Standard Missile projects.

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
306
Reaction score
154
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.
ABM?
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,946
Does longer and longer ranges point to space based targeting radar capabilities?
 

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.
How heavy is SM-6 without booster though?
could air launched version reach hypersonic?

One can probably ballpark this. Can the AGM-78 serve as a proxy? Not sure but we also don't know the intended purpose of this test flight or this missile. Depending on the mission they may look to reduce the warhead, or add other capabilities though it would be difficult to keep the weight at or below the AIM-54 levels. I don't subscribe to AWIN but I wonder how they got a hold of this and why now (the image was taken in 2018).
 

timmymagic

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
125
Reaction score
248
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?
About 2,600lb's...its a big boy...
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,305
Reaction score
1,886
thing is slightly less than 5 meters in lenght
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708
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?
About 2,600lb's...its a big boy...
Not even close. Without the booster it's almost certainly in the ballpark of a typical RIM-66: 1370 - 1450-ish pounds.
 

totallyaverage

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
24
Reaction score
54
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.

This won't be under LREW specifically, if it is related at all. LREW was completed and its results transferred to the Air Force in FY17. This *very likely* fed into AIM-260, which was reportedly contracted the same year.

I don't think there is anything to connect this to the F-15EX. A boosterless Standard is only slightly longer and actually lighter than a GBU-10. Conversations around oversized weapons carriage on the EX have focused on the AGM-183.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
LREW was Raytheon and a study as far as I recall. What exactly was "transferred over to the Air Force"? A report? Hardware? A production plan? Since we don't know what the deliverables were exactly, my reasoning was that perhaps these could be related (or not). It would certainly seem logical, that if the follow on to that effort did away with IWB compliance, then something like this could work. But that's just guesswork and speculation on my end so I could be totally wrong. On the F-15EX, having watched the rollout, Lt. General Loh made it a point to mention "outsized" weapons for the current missions (F-15C/defense of the homeland), and for future stand-off roles (like SO strike). I certainly implied the latter to be concerned with some sort of hypersonic/Long-range strike weapon carriage which has been brought up in the past. But he did seem to draw a distinction between current roles and possible future roles for the F-15C replacement.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
thing is slightly less than 5 meters in lenght

Which would be just about pushing the upper limits of the length the Navy weapon elevators could handle. Would make a decent interim capability while the Navy figures out how to trim the HAWC design by 20% (length).
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,946
My pacific concept of air operations.

F-35s and 22s in close in full stealth mode passing target information to F-15EXs and Super Hornets loaded to the max with the longest range AIM-120s, AIM-260s, etc.

Lobbing hundreds of air to air missiles at the “invasion Taiwan” Chinese air armada. And then sitting stealthily loitering on the flanks a few B-21 Arsenal Ships firing a second salvo at any survivors.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,305
Reaction score
1,886
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.
LREW is intended for internal carriage if we to believe only known rendering of it (not talking that it looks totally different) - just to start with.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
2,567
How heavy is SM-6 without booster though?
could air launched version reach hypersonic?
About 2,600lb's...its a big boy...

I'm not buying that number, at all.

The SM6 all-up weight is around 3,300 pounds (official USN number). Of that, the Mk 72 is around 1,500 pounds (see attached brochure), leaving 1,800 pounds for the main stage. That's just about plausible; the maximum weight of an SM2 MR Block IIIB is usually quoted around 1725 pounds [Correction: 1558 pounds]. I can't see any way to get to 2600 pounds without a radical stretch that clearly has not happened here.
 

Attachments

  • MK 72 Booster brochure.jpg
    MK 72 Booster brochure.jpg
    265.5 KB · Views: 100
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708
How heavy is SM-6 without booster though?
could air launched version reach hypersonic?
About 2,600lb's...its a big boy...

I'm not buying that number, at all.

The SM6 all-up weight is around 3,300 pounds (official USN number). Of that, the Mk 72 is around 1,500 pounds (see attached brochure), leaving 1,800 pounds for the main stage. That's just about plausible; the maximum weight of an SM2 MR Block IIIB is usually quoted around 1725 pounds. I can't see any way to get to 2600 pounds without a radical stretch that clearly has not happened here.
Where do you get 1725? It's usually around 1370.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
577
Reaction score
386
How heavy is SM-6 without booster though?
could air launched version reach hypersonic?
About 2,600lb's...its a big boy...

I'm not buying that number, at all.

The SM6 all-up weight is around 3,300 pounds (official USN number). Of that, the Mk 72 is around 1,500 pounds (see attached brochure), leaving 1,800 pounds for the main stage. That's just about plausible; the maximum weight of an SM2 MR Block IIIB is usually quoted around 1725 pounds. I can't see any way to get to 2600 pounds without a radical stretch that clearly has not happened here.
That booster is as heavy as the missile? I'm suprised
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
137
Reaction score
121
USAF Gen. Glen VanHerck, NORAD, saying SM-3 IIA too expensive (near $40 million each) to act as the 'underlayer' to the big GMD missile BMD system which is contrary to MDA thinking.

Also said the SM-3 IIA is "too narrowly focused given the range of potential air threats that need to be addressed", not sure what that means, too short range or only exo-atmosphere?

From <https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...cks-mdas-homeland-defense-underlayer-proposal>
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
2,567
That booster is as heavy as the missile? I'm suprised

As a rough approximation, the Mk 72 booster (21-inch diameter, 68 inches long) has only slightly less volume than the Standard Missile upper stage (13.5-inch diameter, 186 inches long). Not surprising that they are similar in mass.
 

totallyaverage

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
24
Reaction score
54
That booster is as heavy as the missile? I'm suprised
Primarily a result of corner cutting, I believe.

The Mk 72 weighs 712 kg, of which 468 kg is propellant. In fact, the fuel weight of the booster is almost as much as the entire Mk 104 motor, which weighs 488 kg carrying 360 kg of fuel.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
saying SM-3 IIA too expensive (near $40 million each)

How on Earth does one of these missiles cost $40 million? It sounds like Raytheon is taking the USN for a ride.

It's practically a new interceptor compared to the prior gen. SM3 family - 2x seeker sensitivity, and around 3x divert capability. Combine that with a tiny production rate (we are buying something like a dozen or two a year at the moment perhaps even less) and you get a gross system unit cost of around $28 Million a round (based on MDA's budget). The thing is a three stage interceptor that launches a KW into space and intercepts IRBM and even ICBM class targets so I don't think its just another run of the mill missile. If we want it to cost less we're going to have to buy a lot of them and get this into full rate production. However, given its sole mission focus the buy rates will probably remain small even though Japan is a partner on this version.
 

Attachments

  • MDA_PB21_SM3IIA.jpg
    MDA_PB21_SM3IIA.jpg
    398.5 KB · Views: 80

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?

One can probably ballpark this. Can the AGM-78 serve as a proxy?
It is very strange but AGM-78 somehow slower than RIM-66? o_O. I have no idea why, it should be faster and longer range since it is essentially air launched RIM-66
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
676
Reaction score
1,376
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
Using a blend of information from unmanned and manned ships and aircraft, a guided-missile destroyer launched an anti-surface missile from over-the-horizon to hit a target more than 250 miles away without using active sensors as part of the Unmanned Integrated Battle Problem 21, Navy officials said on Monday.

The target was equipped with a small radar reflector and a repeater that put out an electromagnetic signal. The signal from the repeater was detectable by sensors on the uncrewed aircraft and manned and unmanned surface vessels, said Carrier Strike Group 3 commander Rear Adm. James Aiken during a Monday call with reporters.

The information was relayed to USS John Finn (DDG-113), which used the blended targeting data to fire a Standard Missile-6 to hit the target more than 200 miles away and beyond the range of its powerful radar.

 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
577
Reaction score
386
After some research, I think I figure out roughly the speed and range of air launched SM-6
RIM-66A (SM-1MR block I) with MK-27 dual thrust rocket motor has a top speed of Mach 1.8 and max range of 32 km
RIM-66B (SM-1MR Block V) with MK-56 dual thrust rocket motor has a top speed is Mach 3.5 and max range of 46 km
RIM-66C (SM-2MR Block I) with the same MK-56 rocket motor but with new INS guidance logic increased its range to 74 km but keep same top speed.
RIM-66G (SM-2MR Block II) with the new Thiokol MK-104 rocket motor has a top speed of Mach 3.5 and max range of 166 km.
RIM-156A (SM-2ER Block IV) still use the same MK-104 rocket motor but with the additional MK-72 booster, range got extended to 370 km
RIM-174 (SM-6) same MK-104 rocket motor and MK-72 booster as RIM-156A but use an active radar seeker instead

AGM-78 which is an air launched derivative of RIM-66A (SM-1MR block I) with the same airframe and the same MK-27 MoD 4 dual thrust rocket motor. The only thing changed is the AGM-45A-3Aa seeker. That missile has a top speed of Mach 2.5 and max range of 90 km. In short, compared to ground launched version, the air launched version of standard missile can increase top speed by 1.38 times and max range by 2.8 times.
Air launched SM-6 doesn't have the MK-72 booster but it still got the MK-104 motor section, so the kinematic when launched from ground will be similar to RIM-66G (SM-2MR block II), when launched from air, we can expect it to reach top speed of Mach 4.83 and max range of 465 km.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
747
@Ronny
Impressive calculations! Sounds like the Block IIIC/SM-6 derivative would make an excellent interim supersonic asm
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
577
Reaction score
386
Something bugging me, can the terminal radar seeker of SM-6 acquire a ship in anti surface mode?. Or will it fly purely based on datalink in that case?
The current model rely on S band datalink only?
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,946

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
275
Reaction score
230
Is there an equivalent thread in this sub-forum for the RIM-2 Terrier?
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636
A Russian spy ship parked in international waters off Kauai for several days has delayed a Missile Defense Agency missile test, officials said.

U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor said in a statement that it “is aware of the Russian vessel operating in international waters in the vicinity of Hawaii, and will continue to track it through the duration of its time here. Through maritime patrol aircraft, surface ships and joint capabilities, we can closely monitor all vessels in the Indo-Pacific area of operations.”

It was not immediately clear if the Russian vessel is broadcasting an automatic identification system, or AIS, signal. If it is, the ship’s presence — beyond Pacific Fleet’s significant detection capabilities — would be a clear indicator of the ship’s presence to possibly interfere with the missile test.

That test could be for an SM-6 intercept of a replicated cruise missile threat. The Missile Defense Agency could not be immediately reached for comment this morning.
 

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
275
Reaction score
230
I have here several Raytheon patents which are clearly to do with the SM-2 Block IV variant:

The patent to do with missile fusing appears to be related to the cancelled SM-2 Block IVA version, the second maybe associated with all Block IV versions, the third patent is probably to do with the planar-array antenna that replaced the original conical-scan antenna and the last would appear to be to do with interfacing with the launch vessel.
 

Attachments

  • US5696347-Missile fuzing system.pdf
    1.9 MB · Views: 20
  • US5359934-Directional warhead fuze.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 18
  • US4700193-Cross-polarized antenna.pdf
    479.2 KB · Views: 17
  • US5808578-Guided missile calibration method.pdf
    1,008.5 KB · Views: 24

Vanessa1402

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
43
Reaction score
9
I have here several Raytheon patents which are clearly to do with the SM-2 Block IV variant:

The patent to do with missile fusing appears to be related to the cancelled SM-2 Block IVA version, the second maybe associated with all Block IV versions, the third patent is probably to do with the planar-array antenna that replaced the original conical-scan antenna and the last would appear to be to do with interfacing with the launch vessel.
thank you, those are very good source
 
Top