post them in this thread?
 
Last edited:
Hobbes said:
Yes, go ahead.
Click to expand...

I'll have a look tomorrow however I might not have time to scan them as I'm going away on a two-week holiday with my family (Mum, aunt, siblings and their offspring) to Omanu beach (Just south of Mt. Mauganui).
 
It seems like the Navy is sticking with the jet-tab TVC system for the SM-2IIIC. As some here might recall, the Navy was exploring a TVC design that featured SSSL in 2015. It seems to have been quietly given up on in favor of the original jet-tab design as discussed on the first page of this thread. The source of the screenshot is the latest 2022 DOT&E report.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20230128_170642.jpg
    IMG_20230128_170642.jpg
    108.4 KB · Views: 69
NASA said:
It seems like the Navy is sticking with the jet-tab TVC system for the SM-2IIIC. As some here might recall, the Navy was exploring a TVC design that featured SSSL in 2015. It seems to have been quietly given up on in favor of the original jet-tab design as discussed on the first page of this thread. The source of the screenshot is the latest 2022 DOT&E report.
Click to expand...
This sounds more like what's used on ESSM in VLS systems, not something used to improve maneuverability.

1675133710742.png
 
sferrin said:
NASA said:
It seems like the Navy is sticking with the jet-tab TVC system for the SM-2IIIC. As some here might recall, the Navy was exploring a TVC design that featured SSSL in 2015. It seems to have been quietly given up on in favor of the original jet-tab design as discussed on the first page of this thread. The source of the screenshot is the latest 2022 DOT&E report.
Click to expand...
This sounds more like what's used on ESSM in VLS systems, not something used to improve maneuverability.

View attachment 692315
Click to expand...
Indeed, but ESSM used jet vane instead of a jet tab, USN researched several TVC mechanisms and down-selected three. Nonetheless, this still improves short-range performance.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20211207-170845.jpg
    Screenshot_20211207-170845.jpg
    191.8 KB · Views: 58
  • Screenshot_20211207-170859.jpg
    Screenshot_20211207-170859.jpg
    203.9 KB · Views: 57
  • Screenshot_20211207-165308.jpg
    Screenshot_20211207-165308.jpg
    245.4 KB · Views: 54
  • Screenshot_20211207-171102.jpg
    Screenshot_20211207-171102.jpg
    377.1 KB · Views: 58
  • IMG_20230131_100033.jpg
    IMG_20230131_100033.jpg
    169.6 KB · Views: 50
  • a3865191_11 (4).pdf
    1.9 MB · Views: 24
Awesome. I've never seen what the ejectable module on ESSM looks like. Jet TAB for Standard? That seems like an odd choice.
 
sferrin said:
Jet TAB for Standard? That seems like an odd choice.
Click to expand...

Jet Tab would only be able to give pitch and yaw control whereas the jet-vanes (As used on the ESSM) would also give roll-control.

On another note does anyone have any performance figures for the Mk-72 booster such as its burn-time and thrust?

Are there available online any documents about the history and development of the Mk-72 booster introduced by the SM-2 Block-IV?
 
TomS said:
timmymagic said:
Ronny said:
How heavy is SM-6 without booster though?
could air launched version reach hypersonic?
Click to expand...
About 2,600lb's...its a big boy...
Click to expand...

I'm not buying that number, at all.

The SM6 all-up weight is around 3,300 pounds (official USN number). Of that, the Mk 72 is around 1,500 pounds (see attached brochure), leaving 1,800 pounds for the main stage. That's just about plausible; the maximum weight of an SM2 MR Block IIIB is usually quoted around 1725 pounds [Correction: 1558 pounds]. I can't see any way to get to 2600 pounds without a radical stretch that clearly has not happened here.
Click to expand...
Could this be for the newer variant with the 21" missile body?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom