Standard Missile projects.

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
137
Reaction score
121
MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
747
MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>
Would Dual II use the new 21” body?
 

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
275
Reaction score
230
Last week from the DTIC website I found this interesting test report of the fire-hazard testing of the SM3 Block-IA:
 

Attachments

  • Hazard Assessment Testing of the SM-3 Block IA Missile - 25 April 2007.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 13

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
2,567
MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>
Would Dual II use the new 21” body?

No, the 21-inch version is SM-6 Block 1B. SM-6 Dual II seems to be a simple upgrade of the Dual I version, which enabled both air and missile defense in a single missile.
 

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
275
Reaction score
230
MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>
Would Dual II use the new 21” body?

No, the 21-inch version is SM-6 Block 1B. SM-6 Dual II seems to be a simple upgrade of the Dual I version, which enabled both air and missile defense in a single missile.
However I wonder if a 21" version of the SM-6 would be developed as it would not only have a much greater range it would have a larger warhead and more capable seeker due to a wider antenna and more volume for seeker-electronics.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708
MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>
Would Dual II use the new 21” body?

No, the 21-inch version is SM-6 Block 1B. SM-6 Dual II seems to be a simple upgrade of the Dual I version, which enabled both air and missile defense in a single missile.
However I wonder if a 21" version of the SM-6 would be developed as it would not only have a much greater range it would have a larger warhead and more capable seeker due to a wider antenna and more volume for seeker-electronics.
Why put a larger warhead on it? That would just take away the range you got yourself with the larger motor.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
2,567
MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>
Would Dual II use the new 21” body?

No, the 21-inch version is SM-6 Block 1B. SM-6 Dual II seems to be a simple upgrade of the Dual I version, which enabled both air and missile defense in a single missile.
However I wonder if a 21" version of the SM-6 would be developed as it would not only have a much greater range it would have a larger warhead and more capable seeker due to a wider antenna and more volume for seeker-electronics.

It's already in development. It appears that the seeker will actually be unchanged, resulting in a sort of necked down shape. So improved kinematics but not a dramatically improved seeker.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
2,567
It's already in development. It appears that the seeker will actually be unchanged, resulting in a sort of necked down shape.
Do you have a link to any information on this?

The necked down configuration is speculation from the author, but seems plausible.

 

T. A. Gardner

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2021
Messages
282
Reaction score
523
In the video they show some of the early Bumblebee test missiles, you may or may not be familiar with.

In the earliest stages, Bumblebee was launching Burner Test and Cobra Test Vehicles (BTV and CTV). These were ramjets of varying size, speed, and range used to perfect the ramjet design of the eventual operational missile.

Very early BTV
1627441548431.png

A later Cobra Test Vehicle

1627441519796.png

Once the basic concept of the ramjet missile was proven, concurrent development of a control system was started. The first missiles for this were the Control Test Vehicle (CTV) missiles. These were subsonic and tested various methods of powering control surfaces and guiding the missile.

1627441696090.png

From there a supersonic control test missile was developed (STV). This would prove so viable it became Terrier

1627441762500.png

There's a museum on Topsail Island, N Carolina dedicated to Bumblebee as this was where most of the testing occured.

1627441901724.png

Bumblebee also was the missile project that invented the necessary means to make a single large booster rocket using solid fuel viable. Allegany Ballistics Laboratory (ABL) did a massive project into developing the best geometry for how the fuel needed to be cast in the booster to maximize its thrust and burn time. Up to that point everybody was using multiple smaller booster rockets with the attendant problems of things like uneven thrust requiring either the missile was spun or that it had sufficient control that it could correct its trajectory for asymmetric thrust.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,864
Reaction score
1,555
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
From there a supersonic control test missile was developed (STV). This would prove so viable it became Terrier
Ironic, isn't it? The most advanced shipborbe SAM was essentially born by accident.

I wonder, how would USN SAM developed if STV was made, say, with liquid-fuel rocket? And not suitable for conversion into missile? No Terrier, no Tartar, no Standard. What would be instead? More Talos, combined with Zeus/Arrow guided 8-inch shells?
 

T. A. Gardner

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2021
Messages
282
Reaction score
523
From there a supersonic control test missile was developed (STV). This would prove so viable it became Terrier
Ironic, isn't it? The most advanced shipborbe SAM was essentially born by accident.

I wonder, how would USN SAM developed if STV was made, say, with liquid-fuel rocket? And not suitable for conversion into missile? No Terrier, no Tartar, no Standard. What would be instead? More Talos, combined with Zeus/Arrow guided 8-inch shells?
The USN in working on the earlier project Gorgon came to the conclusion pretty early on that shipboard missiles had to be solid fuel. Liquid fuel missiles were simply to volatile and dangerous for use onboard ships. Thus, all the early USN SAM projects--Little Joe (quick and dirty to get something operational now), Lark (a bit more sophisticated to get something that would work at a minimal level), and then Bumblebee (a properly thought out design that would really meet the necessary requirements) did not use liquid fuel. These three represent the USN's wartime SAM development programs.

When the war ended, Little Joe was cancelled except for launching already produced missiles. Lark continued limited testing and development, and Bumblebee became the Navy's primary program.

Bumblebee and Talos that came out of it used a ramjet (with reasonably safe kerosene / jet fuel) because it was, at the time, the only really practical means of getting a missile that could reach out to 10 + miles (the original requirement) and 35,000 feet. That goal was exceeded by late 1944 (these were supersonic going about Mach 1.5) and it was obvious that a ramjet powered SAM could go a lot further.
Compare that to what the Germans were doing in SAM development...

An interesting aside was that Bumblebee created a need for a large supersonic wind tunnel for testing but none existed in the US at the time. One of the first large ones was created at what is now Lone Star Steel / US Steel Tubular Products near Daingerfield Texas and remained in operation into the 70's, mostly under the control of NASA.

The STV program moved to what is now China Lake and Pt. Mugu in California for development as they had longer range instrumented ranges than the 10 to 12 mile one set up at Topsail Island. A worry with firing at Topsail Island as the range of missile shots grew was that one might hit coastal shipping by accident. Thus a motivation for the move.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,864
Reaction score
1,555
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Thus, all the early USN SAM projects--Little Joe (quick and dirty to get something operational now), Lark (a bit more sophisticated to get something that would work at a minimal level), and then Bumblebee (a properly thought out design that would really meet the necessary requirements) did not use liquid fuel
Er... Lark was liquid-fuel powered.
 

T. A. Gardner

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2021
Messages
282
Reaction score
523
Thus, all the early USN SAM projects--Little Joe (quick and dirty to get something operational now), Lark (a bit more sophisticated to get something that would work at a minimal level), and then Bumblebee (a properly thought out design that would really meet the necessary requirements) did not use liquid fuel
Er... Lark was liquid-fuel powered.
And, that was one of its downfalls. Lark is contemporary with Gorgon in many respects too. One interesting aspect of Gorgon was it was the project that made the first attempt to use an Air-to-air missile against a flying target. The guidance was CLOS using a television camera and it was found the operator couldn't control the missile due to the closing speed with the target. Thus, the need for radar guidance was solidified.
 

T. A. Gardner

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2021
Messages
282
Reaction score
523
More Talos,
The end goal of project Bumblebee WAS the Talos missile.
The end goal was a working SAM system for shipboard use that could--at least initially when Bumblebee started--could reliably take down an aircraft at 10 miles up to 35,000 feet. Bumblebee was a huge Navy program at the time. It resulted in many advances in missile design that are still in use today.
 

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
275
Reaction score
230
Here's a patent from Thiokol to do with the SM3's Mk-136 TSRM and manufacture:
 

Attachments

  • US5600946-Solid propellant dual pulse rocket motor loaded case and ignition system and method ...pdf
    690.3 KB · Views: 23

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
479
Reaction score
974
Video describing the various aspects of the off-range launch, control, and evaluation of the high performance AQM-37C(EP) Target to be engaged by SM-2 Block IV over White Sands Missile Range. Video developed by George Helfrich and produced by JHU APL, 22 July 1992. Provides a description of how the target was to be launched from a Navy F-4 aircraft at a speed of Mach 1.5 and an altitude of 50,000 ft. over Albuquerque NM and then climb and accelerate to desired speed and altitude for intercept over White Sands Missile Range.
4 mach Baby
 
Last edited:

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
275
Reaction score
230
Video describing the various aspects of the off-range launch, control, and evaluation of the high performance AQM-37C(EP) Target to be engaged by SM-2 Block IV over White Sands Missile Range. Video developed by George Helfrich and produced by JHU APL, 22 July 1992. Provides a description of how the target was to be launched from a Navy F-4 aircraft at a speed of Mach 1.5 and an altitude of 50,000 ft. over Albuquerque NM and then climb and accelerate to desired speed and altitude for intercept over White Sands Missile Range.
4 mach Baby
Very interesting! It's clear that the missile launched was a Block IV SM-2 also I wonder how many F-4N's are left since the video was made as most of the surviving ones after retirement in the mid-80s were expended as QF-4N missile-targets.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
479
Reaction score
974
I wonder how many F-4N's are left since the video was made as most of the surviving ones after retirement in the mid-80s were expended as QF-4N missile-targets

on the AMARC fields no one F-4N today

34.jpg

 

litzj

BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
279
Reaction score
75
Website
jaesan-aero.blogspot.com
it is hard to believe sm series for ata because they are too heavy and make bad impact for maneuverability. it makes sense only when it would be used for MD or intercept mission.

otherwise, it will be used for strike purpose, sm6 regarded as antiship missile.
 
Top