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

Standard Missile projects.

Austin

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
194
Reaction score
1
Strategic Capabilities of SM-3 Block IIA Interceptors (June 30, 2016)
https://mostlymissiledefense.com/2016/06/30/strategic-capabilities-of-sm-3-block-iia-interceptors-june-30-2016/
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
Well FWIW, at a recent missile defense conference in Poland there were talks of reviving EPAA Phase 4 which would mean SM3 Block II B. They also talked about making the missiles mobile. Of course a lot would depend on the next POTUS and the one after him/her.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
40
Haven't seen or heard any of that discussion from Poland yet, but it's not surprising. The desire to increase performance beyond SM-3 IIA and the desire to increase EPAA beyond its Phase 3 capabilities haven't gone away, they were effectively pushed back in favor of other MDA priorities. Now that three years of RKV and additional GBI funding are taken care of, it makes sense to begin looking at the next step for Aegis/EPAA again.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
Pentagon approves SM-6 international sales


The Defense Department has approved the Standard Missile-6 for international sales, as contractor Raytheon eyes Australia, Japan and South Korea as potential customers, the company said Jan. 10.

The Pentagon cleared the SM-6 for foreign sales to "several international customers" in December, Raytheon told reporters Jan. 10 at the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium in Arlington, VA. The SM-6 is a surface-launched missile capable of anti-air, sea-based terminal and anti-surface engagements.

Thad Smith, Raytheon's head of business development for SM-6, said Australia, Japan and South Korea are potential customers because they are buying or are interested in buying the latest version of the Aegis weapon system, Baseline 9, the only combat system capable of operating the SM-6.

"Those are the only three countries that either have the correct baseline that they're going to procure or have said that they want to go procure to date," Smith said. "Now, have there been other briefings to other countries? Yes."

Australia is constructing three Hobart-class air warfare destroyers outfitted with Aegis Baseline 8. A 2016 white paper outlining the requirement for the Hobart class also delineates a need for an extended-range, active missile, according to Smith. But in order to use SM-6, Australia would need to upgrade its destroyers to Aegis Baseline 9.

Japan is buying two Baseline 9 destroyers and upgrading two others to the latest Aegis system. South Korea, meanwhile, is building three Sejong the Great-class guided missile destroyers with the Aegis Baseline 9 combat system.

Smith said some countries have sent letters of request to the U.S. government for the SM-6, but he declined to name specific nations. Letters of request formally initiate foreign military sales discussions.

The U.S. Navy is buying 1,800 SM-6 interceptors as part of its program of record. Raytheon has delivered 300 so far, according to Smith. The service requested $501 million in fiscal year 2017 to buy 125 SM-6 interceptors, with each missile costing about $4 million, according to the Navy's budget justification documents.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
77
It's impossible not to notice that Raytheon's SM-6 salesman is named "Thad" (yes it's missing an "A" but even so).
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
77
A short history into the origins of the Standard Missile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwH1B-X6z2Q
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
851
Reaction score
47
fredymac said:
A short history into the origins of the Standard Missile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwH1B-X6z2Q
The historical footage is like stepping into a time machine - so Fifties!

I have a bunch of old missile engineering books from that era; the dust jacket of one of them has LITHOGRAPHS of early Talos and Falcon plan-forms on it, and an aerodynamic shape described inside another is clearly an early Talos, though not named as such. I had thought that interesting snippets about particular early variants of the 3T missiles might be obtainable from the text, but alas not.

Back on topic, I would rather be able to fling up to sixty-four SM-6 missiles over the horizon at an enemy battlegroup than be restricted to eight Harpoons, especially if I knew that a swarm of the enemy's supersonic sea-skimming SSMs were coming for me and I wasn't going to be able to stop all of them. If I can sacrifice one AEGIS destroyer to cripple the enemy surface fleet, it will be worth the trade because with the amount of work today's ships need to make them battleworthy after damage, they aren't going to be able to rebuild or repair it before the end of the war.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
43
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Have there every been any proposals for a land based version of any of the Standard missile family?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
GTX said:
Have there every been any proposals for a land based version of any of the Standard missile family?
Other than this?
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/raytheon-wants-us-army-adopt-standard-missile

Well, there's obviously AEGIS Ashore, which is land-based Standard SM-3 (and maybe SM-6).
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
40
Sea Sparrow and ESSM have from time to time. Not able to dig out any information at the moment though.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
In the recent past, ESSM Block 1 was launched from NASAMS and was offered but Raytheon then switched it to the AMRAAM-ER configuration since according to it most of the customers were interested in an active seeker weapon.
 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
85
Reaction score
3
bring_it_on said:
In the recent past, ESSM Block 1 was launched from NASAMS and was offered but Raytheon then switched it to the AMRAAM-ER configuration since according to it most of the customers were interested in an active seeker weapon.
This is a bit off topic, but I wonder if MBDA will ever offer up a SL-Meteor as a competitor to SLAMRAAM. It would be a superior missile to any AMRAAM within the same range and a bit further and electrically compatible (IIRC Meteor is backwards compatible with AMRAAM plugs and rails) with the NASAMS box launchers.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
A longer ranged AMRAAM is on offer for NASAMS in the AMRAAM-ER. Sure an SL-Meteor could be designed, but one advantage for current and future customers of the system is that they can take their standard AMRAAM stocks and orders and use them on the NASAMS, something that is a drawback even for the ER version. Moreover, cost is also likely to play a role here since many NASAM customers and perspective operators are already AMRAAM users and have it integrated with their fighters. I think from a capabilities and cost perspective, integrating the SkyCeptor with NASAMS is probably a better idea than the Meteor given the Stunners cost and the ability to go after the cheaper, shorter ranged ballistic missiles. The Sentinel A4 would open up NASAMS to longer range intercepts so most operators will likely shop around for options when they look to upgrade the system..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj26G5uZ6Do
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
75
From FBO for November 20, 2017


The Naval Sea Systems Command intends to award STANDARD Missile-2 Block IIIC EMD and LRIP
requirements on a sole source basis to Raytheon Company, 1151 East Hermans Road, Tucson,
Arizona 85706. The requirement consists of leveraging existing fielded designs from both the
STANDARD Missile-2 and STANDARD Missile-6 to develop the SM-2 Block IIIC All-Up-Round (AUR) design
and produce Low Rate Initial Production AURs.
my emphasis
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
355
Sounds like the intent is basically an SM-6 sans booster to replace the current SM-2 Block IIIBs. BTW whatever happened to the plan to add TVC (among other things) to SM-2 to enable more effectiveness against sea-skimmers? Anybody know what THAT mod was supposed to be called?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
sferrin said:
Sounds like the intent is basically an SM-6 sans booster to replace the current SM-2 Block IIIBs. BTW whatever happened to the plan to add TVC (among other things) to SM-2 to enable more effectiveness against sea-skimmers? Anybody know what THAT mod was supposed to be called?
They really need to standardize their nomneclature a bit.

The FY18 Budget request refers to this missile as SM-2 Active or SM-6 MR.

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/18pres/WPN_Book.pdf

SM-2 ACTIVE: SM-2 Improvements will bring the SM-2 medium range missile into the family of active missiles as an active MR missile. SM-2 Active (or SM-6 MR) provides enhanced Stream-Raid performance against numerous threats to include agile prism via target resolution in range and Doppler and missile/target pairing logic, over-the-horizon capability for increased depth of fire, enhanced capability against electronic attack, improved firepower due to decreased dependence on illuminators, and enhanced fuzing via guidance integrated fuzing. Effort leverages to the maximum extent existing SM-6 infrastructure and industrial manufacturing capability. The inventory objective is 1,000 units.
It also refers to SM-2 Block IIIAZ, which is a IIIA modified to work with the non-AEGIS radar in DDG-1000 (and presumably future non-AEGIS ships).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
355
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Sounds like the intent is basically an SM-6 sans booster to replace the current SM-2 Block IIIBs. BTW whatever happened to the plan to add TVC (among other things) to SM-2 to enable more effectiveness against sea-skimmers? Anybody know what THAT mod was supposed to be called?
They really need to standardize their nomneclature a bit.

The FY18 Budget request refers to this missile as SM-2 Active or SM-6 MR.

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/18pres/WPN_Book.pdf

SM-2 ACTIVE: SM-2 Improvements will bring the SM-2 medium range missile into the family of active missiles as an active MR missile. SM-2 Active (or SM-6 MR) provides enhanced Stream-Raid performance against numerous threats to include agile prism via target resolution in range and Doppler and missile/target pairing logic, over-the-horizon capability for increased depth of fire, enhanced capability against electronic attack, improved firepower due to decreased dependence on illuminators, and enhanced fuzing via guidance integrated fuzing. Effort leverages to the maximum extent existing SM-6 infrastructure and industrial manufacturing capability. The inventory objective is 1,000 units.
It also refers to SM-2 Block IIIAZ, which is a IIIA modified to work with the non-AEGIS radar in DDG-1000 (and presumably future non-AEGIS ships).
I wonder why they'd go with the IIIA instead of the newer IIIB. (Both are pretty much ancient.)
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
75
sferrin said:
I wonder why they'd go with the IIIA instead of the newer IIIB. (Both are pretty much ancient.)
Cost reasons.

It was originally IIIB but IIIA already had the X-band datalink and supported ICWI.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
Raytheon developing upgraded SM-2 exclusively for United States


Raytheon received a request for proposals this week to develop the Standard Missile-2 IIIC interceptor, which it will sell exclusively to the United States, according to a company official.

The IIIC will have an active front end seeker capability, in addition to the semi-active seeker that was on its predecessors, Ivonne May, SM-2 director at Raytheon, told Inside the Navy this week. The company expects to receive a Navy contract this summer.

"The intent is to start [developing the missile] this year, and it will be an accelerated acquisition," she said. "The Navy's plan is to have a missile in three years."

Separately, Raytheon was awarded a $617 million contract in June to restart production of SM-2 IIIA and IIIB. Those missiles will be sold as foreign military sales to Japan, Australia, the Netherlands and South Korea, according to a Defense Department statement. If all options are exercised, the contract is valued at $652 million.

May also said Raytheon is in talks for a future deal to sell another batch of missiles to those same countries, as well as Denmark.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
355
A shame they didn't throw in the propulsion upgrades as well.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
Sounds like they're looking to go full-caliber on SM-6. Should be a pretty simple development effort, since there's already a 21-inch SRM for SM-3 Block 2A. You might want a different thrust profile for SM-6, but the basics are already established.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
355
TomS said:
Sounds like they're looking to go full-caliber on SM-6. Should be a pretty simple development effort, since there's already a 21-inch SRM for SM-3 Block 2A. You might want a different thrust profile for SM-6, but the basics are already established.

Something like this or stick with 3 stages? If the latter I'd be stuffing some KKVs in there.
 

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
Probably two-stage with a Mk 72 booster and a 21-inch missile on top of that. No third stage, because you want to keep the secondary antiship function, which means a blast-frag warhead and plenty of mass.

Edit: it just dawned on me that the USN has to develop a new 21-inch motor for this because the second-stage motor in SM-3 BLK IIA is a Japanese development and probably can't be brought straight into an all-US SM-6 development effort.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
75
TomS said:
Probably two-stage with a Mk 72 booster and a 21-inch missile on top of that. No third stage, because you want to keep the secondary antiship function, which means a blast-frag warhead and plenty of mass.

Edit: it just dawned on me that the USN has to develop a new 21-inch motor for this because the second-stage motor in SM-3 BLK IIA is a Japanese development and probably can't be brought straight into an all-US SM-6 development effort.
Would the MOU/cooperative development agreement actually prohibit the use of the propulsion stack on a further SM derivative?
Curious if the Navy elects to expand the seeker aperture to the full-diameter.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
Not sure specifically, but I'd guess it complicates things. Japan is actually funding the BLK IIA second stage directly, so they may have some ownership rights over the design. And the MOU only covers SM-3, so there might not be provisions for the US to use that Japanese-funded tech in a non SM-3 application.
 

windingroad

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Sounds like they're looking to go full-caliber on SM-6. Should be a pretty simple development effort, since there's already a 21-inch SRM for SM-3 Block 2A. You might want a different thrust profile for SM-6, but the basics are already established.

Something like this or stick with 3 stages? If the latter I'd be stuffing some KKVs in there.
the second pic looks really interesting, is this concept antiairkkv came from SACM/MHTK?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
40
TomS said:
Probably two-stage with a Mk 72 booster and a 21-inch missile on top of that. No third stage, because you want to keep the secondary antiship function, which means a blast-frag warhead and plenty of mass.

Edit: it just dawned on me that the USN has to develop a new 21-inch motor for this because the second-stage motor in SM-3 BLK IIA is a Japanese development and probably can't be brought straight into an all-US SM-6 development effort.
Partnering with Japan again would certainly seem to be an option, the present government there has been more open to this sort of cooperation anyway, just don't tell Mar-a-Lago the details about it. Producing the SM-3 motors under license or at having MHI set up a subsidiary in the US may also be options, if we need to get creative, though there are pitfalls to both. At this point, they're still in the "how much will this cost and what risks are there" phase so I guess we'll see how it shakes out.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
75
I was revisiting P&W CSD's "High Performance Boost Propulsion for Navy Theater Missile Defense" where
they examined (and built for static firing) a 21-inch stage-two motor.

The propellant (all boost) configuration and case configuration were geared towards
rather steep flight profiles/STOF and structural/thermal loads that seem much lower
than what SM-6 would experience.

Are there any details on SM-3 IIa's propulsion stack?
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
355
Pretty sure that shot is from here around 6:07:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLZEzQnBhCo
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
MDA exploring Aegis BMD for boost-phase intercept


The Missile Defense Agency is eying the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system to shoot down enemy long-range ballistic missile during the boost-phase of flight, a technically challenging gambit to add a new defensive layer against North Korean threats and reduce exclusive reliance on the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system to protect the United States.

MDA has identified a new project -- "Aegis Launch During Boost" -- to kickoff in fiscal year 2019. The Pentagon, however, did not fund the proposed effort in its FY-19 budget.

Still, MDA forwarded lawmakers a wish list of projects it would prioritize if Congress were inclined to increase missile defense funding in FY-19, including $15 million to explore using a combination of the Aegis BMD Weapon system and family of Standard Missile-3 guided missile interceptors, which are central to the Pentagon's regional ballistic missile defense mission, for a potential wider portfolio.

"MDA's mission is to explore defensive capabilities in all ranges of flight to include boost and ascent phase," MDA Director Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves told Inside Defense in an April 6 written statement. "These funds will be used to explore existing weapons capabilities, to include SM-3 variants capability in this range of flight," the three-star Air Force general said of the $15 million MDA has identified for the Aegis Launch During Boost project.

Boost-phase intercept weapons aim to incapacitate attacking missiles during the first few minutes of flight while enemy missile boosters are still burning and before any countermeasures are deployed. The Pentagon spent $5 billion over a decade on an Airborne Laser program that aimed to provide a boost-phase intercept capability before determining in 2009 the project was not feasible. MDA has recently resurrected the idea of an airborne laser capability for boost-phase intercept, exploring the potential for lasers on unmanned aircraft.

Were Congress to provide the additional funds for an Aegis boost-phase project, MDA would "initiate the engineering feasibility analysis and design work required in support of this capability," Greaves said. "Out-year funding would be required for engineering analysis, design, implementation and testing efforts in support of this operational capability, consistent with a software-intensive capability delivery."

Greaves declined to provide any details of prior work the agency has conducted exploring the potential for Aegis and boost-phase intercept other than to note "MDA has previously performed related feasibility analyses."

Last month, the MDA director told Congress the agency was exploring whether the Navy's newest ballistic missile interceptor -- the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA -- originally designed to intercept medium- and intermediate-range threats might extend its reach to strike intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Specifically, Greaves told the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee on March 22 that MDA "is evaluating the technical feasibility of the capability of the SM-3 Block IIA missile, currently under development, against an ICBM-class target."

The goal is to figure out whether Aegis BMD might "underlay" the GMD system and provide an additional band of defense against Pyongyang's long-range rocket ambitions. The Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act directed the agency to explore this possibility and lay plans for a test by 2020.

A 2004 report by the American Physical Society on Boost-Phase Intercept noted that sea-basing a notional boost-phase intercept capability would carry the advantages of being able to move interceptors to critical locations almost anywhere in the world when a conflict arises, and a system such as Aegis could remain on-station indefinitely.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,915
Reaction score
179
From Inside Defense

Navy looking to dramatically increase range, speed of SM-6 with larger rocket motor

The Defense Department has launched a prototype project that aims to dramatically increase the speed and range of the Navy's Standard Missile-6 by adding a larger rocket motor to the ship-launched weapon, a move that aims to improve both the offensive and defensive reach of the Raytheon-built system.
 

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
951
Reaction score
20
bobbymike said:
The Defense Department has launched a prototype project that aims to dramatically increase the speed and range of the Navy's Standard Missile-6 by adding a larger rocket motor to the ship-launched weapon, a move that aims to improve both the offensive and defensive reach of the Raytheon-built system.
Ooo... Increased flexibility. Perfect for those South China Seas moments!
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
bobbymike said:
From Inside Defense

Navy looking to dramatically increase range, speed of SM-6 with larger rocket motor

The Defense Department has launched a prototype project that aims to dramatically increase the speed and range of the Navy's Standard Missile-6 by adding a larger rocket motor to the ship-launched weapon, a move that aims to improve both the offensive and defensive reach of the Raytheon-built system.
This is a full-caliber SM-6 with a 21-inch fuselage and motor, not the usual 13.5. So basically the same change as SM-3 Block IIA.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
40
With a dual-thrust 21" stage, Block IB's going to have pretty excellent range.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
20
That will be some serious OTH coverage for the fleet. :eek:
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
SpudmanWP said:
That will be some serious OTH coverage for the fleet. :eek:
Might help explain the USN's lack of serious interest in new long-rnage antiship cruise missiles -- if you've got a ballistic rock like this to throw, there aren't many naval forces that can deal with more than a couple of them inbound.
 
Top