Standard Missile projects.

Does anyone know anything about Raytheon's Terrier Missile Target (TMT)? From what I understand they've been made converting retired RIM-67 SM-2ERs.
 
NMaude said:
Does anyone know anything about Raytheon's Terrier Missile Target (TMT)? From what I understand they've been made converting retired RIM-67 SM-2ERs.
Click to expand...

The term Terrier Missile Target seems to be descriptive rather than referring to one specific design -- TMTs have been used as both ballistic and sea-skimming missile simulants.

The ballistic version was good for around 140 miles range and a 50+ mile apex, so a useful simulant for SRBMs. Around the turn of the century, it was used as a target for testing the Linebacker/Navy Area Defense system (SM2 Block IV missiles).

Linebacker

www.globalsecurity.org www.globalsecurity.org
 
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.
Click to expand...
They're very different.

RIM-24 Tartar
RIM-24_Tartar_on_USS_Berkeley_(DDG-15)_1970.jpg

RIM-66 Block III
SM-2 Block III.jpg
 
Yeah, there is a noticeable difference between the airframe of a RIM-24 and a RIM-66.
 
NMaude said:
Yeah, there is a noticeable difference between the airframe of a RIM-24 and a RIM-66.
Click to expand...
Consider the latest RIM-66 SM-2 Block III has about double the speed and ten times the range of the original RIM-24A.
 
TomS said:
NMaude said:
Does anyone know anything about Raytheon's Terrier Missile Target (TMT)? From what I understand they've been made converting retired RIM-67 SM-2ERs.
Click to expand...

The term Terrier Missile Target seems to be descriptive rather than referring to one specific design -- TMTs have been used as both ballistic and sea-skimming missile simulants.

The ballistic version was good for around 140 miles range and a 50+ mile apex, so a useful simulant for SRBMs. Around the turn of the century, it was used as a target for testing the Linebacker/Navy Area Defense system (SM2 Block IV missiles).

Linebacker

www.globalsecurity.org www.globalsecurity.org
Click to expand...
www.kratosdefense.com

Aegis Readiness Assessment Vehicles (ARAV)

The ARAV, a product of the NSWC PHD White Sands Detachment, is a solid-fuel rocket-based target vehicle that emulates ballistic missile threats.
www.kratosdefense.com www.kratosdefense.com
 
Could one not take the 2 PAC-3 MSE and put them in the dual Container which was developted for i think SM-2s? In case they also want more range i remember you guys where talking about a 10" rocket motor which could be mounted under it. Or remember i something wrong?
 
kqcke for you said:
Could one not take the 2 PAC-3 MSE and put them in the dual Container which was developted for i think SM-2s? In case they also want more range i remember you guys where talking about a 10" rocket motor which could be mounted under it. Or remember i something wrong?
Click to expand...
PAC3MSEs are apparently 11.5" in diameter or a bit more.
 
Scott Kenny said:
PAC3MSEs are apparently 11.5" in diameter or a bit more.
Click to expand...
I know but was'nt the max diameter under 25in. as the cell on the Outside has a 25in. width? I mean i don't know the cell wall thickness but if it doesnt exceed 1 in. it could be possible tought a very tight fit.
 
kqcke for you said:
I know but was'nt the max diameter under 25in. as the cell on the Outside has a 25in. width? I mean i don't know the cell wall thickness but if it doesnt exceed 1 in. it could be possible tought a very tight fit.
Click to expand...
I can draw the needed packing for a duo, but I can't lay out the math to figure out the maximum possible missile diameter.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I can draw the needed packing for a duo, but I can't lay out the math to figure out the maximum possible missile diameter.
Click to expand...
You dont need to math it out.

Someone else has.
TomS said:
Sort of an old idea (the patent is from 1994) but I've never seen art for it before.

Dual-Pack Canister for the Mk 41 VLS.

The missile is not named in the patent, but at the time, they were talking about something derived from SM2MR minus the fins. This one seems to be related to Block IIIB with the side-mounted IR seeker.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Patent does not give missile sizes.
Click to expand...

Notionally, it's an SM2MR minus fins, so about 13.5 inches diameter. Now, this was never actually built, to my knowledge, which means even if this canister is possible it still needs development and testing.

Ostensibly that dual-pack is big enough for PAC-3 MSE, depending on how the MSE fins fold. However, Lockheed has said that the reason their current Naval PAC-3 offering is a single-pack is that they do not want to modify MSE at all, just be able to pull Army and Navy rounds off the same assembly line. That means that from their perspective, there is something about a multipack that would require some Navy-specific missile mods. (I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
(I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)
Click to expand...
I recall the US doing a missile test in like 2016 that involves an Aegis destroyer guiding a Patriot Missile from an Army launcher while the MPQ53/64 guided a Sm2 from the Ship vls.

So likely been done for a hot minute.
 
TomS said:
Notionally, it's an SM2MR minus fins, so about 13.5 inches diameter. Now, this was never actually built, to my knowledge, which means even if this canister is possible it still needs development and testing.

Ostensibly that dual-pack is big enough for PAC-3 MSE, depending on how the MSE fins fold. However, Lockheed has said that the reason their current Naval PAC-3 offering is a single-pack is that they do not want to modify MSE at all, just be able to pull Army and Navy rounds off the same assembly line. That means that from their perspective, there is something about a multipack that would require some Navy-specific missile mods. (I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)
Click to expand...
There's a lot to be said for that.
 
TomS said:
Notionally, it's an SM2MR minus fins, so about 13.5 inches diameter. Now, this was never actually built, to my knowledge, which means even if this canister is possible it still needs development and testing.

Ostensibly that dual-pack is big enough for PAC-3 MSE, depending on how the MSE fins fold. However, Lockheed has said that the reason their current Naval PAC-3 offering is a single-pack is that they do not want to modify MSE at all, just be able to pull Army and Navy rounds off the same assembly line. That means that from their perspective, there is something about a multipack that would require some Navy-specific missile mods. (I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)
Click to expand...

Thinking Red Strom Rising, do Army and Navy missiles have differing resistance to salt water......?
 
TomS said:
Notionally, it's an SM2MR minus fins, so about 13.5 inches diameter. Now, this was never actually built, to my knowledge, which means even if this canister is possible it still needs development and testing.

Ostensibly that dual-pack is big enough for PAC-3 MSE, depending on how the MSE fins fold. However, Lockheed has said that the reason their current Naval PAC-3 offering is a single-pack is that they do not want to modify MSE at all, just be able to pull Army and Navy rounds off the same assembly line. That means that from their perspective, there is something about a multipack that would require some Navy-specific missile mods. (I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)
Click to expand...
So it is possible but Lockheed said it would be to mutch work and cost for nothing. The atleast they could throw a booster at it but that could also be to mutch for them :)
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Still seems odd that the Army is buying SM-6s.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because the US Army doesn't have an existing requirement missile that fits their requirements for a long-range SAM also the SM-6 has an active-radar seeker. Another thing about using an existing tested design is that it lowers unit costs due to a larger production volume.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Perhaps because the US Army doesn't have an existing requirement missile that fits their requirements for a long-range SAM also the SM-6 has an active-radar seeker. Another about using an existing tested design is that it lowers unit costs due to a larger production volume.
Click to expand...

The Army is buying SM-6 as an antiship missile, not a SAM.

This is the return of Army Coast Artillery, with Tomahawk MST and SM-6 as complimentary antiship missiles (MST is slow, low, and has a big warhead; SM-6 is high, fast, but a relatively small bang). Ultimately I think the antiship PrSM is going to take a lot of the SM-6 role.
 
TomS said:
The Army is buying SM-6 as an antiship missile, not a SAM.

This is the return of Army Coast Artillery, with Tomahawk MST and SM-6 as complimentary antiship missiles (MST is slow, low, and has a big warhead; SM-6 is high, fast, but a relatively small bang). Ultimately I think the antiship PrSM is going to take a lot of the SM-6 role.
Click to expand...
Not sure if it's antiship or ground attack. And when PrSM finally shows up any remaining SM6s can go to the SAM role.
 
www.navy.mil

U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Danish Defense Forces Train on SM-6 Missile Launcher Together

BORNHOLM, Denmark - In a demonstration of ongoing commitment to transatlantic security and defense interoperability, U.S. Naval Forces Europe, in conjunction with the Danish Defense Forces, will be
www.navy.mil
www.thedrive.com

Navy Unveils Truck-Mounted SM-6 Missile Launcher In European Test (Updated)

A recent Navy demonstration in Europe reflects growing interest in new ground-based long-range missile capabilities across the US military.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
In regards to the SM-3 Block II does it still use a single piece nose that is ejected to the side like in the Block I or does it use two-piece clamshell type nosecone?
 
Is there any plan to Develop a new Rocket motor to replace the MK 104 Solid fuel Rocket motor with the same size ?
 
kqcke for you said:
Is there any plan to Develop a new Rocket motor to replace the MK 104 Solid fuel Rocket motor with the same size ?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there's a whole lot more thrust that can be delivered, even if you went exotic and used CL20 as the rocket fuel.

So what's wrong with the Mk104?
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not sure there's a whole lot more thrust that can be delivered, even if you went exotic and used CL20 as the rocket fuel.

So what's wrong with the Mk104?
Click to expand...
I mean Mk104 is not from Yesterday so i was thinking that there range Upgrades. I still Hope for dual/ Quad Pack SM-2's in a MK.57. So more range is allways good. If i remember right there were new actuators for jagm which increases range. And this VTS Nozzle Thing wasn't that able to "adjust" the Trust of the missile? I think stuff Like that could give ous some extra range which ich allways nice to have as not only sm 2 has something from this but also SM-6 and "older" SM-3 Versions.
 
kqcke for you said:
I mean Mk104 is not from Yesterday so i was thinking that there range Upgrades. I still Hope for dual/ Quad Pack SM-2's in a MK.57. So more range is allways good. If i remember right there were new actuators for jagm which increases range. And this VTS Nozzle Thing wasn't that able to "adjust" the Trust of the missile? I think stuff Like that could give ous some extra range which ich allways nice to have as not only sm 2 has something from this but also SM-6 and "older" SM-3 Versions.
Click to expand...
They may be trying to build to cost for the moment, so that the USN can afford full magazines of SM2s. As the costs for those mods come down, it may be possible to include them in a new production batch of missiles without greatly increasing price.
 
Does anyone know if there are any improvements in the MK104 Mod4 engine used in the SM-6 compared to the MK104 Mod3 engine used in the SM-2ER Block IV? I've searched for a long time but haven't found any relevant information
 
You could email Raytheon your query and ask for any information cleared for public release.
 
Last edited:
AI098 said:
Does anyone know if there are any improvements in the MK104 Mod4 engine used in the SM-6 compared to the MK104 Mod3 engine used in the SM-2ER Block IV? I've searched for a long time but haven't found any relevant information
Click to expand...

THere's no public info, but I think it's unlikely to be significant. My hunch is that the differences between Mod 3 and Mod 4 are more about producibility or something along those lines. Why?

1) When SM-6 was initially announced (and as recently as 2016, when this graphic was rerleased), Raytheon said it was using the MK 104 Mod 3 DTRM.

NAVAL FORCES 02/2017

monch.com monch.com

1706448176101.png

2) However, we do know that both Mod 3 and Mod 4 exist, also from 2017:

MK 104 MOD 3 & 4 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor (DTRM) and the MK 72 MOD 1 & 2 Booster for Standard Missile (SM)

Federal Contract Opportunity for MK 104 MOD 3 & 4 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor (DTRM) and the MK 72 MOD 1 & 2 Booster for Standard Missile (SM). Posted Oct 5, 2017. Due Oct 20, 2017. Naval Sea Systems Command (DOD - Navy)
govtribe.com
 
Standard has always had some form of SSM role, but have there ever been specialized warheads for land attack?

Seems like Standard high ceilings and long ranges would make them incredibly efficient for precision strike with a hard target penetrating payload.
 
MadRat said:
Standard has always had some form of SSM role, but have there ever been specialized warheads for land attack?

Seems like Standard high ceilings and long ranges would make them incredibly efficient for precision strike with a hard target penetrating payload.
Click to expand...

Land-Attack Standard had a warhead modified for land targets, but it was designed for fragmentation, not hard target penetration. I've never seen a hard-target warhead for Standard.
 
TomS said:
Land-Attack Standard had a warhead modified for land targets, but it was designed for fragmentation, not hard target penetration. I've never seen a hard-target warhead for Standard.
Click to expand...
Standards don't really have the right sensor set for going after hard targets.

Though I suppose making a hardened penetrator case instead of continuous rod or preformed fragments wouldn't be particularly complex. Especially if the casing holding the explosive was machined into shape from a large block. You could simply not do the thinning for holding the continuous rod or tungsten fragments and have a decently thick case wall for hard targets.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom