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

Standard SM-3 News & Dev.

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,693
Reaction score
48
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Airplane said:
An even better idea is giving them 1 to 2 dozen nukes.
Let's just throw the NPT out the window shall we. I wonder what the reaction would be if Russia or China started handing out nukes to countries... ::)
 

gtg947h

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
79
Reaction score
3
GTX said:
Airplane said:
An even better idea is giving them 1 to 2 dozen nukes.
Let's just throw the NPT out the window shall we. I wonder what the reaction would be if Russia or China started handing out nukes to countries... ::)
I'd be a beer that Japan already has all the components laying around and has tested the design on inert cores. All they'd need to do is assemble them.
Would not surprise me if South Korea has done the same.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,063
Reaction score
213
http://aviationweek.com/defense/could-sm-3-interceptor-take-intercontinental-ballistic-missiles?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20171013_AW-05_548&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_5&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=12053&utm_medium=email&elq2=a7c2e40934c84eacbdc969dbd82ba018

If SM-3 could be effective building large coastal air defense ships (converted heli-carriers or something with massive deck space) would be interesting.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,063
Reaction score
213
Ballistic, Cruise Missiles Intercepted in Formidable Shield 2017

Published: October 16, 2017 | By Missile Defense Project

On October 15, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced that ships from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States participated in a live-fire integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) scenario. During the exercise, the Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) tracked and defeated a medium-range ballistic missile target with a SM-3 Block IB interceptor. At the same time, the Spanish frigate SPS Alvaro de Bazan (F101) and the Dutch frigate HNMLS Tromp (F803) fired Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles against three antiship cruise missiles, successfully intercepting their targets. It was the first time that NATO ships had conducted air defense missions to protect another ballistic missile defense ship. Following the exercise, the USS McFaul (DDG-74) successfully test-fired a Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) as part of the system’s flight certification process.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
Japan may add SM-6 to Aegis Ashore

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/187756/japan-may-add-sm_6-to-aegis-ashore.html

Thought this bit was interesting:

"The government intends to introduce two Aegis Ashore systems in Japan by around fiscal 2023 as part of the effort to boost the nation’s missile defenses.

These would be equipped with SM-3 Block IIA missiles, a new interceptor being jointly developed by Japan and the United States with the capacity to intercept ballistic missiles at altitudes exceeding 1,000 kilometers.

The government is also considering equipping the systems with SM-6 anti-air missiles, which are multifunction interceptors that also can take down cruise missiles."

Lots of "interesting" satellites below 650 miles or so.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
150
I sometimes wonder if there isn't a confusion in these statements between making the intercept at 1000 km or being able to intercept targets whose trajectories have a max altitude of 1000 km. Very big difference there and one easily lost on copy writers, especially in translation.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
TomS said:
I sometimes wonder if there isn't a confusion in these statements between making the intercept at 1000 km or being able to intercept targets whose trajectories have a max altitude of 1000 km. Very big difference there and one easily lost on copy writers, especially in translation.
Defining a target by how high the peak of its trajectory is seems an odd way of doing it. Generally they define them by range. Consider the following:

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/ballistic-missiles-%C2%BD-rule/

"The physics of space security: a reference manual (which can be downloaded here). In their chapter on space launches, the authors take the reader through what’s called the ‘½ rule’.


‘A useful rule of thumb is that a ballistic missile that can launch a given payload to a maximum range R on the Earth can launch that same payload vertically to an altitude of roughly R/2. This relation is exact in the case of a flat Earth and therefore holds for missiles with ranges up to a couple thousand kilometers (the Earth appears essentially flat over those distances, which are small compared to the radius of the Earth). But the rule continues to hold approximately for even intercontinental range missiles.’

Broadly, the rule states that if a missile is fired straight upwards into space, it will achieve an altitude of ½ its maximum range. A Scud missile with a maximum range of 300 km, for example, would—if fired straight up—reach an altitude of 150 km before falling back to earth."


This would equate to a missile of only 2000km range, which even SM-3 Block I is easily capable of dealing with.

(edit: On the other hand, I recall MMIII only reaching about 700 miles altitude on it's way to a target several thousand miles away so who knows for sure?)
 

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
150
sferrin said:
TomS said:
I sometimes wonder if there isn't a confusion in these statements between making the intercept at 1000 km or being able to intercept targets whose trajectories have a max altitude of 1000 km. Very big difference there and one easily lost on copy writers, especially in translation.
Defining a target by how high the peak of its trajectory is seems an odd way of doing it. Generally they define them by range. Consider the following:

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/ballistic-missiles-%C2%BD-rule/

"The physics of space security: a reference manual (which can be downloaded here). In their chapter on space launches, the authors take the reader through what’s called the ‘½ rule’.
I'm not talking about max potential altitude but max ordinal in a normal flight. But I may have my numbers wrong -- I was thinking that a max ordinal of 1000 km would be right around the typical for IRBMs, which should be in SM-3 Block II's wheelhouse.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
TomS said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
I sometimes wonder if there isn't a confusion in these statements between making the intercept at 1000 km or being able to intercept targets whose trajectories have a max altitude of 1000 km. Very big difference there and one easily lost on copy writers, especially in translation.
Defining a target by how high the peak of its trajectory is seems an odd way of doing it. Generally they define them by range. Consider the following:

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/ballistic-missiles-%C2%BD-rule/

"The physics of space security: a reference manual (which can be downloaded here). In their chapter on space launches, the authors take the reader through what’s called the ‘½ rule’.
I'm not talking about max potential altitude but max ordinal in a normal flight. But I may have my numbers wrong -- I was thinking that a max ordinal of 1000 km would be right around the typical for IRBMs, which should be in SM-3 Block II's wheelhouse.
Don't know. It's not as simple as a purely ballistic arc as a lot more comes into play as I'm sure you're aware. (Drag on both ends of the trajectory, curvature and rotation of the earth, local gravity strength along the flight path, whether you have to have the most energy efficient trajectory, etc.. ) SM-3 isn't trying to hit the target at it's apogee anyway. *shrugs*
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
91
Summary of "Formidable Shield" exercise. There was an SM-2 shot involved as well but it isn't mentioned. An SM-3 was used against a ballistic missile target (launched on remote via datalink to another ship) while supporting NATO ships fired what were probably ESSM/RAM missiles against cruise missile targets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E__hyMNchaM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U84MABkAPlE
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
Heh. Right there at 0:24 on the first video is an F-16 with an AQM-37C high performance target.
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
417
Reaction score
99
I think there's more to it than simply data link cueing, which is something that's a well established technology with Aegis and CEC. This time it was a non-Aegis vessel providing the data, both radar (SMART-L) and combat system (SEWACO XI).

I was particularly impressed they managed to track the missile from Hengelo, which demonstrates just how capable shipboard radars are getting.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
959
Reaction score
57
sferrin said:
Heh. Right there at 0:24 on the first video is an F-16 with an AQM-37C high performance target.
Yes , that why there is an F-16 on the intro picture ;)
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
77
DWG said:
I think there's more to it than simply data link cueing, which is something that's a well established technology with Aegis and CEC.
Seems to be no different than the launch-on-remote intercepts they've done with AN/TPY-2 and STSS-D.
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
417
Reaction score
99
Yes, but it exercises that capability within a NATO task group.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
150
I'm inferring that FS 17-E1, the SM-3 Block IB intercept using RNLN track data, was a miss. Any more details?
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
77
Aren't "simulated engagements" typically non-intercept attempts?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
marauder2048 said:
Aren't "simulated engagements" typically non-intercept attempts?
I was wondering how one fails a simulated. ??? I guess if you couldn't get the systems talking to each other or something that would be one way.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
150
marauder2048 said:
Aren't "simulated engagements" typically non-intercept attempts?
Oops. Yes, of course. But it sounds like something must have gone wrong even in the simulation. Comms failure seems like the most likely culprit.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/189749/us-clears-sm_3-missile-sale-to-japan.html

"The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Japan of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missiles for an estimated cost of $133.3 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Japan has requested a possible sale of four (4) Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missiles. Also included are four (4) MK 29 missile canisters, U.S. Government and contractor representatives' technical assistance, transportation, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total case value is $133.3 million"

Cha-ching! :eek:
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,063
Reaction score
213
sferrin said:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/189749/us-clears-sm_3-missile-sale-to-japan.html

"The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Japan of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missiles for an estimated cost of $133.3 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Japan has requested a possible sale of four (4) Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missiles. Also included are four (4) MK 29 missile canisters, U.S. Government and contractor representatives' technical assistance, transportation, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total case value is $133.3 million"

Cha-ching! :eek:
Japan itself is the largest unsinkable aircraft carrier/air defense/strike ship although immobile of course. It should eventually be ringed with Aegis Ashore (and even IRBM CPGS systems and a few hundred F-35s to really dream).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
U.S. Test of Missile Interceptor Fails Off Hawaiian Coast, Officials Say

"WASHINGTON --- An American interceptor missile missed its target in a test off the Hawaiian coast on Wednesday, Defense Department officials said, renewing concerns of how the United States will defend itself in the event of a missile attack by North Korea or another adversary.

A Pentagon official said that the interceptor, an SM-3 Block IIA missile that is being developed by the Raytheon Company, was launched from a test site in Hawaii. Officials likened the test launch to an attempt to hit a bullet with another bullet.

It was the second failure over the past year of a test of the SM-3, known as the standard missile; the last one was in June.

Mark Wright, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, confirmed “a live-fire missile flight test” from Kauai. He did not confirm that the test had failed. "


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/190325/latest-test-of-us-missile-interceptor-fails.html
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,063
Reaction score
213
http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-space-technology/did-raytheon-s-supersized-interceptor-fail-aegis-ashore-test?utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=13467&utm_medium=email&elq2=1cf423ce5cf340a5bf51dfdb8cf98e59

Something seems to have gone awry with the latest Raytheon Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block 2A intercept tests in Hawaii.

It was meant to be the final developmental test of the upsized anti-ballistic exoatmospheric interceptor, and the first from a land-based Aegis Ashore facility.

It would have also been the SM-3 Block 2A’s first shot against an intermediate-range ballistic missile target, the kind Iran and North Korea have been developing.

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) confirms that the anticipated test, which Aviation Week previewed this week, did occur on the morning of Jan. 31, from the Pacific missile range’s Aegis Ashore test complex on Kauai, Hawaii.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
Wish they'd perform these in daylight so we can actually see something.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
 
Last edited:

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
91
Sea based SM3 Block IIA test against ICBM planned for 2020. This might pave the way to resurrecting either the Block IIB or KEI.

https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/future-weapons/us-missile-defense-breakthrough-navy-ships-to-destroy-enemy-icbms-XXN9Jjc0BUaipMRcD0IjSA/

A mobile, sea-based ICBM defense could massively expand the protective envelope for identifying and intercepting enemy attacks. As opposed to fixed, land-based GBIs, Navy ships could maneuver into key positions based on warnings or intelligence information. Should they operate closer to the shore, Navy ships armed with SM-3 IIAs could bring the possibility of taking out an ICBM early in its flight, perhaps just after it enters space.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,239
Reaction score
407
They should test THAAD against one too. Can't park an Aegis cruiser in Dallas. (Or Nebraska, Wyoming, etc. ;) )
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
979
Reaction score
97
sferrin said:
They should test THAAD against one too. Can't park an Aegis cruiser in Dallas. (Or Nebraska, Wyoming, etc. ;) )
Especially if they are not being replaced but still being phased out. Not that this is a failure of course.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
91
Formidable Shield 2019 exercise completed last week. Aegis system conducted combined space and air defense engagements with SM3 and SM2 but using only simulated ballistic missile targets.


6th Fleet Public Affairs Summary
 
Top