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

Standard Missile projects.

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
137
SpudmanWP said:
Is LRASM not long-ranged enough?
It is. Point being, they aren't exactly showing a lot of excitement about buying it (or a comparable weapon) for surface ships.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
20
Looks like LRASM for the USN is capped at 25 per year through 2021 (115 total) and the USAF picked up 46 through FY2019. Clearly this is the "stopgap" phase.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
137
SpudmanWP said:
Looks like LRASM for the USN is capped at 25 per year through 2021 (115 total) and the USAF picked up 46 through FY2019. Clearly this is the "stopgap" phase.
And those are all air-launched. Rather than press on with the surface-launched version directly from LRASM as OASuW Increment 2, they've rolled it into Next-Generation Strike Capability, and they keep kicking that can down the road.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
20
What, the USN kicked the can down the road???

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!! :eek:

Sadly, it's not like we haven't seen this before (NATF, A-12v2, S-3 replacement, etc).
 

litzj

BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
221
Reaction score
5
Website
jaesan-aero.blogspot.com
If SM series is converted to Surface-to-Surface purpose, How to solve smaller warhead problem?

This surface-to-air missile had experience for air and anti-radiation targets, relatively soft-skinned ones.

Destroying 'big ship' is another problem.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
40
litzj said:
If SM series is converted to Surface-to-Surface purpose, How to solve smaller warhead problem?

This surface-to-air missile had experience for air and anti-radiation targets, relatively soft-skinned ones.

Destroying 'big ship' is another problem.
It's not a "conversion," as they retain their primary anti-air role, it's an added capability via upgraded software. This is an important distinction because all the SM-6s, like all the SM-2s, already out in the fleet's VLS cells are also available to use against Surface targets as opposed to having to make room in the existing missile loadout for a dedicated ASM. As for the warhead question, sure you're unlikely to achieve the immediate destruction of any decent-sized surface combatant via a single SM-6. Shooting one at such a target, you're hoping the mass of the missile and the warhead will combine to damage critical systems (like radar) and degrade or mission-kill the ship. That's not nothing.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
137
Given that full-caliber SM-6 would be a rather heavy, fast, high-diver, I foresee a whole lot of kinetic energy damage, in addition to the warhead. With luck, a big chunk of the debris blows out through the bottom of the target's hull.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,916
Reaction score
179
TomS said:
Given that full-caliber SM-6 would be a rather heavy, fast, high-diver, I foresee a whole lot of kinetic energy damage, in addition to the warhead. With luck, a big chunk of the debris blows out through the bottom of the target's hull.
Absolutely a nice close to vertical hole from the top of the ship through the bottom of the hull would be problematic for continued operations to say the least. :eek:
 

moonbeamsts

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Add a fusing option for the warhead for ship attack ,it opens all kinds of mayhem.
 

litzj

BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
221
Reaction score
5
Website
jaesan-aero.blogspot.com
thx for answers. with its kinetic energy, sm6 could be deadly for some parts of ship and for good penetration.

but I still doubt it is less powerful than Russian supersonic monsters, having much heavier weight.

is there any news that USN try to develop counter part of Russian or Indian big supersonic missiles?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
137
litzj said:
thx for answers. with its kinetic energy, sm6 could be deadly for some parts of ship and for good penetration.

but I still doubt it is less powerful than Russian supersonic monsters, having much heavier weight.

is there any news that USN try to develop counter part of Russian or Indian big supersonic missiles?
Not recently. Certianly not since the dropped LRASM-B, the supersonic counterpart to the JASSM-derived LRASM-A.

As a practical matter, the USN is limited to antiship weapons that fit a 21-inch canister (maybe a tad more with a thin-wall canister). Anything dramatically bigger than Tomahawk or full-caliber Standard is a non-starter. So about 2 tons is about the practical size limit.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
75
Given the additional internal volume that they have to play with, it's not hard to imagine an enlarged warhead
or an enlarged seeker.

Also, sans booster, the Army could have a potential replacement for GEM-T.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,941
Reaction score
27
A 21' Booster-less SM6 would be a capable PAC-2 replacement though the Army seems to not be in any sort of hurry to replace the legacy missiles or fund a new launcher. There are a few other things the PATRIOT system can borrow from AEGIS besides the SM6. The EASR or something based on it/AMDR would make a capable secondary 360-degree surveillance sensor and is as risk_reduced as one could hope.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,111
Reaction score
357
bring_it_on said:
A 21' Booster-less SM6 would be a capable PAC-2 replacement though the Army seems to not be in any sort of hurry to replace the legacy missiles or fund a new launcher.
IIRC PAC-2 has a higher top speed, longer range, and a larger warhead than SM-2MR (RIM-66). (Which is what SM-6 is albeit with a different seeker.)
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
137
sferrin said:
IIRC PAC-2 has a higher top speed, longer range, and a larger warhead than SM-2MR (RIM-66). (Which is what SM-6 is albeit with a different seeker.)
Most of the parameters seem to be very similar, but yes, PAC-3 is much faster than SM-2MR (Mach 5 vs Mach 3.5). It's also rather heavier overall, as one much suspect since ti' considerably wider and a bit longer.

Now, the question would be how a full-caliber SM-6 performs. It's wider than Patriot and probably even heavier. How they decide to balance the motor (for speed versus range) is kind of an unknown at this point.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,111
Reaction score
357
TomS said:
sferrin said:
IIRC PAC-2 has a higher top speed, longer range, and a larger warhead than SM-2MR (RIM-66). (Which is what SM-6 is albeit with a different seeker.)
Most of the parameters seem to be very similar, but yes, PAC-3 is much faster than SM-2MR (Mach 5 vs Mach 3.5). It's also rather heavier overall, as one much suspect since ti' considerably wider and a bit longer.

Now, the question would be how a full-caliber SM-6 performs. It's wider than Patriot and probably even heavier. How they decide to balance the motor (for speed versus range) is kind of an unknown at this point.
You seem to be conflating PAC-2 and PAC-3. (Looks like it could be a typo though.) The range I've seen associated with PAC-2 is about 100 miles. Best I've ever seen with SM-2MR is about 80. Also PAC-2 carries a bigger warhead, one that is optimized for killing ballistic missile warheads (though it is not hit-to-kill). A "full caliber" SM-2 upper stage would probably require a new Patriot launcher or a reduction in missiles per trailer.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
137
Yeah, just a typo; I was looking at PAC-2 GEM numbers, which match what you cited. But I've seen 90 nm range cited for SM-2MR (from the US Navy Fact File, so apparently official). That's not a huge difference in real terms. As far as warhead weight, I was surprised to see that the Mk 125 warhead is supposedly around 300 pounds, which is actually heaver than PAC-2 (185 pounds, roughly).

I agree that full caliber SM-2MR would be a very heavy missile, and might well require modifying the Patriot launcher to beef up hydraulics and the suspension. But it wouldn't be totally incompatible -- if you can quadpack 10-inch PAC-3s into the same space as a PAC-2 canister, you should be able to fit a single 21-inch missile in the same cross-section.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,111
Reaction score
357
TomS said:
Yeah, just a typo; I was looking at PAC-2 GEM numbers, which match what you cited. But I've seen 90 nm range cited for SM-2MR (from the US Navy Fact File, so apparently official). That's not a huge difference in real terms. As far as warhead weight, I was surprised to see that the Mk 125 warhead is supposedly around 300 pounds, which is actually heaver than PAC-2 (185 pounds, roughly).

I agree that full caliber SM-2MR would be a very heavy missile, and might well require modifying the Patriot launcher to beef up hydraulics and the suspension. But it wouldn't be totally incompatible -- if you can quadpack 10-inch PAC-3s into the same space as a PAC-2 canister, you should be able to fit a single 21-inch missile in the same cross-section.
Hmm. The information I'm finding has the Mk 125 warhead at 115kg (253lb). (Though I've seen the 300 figure tied to SM-4 LASM.) SM-6's warhead seems to be closer to 140lbs. (64kg) (Which could indicate that it has a higher performance than the latest RIM-66 since the warhead is roughly half the weight.)
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
137
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Yeah, just a typo; I was looking at PAC-2 GEM numbers, which match what you cited. But I've seen 90 nm range cited for SM-2MR (from the US Navy Fact File, so apparently official). That's not a huge difference in real terms. As far as warhead weight, I was surprised to see that the Mk 125 warhead is supposedly around 300 pounds, which is actually heaver than PAC-2 (185 pounds, roughly).

I agree that full caliber SM-2MR would be a very heavy missile, and might well require modifying the Patriot launcher to beef up hydraulics and the suspension. But it wouldn't be totally incompatible -- if you can quadpack 10-inch PAC-3s into the same space as a PAC-2 canister, you should be able to fit a single 21-inch missile in the same cross-section.
Hmm. The information I'm finding has the Mk 125 warhead at 115kg (253lb). (Though I've seen the 300 figure tied to SM-4 LASM.) SM-6's warhead seems to be closer to 140lbs. (64kg) (Which could indicate that it has a higher performance than the latest RIM-66 since the warhead is roughly half the weight.)
Warhead weights are notoriously fuzzy things. Could be looking at differences between explosive weight, warhead (explosive fill plus casing), and weight including the TDD.
 

JakobS

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Wouldn't it be easier to just put a new seeker on PAC-2?

Seems to me it dosen't need more range or to be hit-to-kill. An active seeker would greatly improve it's ability to counter cruise missiles and smaller UAV's.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,111
Reaction score
357
TomS said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Yeah, just a typo; I was looking at PAC-2 GEM numbers, which match what you cited. But I've seen 90 nm range cited for SM-2MR (from the US Navy Fact File, so apparently official). That's not a huge difference in real terms. As far as warhead weight, I was surprised to see that the Mk 125 warhead is supposedly around 300 pounds, which is actually heaver than PAC-2 (185 pounds, roughly).

I agree that full caliber SM-2MR would be a very heavy missile, and might well require modifying the Patriot launcher to beef up hydraulics and the suspension. But it wouldn't be totally incompatible -- if you can quadpack 10-inch PAC-3s into the same space as a PAC-2 canister, you should be able to fit a single 21-inch missile in the same cross-section.
Hmm. The information I'm finding has the Mk 125 warhead at 115kg (253lb). (Though I've seen the 300 figure tied to SM-4 LASM.) SM-6's warhead seems to be closer to 140lbs. (64kg) (Which could indicate that it has a higher performance than the latest RIM-66 since the warhead is roughly half the weight.)
Warhead weights are notoriously fuzzy things. Could be looking at differences between explosive weight, warhead (explosive fill plus casing), and weight including the TDD.
True. There's also a "Mod 2" version of the Mk125, whatever that means. And sometimes one reads so many things over the years trying to keep the details straight can be. . .problematic. I was convinced the MIM-104 had a 285lb warhead (where I'd seen that God only knows) and that they'd also ported over the AIM-120 warhead to SM-6. :-[
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,941
Reaction score
27
JakobS said:
Wouldn't it be easier to just put a new seeker on PAC-2?

Seems to me it dosen't need more range or to be hit-to-kill. An active seeker would greatly improve it's ability to counter cruise missiles and smaller UAV's.
Yes, it will be relatively easy and not very different from what the Navy is doing with the ESSM Block 2 or what was done on the SM-6. The Army could even borrow and scale the seeker as Raytheon has done it a few times now. This is very much a possibility given that it appears that PAC-2 integration does not seem to be a current requirement for LTAMDS (see below). That said, I'm sure they could do a lot better if they took a little more risk and explored a longer ranged AAW interceptor that would still offer the loadout advantage on the launcher side (like 8 interceptors pre launcher). Raytheon, could on their own explore the PAC-2 upgrade given that the MSE has now had its full rate production and will be more available really putting a lot of pressure on the big interceptor from an export perspective. If they don't keep the PAC-2 relevant I don't see it being a big export revenue earner for them in the coming decade.

The prototype LTAMDS radar must be interoperable with Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD) Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) command / control and PATRIOT Advanced Capability - 3 (PAC-3) class of interceptors, and meet the performance requirements as defined in the LTAMDS performance specification. The Government intends to use the DOTC OTA to potentially fund up to three (3) vendors for TMRR beginning in FY18 and beyond. The expected prototype deliverable quantity is one (1) demonstration report per technology selected. The feasibility of the prototype will be demonstrated and tested by the Contractor and witnessed by the Government. LINK
 

Sea Skimmer2

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
JakobS said:
Wouldn't it be easier to just put a new seeker on PAC-2?

Seems to me it dosen't need more range or to be hit-to-kill. An active seeker would greatly improve it's ability to counter cruise missiles and smaller UAV's.
Done done
https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-acm.htm

PACM standing for Patriot Anti Cruise Missile project cancelled around 2000. Got as far as two successful live firings, but it also cost over 1 million dollars to upgrade an existing missile with the active homing system, and said missile would not have the same service lifespan of a new missile. After PAC-3 proved able to hit low altitude targets the Army cancelled PACM and launched multiple programs under the heading of 'Low Cost Interceptor' to give MEADS something cheaper to fire, one of these was a new solid fuel missile and one was an interceptor version of the MALD decoy drone. Those efforts had several live firings as well, then got downscaled to solid fuel AMRAAM class missile that had some more basic tests...then the war in Iraq ate all the funding and SLAMRAAM itself was cancelled too.

10 years later the US Army is talking about a lower cost missile for Patriot again....
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,941
Reaction score
27
The various LCI and other related efforts are extensively documented in the various threads here. Fast forward to 2018, the Army now has a much better grasp on how best to approach low-cost RF seekers and they continue to invest down that road. I believe Lockheed has been working on affordable active phased array seekers under a couple of contracts from the Army. Similarly, Raytheon can probably do a lot better now given their scale with the AMRAAM, SM6, possibly SM2 Active and the ESSM Block 2. There is volume and scale there.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
137
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.
 

Attachments

Dilandu

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
91
Reaction score
15
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
I wonder, was there any proposals to mate the AIM-54 active seeker head with SM-2ER missile body in 1970-1980s? After all, the "Sea Phoenix" was proposed, so the basic idea of active-seeker surface-to-air missile was around. `

Granted, the AIM-54 have an inch more diameter than RIM-67, so it may represent quite a few technical challenges.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,111
Reaction score
357
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.
Wish they gave dimensions of the "real" cell. If they're able to stuff an ATACMs in there (or LRASM, which is also bigger than the released cell size) "22-in" is a bit on the low side.
 

GWrecks

Big Wingy Thingy
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
77
Reaction score
1
My professor worked in the Navy as part of missile development in the Cold War and mentioned something about a Standard Missile derivative with ramjet propulsion...I'm not sure what he means by this and I didn't want to ask further because I'm merely his student and asking about missiles in after-hours of a GD&T class seems a bit odd to me. Not to mention, a bunch of stuff he did is still under wraps today.

Does anyone know of such a project? I've known another person in the Navy and when I showed her the Submersible Nuclear Ramjet she told me that things about as bizarre were still being proposed into the 80s, but they were generally axed much more quickly. So if the ramjet version of the Standard missile was just something proposed but not part of a serious study I wouldn't be surprised.

EDIT: Silly me, I decided to search the board after I made this post...

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,466.msg230848.html#msg230848

It seems that there was an ASALM variant meant for Mk 41 VLS, which suggests to me that it may be the ramjet-propelled missile he's talking about. He never specifically said the missile itself was based upon the Standard, so he might have meant that it can be used in the same launcher (Mk 41 VLS) as a Standard Missile.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
137
Depending on how old your prof is, he could also be talking about Typhon LR, a ramjet powered Terrier replacement. Typhon SR evolved into Standard MR, and Typhon LR might be seen as a relative of Standard ER.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,111
Reaction score
357
bring_it_on said:
Looks like they have an SM-6 Block IB up there too.

"On Jan. 17, the Navy approved plans to develop a Dual Thrust Rocket Motor with a 21-
inch diameter for the SM-6, which is currently fielded with a 13.5-inch propulsion package.
The new rocket motor would sit atop the current 21-inch booster, producing a new variant
of the missile: the SM-6 Block IB"
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
137
Talking about the grey missile at top right? Surprised they kept the forward fuselage at13.5 inches, but I guess that's the minimum-change solution to get improved kinematics without redesigning the warhead or seeker at all.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,941
Reaction score
27
I think that would work for now given that this had come in as an unfunded priority from the CNO that they wanted to move fast IIRC. They could work on upgrading the seeker and warhead in future variants.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
75
Are they really viewing it primarily as an ASuW weapon?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,941
Reaction score
27
I think that this may be a mistake in the slide. Even if the upgrade was primarily meant to enhance its ASuW capability it should still retain the AAW and SBT roles unless they have done away with some of the agility requirements which would be very strange.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
137
I think it may just be that the person who made this slide doesn't understand how Venn diagrams work.
 
Top