Standard Missile projects.

DOD delays by two years maiden intercept attempt of hypersonic glide vehicle target​

By Jason Sherman Inside Defense / May 17, 2023
The U.S. military has delayed by two years the planned first test of a naval counter-hypersonic capability, pushing from 2023 to 2025 an intercept attempt by a SM-6 against an ultra-fast maneuvering target to validate a new version of the Aegis Sea Based Terminal capability designed to protect aircraft carrier strike groups from the new class of threats.
Click to expand...
 
Navy ships lack 'capability and capacity' to defeat complex raids; Lockheed offering PAC-3 MSE
By Jason Sherman / May 22, 2023 / Inside Defense

Lockheed Martin is offering the most advanced variant of the Patriot interceptor -- the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement -- to bolster ship defense in the wake of a newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" to defeat complex raids of hypersonic and cruise missiles. The company is self-funding an effort to adapt the PAC-3 MSE as a lower-tier, hit-to-kill capability for Navy surface combatants and plans to test a new sensor that is being added to the Army guided missile..
Click to expand...

Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
 
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
 
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Presuming the driver for the Navy for looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor is to counter the threat from the Chinese anti-carrier hypersonic missiles which beyond capability of the SM-2. Recently unexpectedly full details of a Chinese simulation revealed as to how they would 'successfully' sink the Ford with 24 hypersonic anti-ship missile attack.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3221495/chinese-scientists-war-game-hypersonic-strike-us-carrier-group-south-china-sea
 
I imagine the defence wouldn't be just with SAMs alone. The targeting and communications satellites will likely be destroyed first.*

*Although that will use SAMs too, but you know what I mean.
 
Last edited:
Cordy said:
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Presuming the driver for the Navy for looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor is to counter the threat from the Chinese anti-carrier hypersonic missiles which beyond capability of the SM-2. Recently unexpectedly full details of a Chinese simulation revealed as to how they would 'successfully' sink the Ford with 24 hypersonic anti-ship missile attack.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3221495/chinese-scientists-war-game-hypersonic-strike-us-carrier-group-south-china-sea
Click to expand...
Only 24? That seems low, even if we assume a threat axis that only allows 2x Burkes to engage, instead of 3x Burkes or 2x Burke and 1x Tico.
 
Cordy said:
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Presuming the driver for the Navy for looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor is to counter the threat from the Chinese anti-carrier hypersonic missiles which beyond capability of the SM-2. Recently unexpectedly full details of a Chinese simulation revealed as to how they would 'successfully' sink the Ford with 24 hypersonic anti-ship missile attack.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3221495/chinese-scientists-war-game-hypersonic-strike-us-carrier-group-south-china-sea
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put much weight behind shoddy simulations done on an even worse rip-off of the already bad CMO "game".
 
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Diversity in the missile defense supplier base is always good, especially as the Navy taps into a line that has high production and will probably see an increase in the near future due to demand. But this aspect aside, how does MSE fit into the "Compact Agile Interceptor" program, as LM officials have said, they will only be putting one MSE per cell due to "commonality" reasons with the Army/Existing lines. I'm also curious what Raytheon will propose for something like this. A boosted ESSM with 8-10 inch diameter boosters would definitely be something worth looking at for addressing cruise-missile raids at distances approaching those of the SM-2.
 
NASA said:
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Diversity in the missile defense supplier base is always good, especially as the Navy taps into a line that has high production and will probably see an increase in the near future due to demand. But this aspect aside, how does MSE fit into the "Compact Agile Interceptor" program, as LM officials have said, they will only be putting one MSE per cell due to "commonality" reasons with the Army/Existing lines. I'm also curious what Raytheon will propose for something like this. A boosted ESSM with 8-10 inch diameter boosters would definitely be something worth looking at for addressing cruise-missile raids at distances approaching those of the SM-2.
Click to expand...
1685229898435.png

1685230009717.png
 
sferrin said:
Lampshade111 said:
The Standard Missile family has grown to include a great number of variants over the years. I figured I would create this topic to discuss the designs and proposals based around the Standard Missile.

One program I have had a very difficult time finding any info on, is the Standard Missile 5. The only reference I could find to the SM5 was a mention of the missile as a weapon to destroy cruise missiles. Can anybody shed some light on this design?

Another variant I am looking for details of is the AIM-97 Seekbat. Which was intended to be a long-range missile for the F-15 Eagle.
Click to expand...

There's a picture floating around of an F-106 carrying a Standard missile of some sort in relation to either the Seekbat program or the Standard-based ASAT program.
Click to expand...
20150312025643-8e93892f-me.jpg
 
NASA said:
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Diversity in the missile defense supplier base is always good, especially as the Navy taps into a line that has high production and will probably see an increase in the near future due to demand. But this aspect aside, how does MSE fit into the "Compact Agile Interceptor" program, as LM officials have said, they will only be putting one MSE per cell due to "commonality" reasons with the Army/Existing lines.
Click to expand...
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.


NASA said:
I'm also curious what Raytheon will propose for something like this. A boosted ESSM with 8-10 inch diameter boosters would definitely be something worth looking at for addressing cruise-missile raids at distances approaching those of the SM-2.
Click to expand...
? ESSMs are already a 10" diameter missile. Did you mean adding an up-to-14ft long 10" diameter booster stage like an SM2ER?
 
Scott Kenny said:
NASA said:
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Diversity in the missile defense supplier base is always good, especially as the Navy taps into a line that has high production and will probably see an increase in the near future due to demand. But this aspect aside, how does MSE fit into the "Compact Agile Interceptor" program, as LM officials have said, they will only be putting one MSE per cell due to "commonality" reasons with the Army/Existing lines.
Click to expand...
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.


NASA said:
I'm also curious what Raytheon will propose for something like this. A boosted ESSM with 8-10 inch diameter boosters would definitely be something worth looking at for addressing cruise-missile raids at distances approaching those of the SM-2.
Click to expand...
? ESSMs are already a 10" diameter missile. Did you mean adding an up-to-14ft long 10" diameter booster stage like an SM2ER?
Click to expand...
Yeah sorry, I meant the latter. Including a booster to the ESSM and making it tactical length or strike length-sized in terms of length.
 
Scott Kenny said:
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.
Click to expand...
Replacing some SM-2 capacity with MSE does not reduce missile count but does provide better defense against manuevering and ballistic missiles. LM has never claimed the ability to magically put 4 MSE missiles in the current VLS. Its probably not possible.
 
bring_it_on said:
Scott Kenny said:
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.
Click to expand...
Replacing some SM-2 capacity with MSE does not reduce missile count but does provide better defense against manuevering and ballistic missiles. LM has never claimed the ability to magically put 4 MSE missiles in the current VLS. Its probably not possible.
Click to expand...
There was talk of dual packing the MSE from LM officials hence why they tried clarifying some more during the recent SNA that they weren't pursuing this for commonality reasons. I suppose the MSE is still a very nice capability to supplement SM-6 on the terminal.
 
NASA said:
bring_it_on said:
Scott Kenny said:
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.
Click to expand...
Replacing some SM-2 capacity with MSE does not reduce missile count but does provide better defense against manuevering and ballistic missiles. LM has never claimed the ability to magically put 4 MSE missiles in the current VLS. Its probably not possible.
Click to expand...
There was talk of dual packing the MSE from LM officials hence why they tried clarifying some more during the recent SNA that they weren't pursuing this for commonality reasons. I suppose the MSE is still a very nice capability to supplement SM-6 on the terminal.
Click to expand...

They aren't pursuing design changes as an internal investment. That doesn't mean that the USN cannot fund those if it is interested, especially since its create a new R&D program to go out and seek an agile, small form factor interceptor this year. If (a big if) the Navy pursues this, integration with a booster and design changes to allow two per cell may well be on the roadmap. The Navy is taking about 1000 SM-2 missiles through IIIC upgrade. That leaves a pretty large gap for anti-raid (active RF) weapon that sits below the SM-6.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Scott Kenny said:
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.
Click to expand...
Replacing some SM-2 capacity with MSE does not reduce missile count but does provide better defense against manuevering and ballistic missiles. LM has never claimed the ability to magically put 4 MSE missiles in the current VLS. Its probably not possible.
Click to expand...
I was seeing PAC3MSE as a replacement for ESSMs.

And it should be a pretty easy thing to do, the PAC3MSE is right at 10"ish in diameter already.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I was seeing PAC3MSE as a replacement for ESSMs.

And it should be a pretty easy thing to do, the PAC3MSE is right at 10"ish in diameter already.
Click to expand...

It's not. MSE is 12 inches in diameter, which means it will not quadpack into a Mk41 canister.

It also costs much more than ESSM -- ESSM is around $2 mil, MSE is more than $4 mil.
 
TomS said:
Scott Kenny said:
I was seeing PAC3MSE as a replacement for ESSMs.

And it should be a pretty easy thing to do, the PAC3MSE is right at 10"ish in diameter already.
Click to expand...

It's not. MSE is 12 inches in diameter, which means it will not quadpack into a Mk41 canister.

It also costs much more than ESSM -- ESSM is around $2 mil, MSE is more than $4 mil.
Click to expand...
Hrm. that's not a detail I'd seen before. I'd seen PAC3 at 10" and MSE at maybe 11".

Cost is honestly a "whatever" to me, if that's what it costs to get the capabilities that's what it costs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hrm. that's not a detail I'd seen before. I'd seen PAC3 at 10" and MSE at maybe 11".
Click to expand...

The 11-inch diameter is one of the two values Wikipedia lists (it also says 12 inches in the data block on the same page). Both appear to be wrong. The number I was able to confirm still rules out a quadpack in Mk 41.

GD lists the PAC-3 MSE rocket motor casing as 11.5 inch diameter and 98 inches long, compared to 10 inches diameter and 98 inches long for PAC-3 CRI.

www.gd-ots.com

Structural Components

Design, development, qualification and integration of high-performance lightweight composite pressure vessels for aircraft, satellite, launch vehicle and missile platforms.
www.gd-ots.com www.gd-ots.com

LM has a briefing that says the motor is 11.4 inches. And the fixed fins may actually push the box dimension a bit larger than that (which might explain the 12-inch figure).


1685411147040.png

Scott Kenny said:
Cost is honestly a "whatever" to me, if that's what it costs to get the capabilities that's what it costs.
Click to expand...

Cost has a very real impact on the number of missiles you can buy to stuff into those cells. Budgets are not infinitely expandable.
 
TomS said:
Scott Kenny said:
Hrm. that's not a detail I'd seen before. I'd seen PAC3 at 10" and MSE at maybe 11".
Click to expand...

The 11-inch diameter is one of the two values Wikipedia lists (it also says 12 inches in the data block on the same page). Both appear to be wrong. The number I was able to confirm still rules out a quadpack in Mk 41.

GD lists the PAC-3 MSE rocket motor casing as 11.5 inch diameter and 98 inches long, compared to 10 inches diameter and 98 inches long for PAC-3 CRI.

www.gd-ots.com

Structural Components

Design, development, qualification and integration of high-performance lightweight composite pressure vessels for aircraft, satellite, launch vehicle and missile platforms.
www.gd-ots.com www.gd-ots.com

LM has a briefing that says the motor is 11.4 inches. And the fixed fins may actually push the box dimension a bit larger than that (which might explain the 12-inch figure).


View attachment 700536
Click to expand...
Yes, I follow. If the missile is that big it can't be quad packed. Which is a shame, but makes sense for an Army missile trying to get shoved into a Navy launcher. And it's honestly an issue for the VLS system in general. Yes, it's great that it has better performance, but I think the USN is running into end of growth capabilities for the 21" VLS.

I'd been looking at the differences between the PAC2 and PAC3, where PAC2s were single packed and PAC3s were quad packed into a similar size box.


TomS said:
Scott Kenny said:
Cost is honestly a "whatever" to me, if that's what it costs to get the capabilities that's what it costs.
Click to expand...

Cost has a very real impact on the number of missiles you can buy to stuff into those cells. Budgets are not infinitely expandable.
Click to expand...
But if the choice is pay $4mil per to have the capabilities or don't have them at all, that's where you pretty much have to suck it up and pay the money. Because it's embarrassing to lose a multi billion dollar DDG because some congresscritter thought $4mil a missile was too much money.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But if the choice is pay $4mil per to have the capabilities or don't have them at all, that's where you pretty much have to suck it up and pay the money. Because it's embarrassing to lose a multi billion dollar DDG because some congresscritter thought $4mil a missile was too much money.
Click to expand...

But it's not all or nothing. ESSM will deal with most air threats, and PAC-3 can deal with the same plus some really stressing threats that ESSM can't. And there may actually be threats where ESSM is better, like short-range surface targets. So you can buy mostly ESSM, with a small number of silver bullet PAC-3s as well and end up with a lot more missiles overall or have money to spend on other capabilities.
 
TomS said:
Scott Kenny said:
But if the choice is pay $4mil per to have the capabilities or don't have them at all, that's where you pretty much have to suck it up and pay the money. Because it's embarrassing to lose a multi billion dollar DDG because some congresscritter thought $4mil a missile was too much money.
Click to expand...

But it's not all or nothing. ESSM will deal with most air threats, and PAC-3 can deal with the same plus some really stressing threats that ESSM can't. And there may actually be threats where ESSM is better, like short-range surface targets. So you can buy mostly ESSM, with a small number of silver bullet PAC-3s as well and end up with a lot more missiles overall or have money to spend on other capabilities.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Though given packaging, we'd be talking about replacing SM2MRs.
 
There are many things to consider here that we are not in the best position to ascertain at this point. For example, the planned SM-6 1B inventory, and the impact of it on production rate. The planned SM-6 ramp up and the 1A to 1B split, and the evolution of the 1A as it replaces the current guidance and impact on cost. The Navy plans to upgrade about 1K SM-2's to IIIC. I think there is room to introduce competition into missiles (its quite crazy that its a monopoly) but with the agile interceptor effort, there may be other reasons here that we may come to know over the next few years if that program develops further.
 
Considering the sizes of the MK41 in service.


I do wonder if its possible to upgrade the RIM66 to have PAC3 performance while maintaining its AA ability.

Likely needs a brand new design, but the RIM66 Airframe is basically a 1960s design so it may be overdue for that...
 
NMaude said:
Firefinder said:
I do wonder if its possible to upgrade the RIM66 to have PAC3 performance while maintaining its AA ability.
Click to expand...

Isn't the RIM-66 SM-1 long out of production?
Click to expand...
Yes but no.

Cause the RIM66 designation covers BOTH the SM1 and SM2 with the difference between the two being the guts and programing. The RIM66 SM1 was for the old Tarter systems while the RIM66 SM2 is for the Aegis sets and New Threat upgrade.

Airframe wise? Aka the body with the wings and like?

Thats been basically the same design since the Tarters.

Enough so that multiple RIM66As got rebuilded into RIM66Js then to rebuilds Ks, Ls, then the Current N models. Since it was a simple undo a few screws follow by a gutting and replacement of tge insides with the newer kit.

So I do wonder how much more performance can be eked out by modifing the airframe and aerodynamics of the deal.
 
Firefinder said:
NMaude said:
Firefinder said:
I do wonder if its possible to upgrade the RIM66 to have PAC3 performance while maintaining its AA ability.
Click to expand...

Isn't the RIM-66 SM-1 long out of production?
Click to expand...
Yes but no.

Cause the RIM66 designation covers BOTH the SM1 and SM2 with the difference between the two being the guts and programing. The RIM66 SM1 was for the old Tarter systems while the RIM66 SM2 is for the Aegis sets and New Threat upgrade.

Airframe wise? Aka the body with the wings and like?

Thats been basically the same design since the Tarters.

Enough so that multiple RIM66As got rebuilded into RIM66Js then to rebuilds Ks, Ls, then the Current N models. Since it was a simple undo a few screws follow by a gutting and replacement of tge insides with the newer kit.

So I do wonder how much more performance can be eked out by modifing the airframe and aerodynamics of the deal.
Click to expand...
Given that it seems most SAMs across the globe use the "strakes and tail fins" basic airframe, I'm not sure how much improvement we can get. I mean, Sea Sparrows went from looking like a Sparrow to looking like a Standard when they went to the ESSM evolution, the NASAMS is using the same rough design, even Tor and Buk Russian SAMs are using strakes and tail fins.

As are the PAC3 and PAC3MSE.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom