kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 1,235
Is there any plan to Develop a new Rocket motor to replace the MK 104 Solid fuel Rocket motor with the same size ?
I'm not sure there's a whole lot more thrust that can be delivered, even if you went exotic and used CL20 as the rocket fuel.Is there any plan to Develop a new Rocket motor to replace the MK 104 Solid fuel Rocket motor with the same size ?
I mean Mk104 is not from Yesterday so i was thinking that there range Upgrades. I still Hope for dual/ Quad Pack SM-2's in a MK.57. So more range is allways good. If i remember right there were new actuators for jagm which increases range. And this VTS Nozzle Thing wasn't that able to "adjust" the Trust of the missile? I think stuff Like that could give ous some extra range which ich allways nice to have as not only sm 2 has something from this but also SM-6 and "older" SM-3 Versions.I'm not sure there's a whole lot more thrust that can be delivered, even if you went exotic and used CL20 as the rocket fuel.
So what's wrong with the Mk104?
They may be trying to build to cost for the moment, so that the USN can afford full magazines of SM2s. As the costs for those mods come down, it may be possible to include them in a new production batch of missiles without greatly increasing price.I mean Mk104 is not from Yesterday so i was thinking that there range Upgrades. I still Hope for dual/ Quad Pack SM-2's in a MK.57. So more range is allways good. If i remember right there were new actuators for jagm which increases range. And this VTS Nozzle Thing wasn't that able to "adjust" the Trust of the missile? I think stuff Like that could give ous some extra range which ich allways nice to have as not only sm 2 has something from this but also SM-6 and "older" SM-3 Versions.
Does anyone know if there are any improvements in the MK104 Mod4 engine used in the SM-6 compared to the MK104 Mod3 engine used in the SM-2ER Block IV? I've searched for a long time but haven't found any relevant information
Standard has always had some form of SSM role, but have there ever been specialized warheads for land attack?
Seems like Standard high ceilings and long ranges would make them incredibly efficient for precision strike with a hard target penetrating payload.
Standards don't really have the right sensor set for going after hard targets.Land-Attack Standard had a warhead modified for land targets, but it was designed for fragmentation, not hard target penetration. I've never seen a hard-target warhead for Standard.
I wonder if there're any details available about exactly what sort of hardware changes there are?
I guess everything thats different between sm-6 Block 1a and SM-2 Block 3C guidance.I wonder if there're any details available about exactly what sort of hardware changes there are?
Would you elaborate please?I guess everything thats different between sm-6 Block 1a and SM-2 Block 3C.
Now the only thing i think of that would be new is the GPS. But we can't forget that many things could obsolet so they just Switch the whole model.Would you elaborate please?
Tangentially related example: The primary flight control computers in the F-22 are 386s. Two generations before Pentiums first came out...Would you elaborate please?
A question about RIM-2 Terrier. Have its nuclear-tipped version the ability to strike land targets? The nuclear-tipped Talos have such capability, but I'm not sure about Terrier.
ISTR in Friedman's cruiser book it was mentioned that in the mid to late '50s guns (other than perhaps the 3" 70) were seen as being redundant in the future because Terrier with a nuclear warhead could do all necessary shore bombardment such as area effect, defoliating, and dealing with hardened targets (that pillbox is GONE!). 3 inch guns were considered completely adequate for anything else a gun was needed for and were thought to be effective close in weapons. So I imagine it was at least considered.A question about RIM-2 Terrier. Have its nuclear-tipped version the ability to strike land targets? The nuclear-tipped Talos have such capability, but I'm not sure about Terrier.
The only nuclear version, BT-3A(N), was still a beam-rider, so it should go wherever it was pointed.
The only nuclear version, BT-3A(N), was still a beam-rider, so it should go wherever it was pointed.
I ran across some mention of a nuclear Talos on probably the okieboat website (USS Oklahoma City, and now I'm not finding this story on that site...), they were in the Med and being harassed by Libyans at the time. Junior weapons officer asked the guys if they could work out a surface strike on one of the harassing air bases. The enlisted say sure, we'll need to dig into the books to set it up right, so give us a bit.I found mentions about nuclear Terrier having coastal-strike capability in some early 1960s Navy hearing in Congress, so it seems that it was at least theoretically possible. No mention about how it was done, but I assume that the same method as with nuclear-tipped Talos was used (special computer calculated the target position, missile rode the beam and over target was sent to dive, then a detonation command was transmitted). After all, Terrier and Talos shared the main principles of beam-riding guidance.
Hm. It can't be USS Oklahoma City; as far as I knew, she never were in Mediterranean during all her career. Most likely it could be "Little Rock", she served in Med most of her career.I ran across some mention of a nuclear Talos on probably the okieboat website (USS Oklahoma City, and now I'm not finding this story on that site...), they were in the Med and being harassed by Libyans at the time. Junior weapons officer asked the guys if they could work out a surface strike on one of the harassing air bases. The enlisted say sure, we'll need to dig into the books to set it up right, so give us a bit.
Theoretically doable, but I suspect on practice it would require too many safety measures be circumvented.So they come back to brief the junior officer about the plan, and that air base is a bit outside the missile's official range, and that there's a mountain between the base and the ocean. They'd planned it out so that the missile would be out of fuel and gliding as it was directly overhead the offending airbase, where it'd drop out of the guide beam. They mention that while the missile is beam-riding, that's not an issue since the nuclear warhead would detonate if the missile ever left the guidance beam, and that's where they want it to detonate anyways.
Could be. Now I'm annoyed that I didn't save that website.Hm. It can't be USS Oklahoma City; as far as I knew, she never were in Mediterranean during all her career. Most likely it could be "Little Rock", she served in Med most of her career.
Apparently the thing about the warhead detonating if the missile ever left the guidance beam was part of the positive control that was required at the time. If the missile left the guidance beam it was no longer under control of the guidance system, so it was seen as better to detonate the warhead and maybe have it still close enough to be effective than to drop an armed nuke out of the sky.Theoretically doable, but I suspect on practice it would require too many safety measures be circumvented.
I knew that losing the beam was self-destruct command, butI always thought that for nuclear warhead a specific detonation command needed to be issued?Apparently the thing about the warhead detonating if the missile ever left the guidance beam was part of the positive control that was required at the time. If the missile left the guidance beam it was no longer under control of the guidance system, so it was seen as better to detonate the warhead and maybe have it still close enough to be effective than to drop an armed nuke out of the sky.
From what I remember of this story, it was not.I knew that losing the beam was self-destruct command, butI always thought that for nuclear warhead a specific detonation command needed to be issued?
butI always thought that for nuclear warhead a specific detonation command needed to be issued?
Yep. It also have self-destruct in case of signal loss, but as far as I knew, self-destruct was not nuclear.The MIM-14 Nike Hercules required a specific command signal to detonate its' warhead for example
Yep. It also have self-destruct in case of signal loss, but as far as I knew, self-destruct was not nuclear.
Some sources mention that later beam-rider Terrier's (BT-3A models, with tail control and extended range) could be used in anti-ship mode.
Mostly because nuclear warheads for SAM's weren't viewed as good solution anymore. There were two main reasons:On another note why did the US Congress cancelled production of the W81 warhead as the Standard missile equipped with the warhead would've replaced the obsolete RIM-2D and its' W45 warhead?
By subjecting the enemy atomic bomb to intence neutron flux from nuclear SAM detonation, they could be "poisoned" by creation of short-lived isotopes in their nuclea fuel. If such "poisoned" bomb would try to detonate, it would just fizzle.
About that I'm not sure; I suspect that it would require such intense irradiation, that plane and bomb would be destroyed anyway.Not just the creation of short-lived radio-isotopes but that neutron-flux would also heat up the plutonium causing it to slump and deform.
About that I'm not sure; I suspect that it would require such intense irradiation, that plane and bomb would be destroyed anyway.
Wow, I bet there were some people looking shifty during decommissioning.IIRC enhanced Neutron Flux was the reason why the weapons inside SPRINT and SPARTAN were literally gold plated.