Standard Missile projects.

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
218
Reaction score
332
A big IF then was how realistic was the "threat-representative Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) target"?

This is a never ending debate. MDA and the Navy will likely say that the threat, when combined with its ability to simulate intercept scenarios and threat capabilities, is a good representation of real world performance, while detractors will claim that nothing is fully representative until one actually shoots down an ICBM or completely declassifies the program so that they can fully validate this claim.
Thx for your info, confirmation its a grey area.

It's a non story. If this standard was applied universally then the efficacy of most weapons, that haven't been used in war, would be in the "grey area" because their developers and operators refuse to declassify minute details on how they work and how they are tested, or use them in an actual war to settle the debate one way or the other. But it just seems that these standards are applied selectively depending upon which side of the argument one lands.
Yeah, this kind of stupidity gets old. Philip Coyle is notorious for this. GMD is useless well, because he says so. But if we stationed them in Europe the would nullify Russian ICBMs according to him. See, apparently it's far easier to chase an ICBM down from behind, with only 5 minutes to detect, decide, and launch, than it is to have a half hour to wait for it to come to you. :rolleyes:
Any thoughts in hot war what would be the successful interception rate, have seen between 75 to 90% for Iron Dome and a study on THAAD in Korea estimated in the high eighties, both based on launch of two AA missiles per target missile.

That leads on to the question of how do you estimate the number of SM-3 IIA needed to be funded for both USN and Aegis Ashore to counter the threats from China, Russia, North Korea and Iran.
Russia is basically a none start due to the shear numbers they can throw if they wanted.

China, North Korea and Iran on the other hand...

Basically take their missile count and times by say three for any given one. But remember its not just the SM3 they have to get through, the GDI uses the same tech as the SM3, so you have to factor in those as well.

Then you have the tests with the THAAD/SM6 showing those can JUST knock down most ICBM RVs. Theres is another layer to factor in.

Cause that is the US Defense plan for ICBMs, has been since the Safeguard program basically.

Defense in Depth, several systems spec for different areas to be able to knock down several targets in its kill zone, so hopefully none make it thru by the time it hits past the last layer.
 

totoro

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
473
Reaction score
232
A few questions:
SM-2 ER and SM-2 blk IV are two different missiles, right?
ER one is not mk41 compatible but blk IV is?
ER had a fairly short career and not many have been produced? And is not used anywhere for quite some time now, correct?

But what about blk IV? It is still in use? When did the production run on that one start and when did it end? Late 90s, early 2000s? I can't find a number produced. I managed to find a figure of at least 160 missiles made, but that seems way too low for the total production run. Or could it be that indeed blk IV was never made in great numbers, as something better (sm-6) was desired even back then in 2000s?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
2,567
I was surprised that there isn't an easily findable breakdown of the versions (Wiki is atrocious on this) But you mostly have it.

SM-1ER and SM-2ER are Terrier-style two-stage missiles fired from rail launchers. I would not say SM-2ER had a short life: it entered service in 1980 and in various versions served until 1995 in the USN and even later in Italian service.

SM-2 Block IV is a VLS-compatible missile (sometimes referred to as AEGIS ER). Development was protracted and production was very limited. There might be some Blk IV left in inventory, but probably not. It was followed by Block IVA, which added an infrared seeker and was associated with the Navy Lower Tier/ Naval Area Defense ballistic missile defense capability. When that was cancelled in 2001, Block IVA was also cancelled.

After that, the main focus was on the SM-3 ballistic missile defense interceptor, which was based on the SM-2 Block IV airframe but with a separate third stage and kinetic kill vehicle.

There was an interest in an SM-5 (discussed up thread) for area air defense, but it didn't proceed very far.

SM-6 has been in the works since the early 2000s but took a very long time to come into service.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
A few questions:
SM-2 ER and SM-2 blk IV are two different missiles, right?
ER one is not mk41 compatible but blk IV is?
ER had a fairly short career and not many have been produced? And is not used anywhere for quite some time now, correct?

But what about blk IV? It is still in use? When did the production run on that one start and when did it end? Late 90s, early 2000s? I can't find a number produced. I managed to find a figure of at least 160 missiles made, but that seems way too low for the total production run. Or could it be that indeed blk IV was never made in great numbers, as something better (sm-6) was desired even back then in 2000s?
The booster which put the "ER" in SM-2 ER was not VLS compatible, so it was only used on ships with rail launchers. A VLS-compatible finless, thrust-vectoring booster was developed, the Mk72, and when paired with the SM-2 the resulting system was the SM-2 Block IV. (I'm oversimplifying a little, the whole missile was upgraded compared to the ER). This also resulted in a new RIM number.

During Block IV's development, NATBMD and the Block IV A came to be seen as the priority. The basic Block IV went from being the goal to a stepping stone to the goal. In 2001, NATBMD and Block IV A died. SM-3 had already been spun out of Block IV as a high-tier BMD weapon, and when SM-6 was launched the program started by building on what Block IV had already done.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708
A few questions:
SM-2 ER and SM-2 blk IV are two different missiles, right?
ER one is not mk41 compatible but blk IV is?
ER had a fairly short career and not many have been produced? And is not used anywhere for quite some time now, correct?

But what about blk IV? It is still in use? When did the production run on that one start and when did it end? Late 90s, early 2000s? I can't find a number produced. I managed to find a figure of at least 160 missiles made, but that seems way too low for the total production run. Or could it be that indeed blk IV was never made in great numbers, as something better (sm-6) was desired even back then in 2000s?
The booster which put the "ER" in SM-2 ER was not VLS compatible, so it was only used on ships with rail launchers. A VLS-compatible finless, thrust-vectoring booster was developed, the Mk72, and when paired with the SM-2 the resulting system was the SM-2 Block IV. (I'm oversimplifying a little, the whole missile was upgraded compared to the ER). This also resulted in a new RIM number.

During Block IV's development, NATBMD and the Block IV A came to be seen as the priority. The basic Block IV went from being the goal to a stepping stone to the goal. In 2001, NATBMD and Block IV A died. SM-3 had already been spun out of Block IV as a high-tier BMD weapon, and when SM-6 was launched the program started by building on what Block IV had already done.
There were at least two Block IV variants, of which ~70 remain in inventory.
 

totoro

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
473
Reaction score
232
So, to sum it up - SM-2 blk IV is almost non existent in numbers, for USN practical purposes? It had a nominal range of 240 km (or 300, doesn't matter really)?

And now, if one disregards the SM-6 for a moment,
the longest reaching remaining SAM that USN has in ample numbers would be the SM-2 blk III? That one doesn't have a booster? And its nominal range is roughly 170 km?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708
So, to sum it up - SM-2 blk IV is almost non existent in numbers, for USN practical purposes? It had a nominal range of 240 km (or 300, doesn't matter really)?

And now, if one disregards the SM-6 for a moment,
the longest reaching remaining SAM that USN has in ample numbers would be the SM-2 blk III? That one doesn't have a booster? And its nominal range is roughly 170 km?
Yep. They won't have large numbers of SM-6 for years.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
2,567
Yep. They won't have large numbers of SM-6 for years.

Depends on what you mean by "large numbers." They built around 180 rounds during LRIP (not counting the 25 SDD rounds that were expended in testing) and transitioned to full-rate production in 2015. FRP is 125 rounds per year. That suggests there ought to be several hundred delivered already.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708
Yep. They won't have large numbers of SM-6 for years.

Depends on what you mean by "large numbers." They built around 180 rounds during LRIP (not counting the 25 SDD rounds that were expended in testing) and transitioned to full-rate production in 2015. FRP is 125 rounds per year. That suggests there ought to be several hundred delivered already.
Distributed among 80-ish Aegis ships.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
2,567
Yep. They won't have large numbers of SM-6 for years.

Depends on what you mean by "large numbers." They built around 180 rounds during LRIP (not counting the 25 SDD rounds that were expended in testing) and transitioned to full-rate production in 2015. FRP is 125 rounds per year. That suggests there ought to be several hundred delivered already.
Distributed among 80-ish Aegis ships.

Sure, low density. But way more than the double-digit numbers of SM2 Block IV that are apparently out there. (I actually thought they might have timed out by now; it's been ~20 years since any Blk IV were made.)

The eventual production target for SM-6 is 1800 rounds, so it's always going to be a relatively scarce asset. The majority of deployed SMs are probably always going to be some version of SM2MR (Block IIIA/B and ultimately IIIC) because the ER versions (including both SM-3 and SM-6) are much more expensive and not needed for most engagements.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708
Yep. They won't have large numbers of SM-6 for years.

Depends on what you mean by "large numbers." They built around 180 rounds during LRIP (not counting the 25 SDD rounds that were expended in testing) and transitioned to full-rate production in 2015. FRP is 125 rounds per year. That suggests there ought to be several hundred delivered already.
Distributed among 80-ish Aegis ships.

Sure, low density. But way more than the double-digit numbers of SM2 Block IV that are apparently out there. (I actually thought they might have timed out by now; it's been ~20 years since any Blk IV were made.)

The eventual production target for SM-6 is 1800 rounds, so it's always going to be a relatively scarce asset. The majority of deployed SMs are probably always going to be some version of SM2MR (Block IIIA/B and ultimately IIIC) because the ER versions (including both SM-3 and SM-6) are much more expensive and not needed for most engagements.
The last CRS report mentioned they were in inventory. (Or were at least thought to be.)

1608237116481.png
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
2,567
Sure, low density. But way more than the double-digit numbers of SM2 Block IV that are apparently out there. (I actually thought they might have timed out by now; it's been ~20 years since any Blk IV were made.)
The last CRS report mentioned they were in inventory. (Or were at least thought to be.)

View attachment 646681

I actually meant to thank you for the correction. I thought that they might be nearing end-of-life at 20+ years. Looks like 30 years is a better estimate, so they've got a few years left.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
SM-2 Block IV intercepts (per MDA)

24-May-06 Pacific Phoenix
5-Jun-08 FTM-14 (video one)
26-Mar-09 Stellar Daggers
29-Jul-15 MMW Event 2 (video two) (possible typo on the MDA website or the video on the date)
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
This is not new information. These plans were known for quite a while.

 
Last edited:

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
275
Reaction score
230
It would be interesting to see if the USN develops an underwater launched SM-6 variant from the Virginia-class SSNs, call it the UIM-174/UGM-174.
 

Hobbes

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
604
Seems unlikely; the missile is one thing but the radar would mean massive changes to the conning tower. All for a capability that would require the submarine to surface (which is the last thing a submariner wants).
 

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
275
Reaction score
230
Seems unlikely; the missile is one thing but the radar would mean massive changes to the conning tower. All for a capability that would require the submarine to surface (which is the last thing a submariner wants).

Not really, the SM-6 design was equipped with a two-way data-link right from the beginning so it can be cued by sensors from platforms other than its' launch-platform such as a surface-vessel such as a Ticonderoga-class missile-cruise, an E-2D Hawkeye or an F/A-18E Super Hornet in its' air-to-air mode. For its' surface-to-surface mode it also has IIRC onboard GPS for mid-course guidance.
 

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
73
It would be interesting to see if the USN develops an underwater launched SM-6 variant from the Virginia-class SSNs, call it the UIM-174/UGM-174.

There were rumors the USN was developing a submarine-launched anti-ship weapon called Sea Dragon.

There was speculation Sea Dragon was based off of SM-6 due to leaks it was supersonic and based off an existing missile.

The program was/is "black" so there was a lot of speculation and few facts.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
137
Reaction score
121
It would be interesting to see if the USN develops an underwater launched SM-6 variant from the Virginia-class SSNs, call it the UIM-174/UGM-174.

There were rumors the USN was developing a submarine-launched anti-ship weapon called Sea Dragon.

There was speculation Sea Dragon was based off of SM-6 due to leaks it was supersonic and based off an existing missile.

The program was/is "black" so there was a lot of speculation and few facts.

SM-6 IB was the Navy’s program to upgrade the SM-6 IA for longer range and capabilities with a new rocket booster that will take it to hypersonic speeds, Mach 5+, presuming it's the 21" dia rocket motor developed for the SM-3 IIA to make max use of the Mk41 VLS cell dia/volume, replacing the SM-6 IA 13.5" dia rocket motor, .

PS Obama cancelled the SM-3 IIB shown in graphic
 

Attachments

  • SM_3_ABMs.png
    SM_3_ABMs.png
    194.1 KB · Views: 107

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
275
Reaction score
230
I know this is a bit off-topic but what happened to that USN project to launch the AIM-9X Sidewinder (Encapsulated in a watertight pod) from a SSN's VLS?
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
137
Reaction score
121

This is a PM article on the topic.
Thx, new Drive article saying US looking at using the SM-6 1B as an anti-hypersonic glide missile, made possible with its with its Mach 5+ rocket motor

 

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
63
Reaction score
73

This is a PM article on the topic.
Thx, new Drive article saying US looking at using the SM-6 1B as an anti-hypersonic glide missile, made possible with its with its Mach 5+ rocket motor


The Navy really likes the SM6. Seemingly constantly coming up with additional uses for it.
 

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
275
Reaction score
230

This is a PM article on the topic.
Thx, new Drive article saying US looking at using the SM-6 1B as an anti-hypersonic glide missile, made possible with its with its Mach 5+ rocket motor


The Navy really likes the SM6. Seemingly constantly coming up with additional uses for it.
Well it does have an active radar-seeker for terminal guidance so illumination radar is not needed.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708

This is a PM article on the topic.
Thx, new Drive article saying US looking at using the SM-6 1B as an anti-hypersonic glide missile, made possible with its with its Mach 5+ rocket motor


The Navy really likes the SM6. Seemingly constantly coming up with additional uses for it.
Well it does have an active radar-seeker for terminal guidance so illumination radar is needed.
Speculated on some site years ago (here or Key probably) about the possibility of a sub-launched SM-6 for killing airplanes. Put a couple hundred on an SSGN for a nasty surprise. It wouldn't detect any aircraft itself. It would be an underwater arsenal ship listening for requests. A satellite or other asset detects a bad guy it transmits location, speed, and direction and asks the SSGN to lob an SM-6 at it. Maybe there are one or two updates along the way. Maybe after launch the offboard asset talks to the missile directly and no comms come from the SSGN other than telling the asset that a missile was launched.

1618615101924.png
 
Last edited:

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
747

This is a PM article on the topic.
Thx, new Drive article saying US looking at using the SM-6 1B as an anti-hypersonic glide missile, made possible with its with its Mach 5+ rocket motor


The Navy really likes the SM6. Seemingly constantly coming up with additional uses for it.
Well it does have an active radar-seeker for terminal guidance so illumination radar is needed.
Speculated on some site years ago (here or Key probably) about the possibility of a sub-launched SM-6 for killing airplanes. Put a couple hundred on an SSGN for a nasty surprise. It wouldn't detect any aircraft itself. It would be an underwater arsenal ship listening for requests. A satellite or other asset detects a bad guy it transmits location, speed, and direction and asks the SSGN to lob an SM-6 at it. Maybe there are one or two updates along the way. Maybe after launch the offboard asset talks to the missile directly and no comms come from the SSGN other than telling the asset that a missile was launched.

View attachment 655222
Well that's certainly inspired, but I bet Cooperative Engagement Capability with subs is soon upon us. But could you imagine an SSGN loaded up with TLAMs, LRASM, SM-6, and PrSM being cued by satellites and LO-drones? Now that's an Arsenal Ship!
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017

Attachments

  • AW&ST_ALM.jpg
    AW&ST_ALM.jpg
    187.2 KB · Views: 78

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
747

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
Didn’t the Air Force also award Raytheon some funding to study a long range AL missile (LREW?). I wonder if these efforts are related. Interestingly the ANG boss did mention “oversized weapons carriage” for existing (homeland defense) missions during the F-15 EX unveiling a few weeks ago.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
577
Reaction score
386
Didn’t the Air Force also award Raytheon some funding to study a long range AL missile (LREW?). I wonder if these efforts are related. Interestingly the ANG boss did mention “oversized weapons carriage” for existing (homeland defense) missions during the F-15 EX unveiling a few weeks ago.
How heavy is SM-6 without booster though?
could air launched version reach hypersonic?
 
Top