US Navy Standard Missile Family

[Sferrin]

I think that this may be a mistake in the slide. Even if the upgrade was primarily meant to enhance its ASuW capability it should still retain the AAW and SBT roles unless they have done away with some of the agility requirements which would be very strange.

I wonder if they'll ever look at a powered 3rd stage for the SM-6 IB to go after BGVs.

 

[bring_it_on]

What's the max altitude for the SM6? For gliders you are looking at altitudes of around 40-60 km unless you want to wait till the very last minute and get terminal defense. I think if the BGV threat to ships materializes they'll probably seek a new weapon to tackle that.

 

[Sferrin]

What's the max altitude for the SM6? For gliders you are looking at altitudes of around 40-60 km unless you want to wait till the very last minute and get terminal defense. I think if the BGV threat to ships materializes they'll probably seek a new weapon to tackle that.

SM-6 IB uses the 21" booster and 2nd stage of the SM-3 Block IIA so it would definitely have the ISP to get an aerodynamic 3rd stage up there, and up to speed.

 

[Moose]

What's the max altitude for the SM6? For gliders you are looking at altitudes of around 40-60 km unless you want to wait till the very last minute and get terminal defense. I think if the BGV threat to ships materializes they'll probably seek a new weapon to tackle that.

Classified, I've seen 33km+ thrown about for the base weapon. With the new motor, likely a lot more.

 

[Sferrin]

What's the max altitude for the SM6? For gliders you are looking at altitudes of around 40-60 km unless you want to wait till the very last minute and get terminal defense. I think if the BGV threat to ships materializes they'll probably seek a new weapon to tackle that.

Classified, I've seen 33km+ thrown about for the base weapon. With the new motor, likely a lot more.

There was an early SM-3 test where, after the 2nd stage burned out, they let the 3rd stage (dummy mass) free flight. They were counting out as it continued to climb, "330,000 feet. . .340,000 feet" and it was still moving like a bat out of hell. The point being that even the existing SM-6's altitude is likely limited by airframe stability in the thin air.

 

[bobbymike]

From Inside Defense

RKV flunks review, MDA resetting program schedule and budget requirement

The Missile Defense Agency's effort to accelerate development of a new Ground-based Midcourse Defense kill vehicle -- a more than $2.6 billion project to deliver a reliable ballistic missile defense warhead to protect the United States from North Korean and potential Iranian threats -- suffered a setback when the Redesigned Kill Vehicle did not pass muster with a key design review last year.

 

[bring_it_on]

This program leverages existing missile technology and advanced missile technology from the Phase 1A RPED rocket motor effort completing in FY 19. It aligns with
the STANDARD Missile roadmap and takes advantage of the Navy's investment in the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS). This missile will provide an extended range
capability for SM-6 and will be a key contributor to the protection of Joint U.S. Forces, in support of the 2018 National Defense Strategy. SM-6 Block IB addresses valid
Joint, Fleet, and Navy Urgent Operational Needs and existing, JROC-approved requirements.

The Accelerated Acquisition Board of Directors (AA BoD) met on 17 January 2018 and approved the designation of the SM-6 Block IB Phase IA as a Rapid Prototyping,
Experimentation and Demonstration (RPED) project. This designation acknowledged the requirement to expedite the development, acquisition and fielding of the SM-6
Block IB to Naval Forces. The AA BoD met 9 November 2018 and directed SM-6 BLKIB to commence All Up Round prototyping (Phase IB).

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensenews.com/pentago...cle-program-for-homeland-defense-interceptor/

 

[In_A_Dream]

https://www.defensenews.com/pentago...cle-program-for-homeland-defense-interceptor/

Northrop/GMD going to take a big hit?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Northrop/GMD going to take a big hit?

Quite possibly.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...he_sm-3_block_iia_can_hit_an_icbm_114726.html

 

[Josh_TN]

thx for answers. with its kinetic energy, sm6 could be deadly for some parts of ship and for good penetration.

but I still doubt it is less powerful than Russian supersonic monsters, having much heavier weight.

is there any news that USN try to develop counter part of Russian or Indian big supersonic missiles?

What would be the target set? Russian new builds are corvettes and frigates. Chinese ships are generally much smaller than their USN counterparts except the brand new Type 55.

 

[litzj]

thx for answers. with its kinetic energy, sm6 could be deadly for some parts of ship and for good penetration.

but I still doubt it is less powerful than Russian supersonic monsters, having much heavier weight.

is there any news that USN try to develop counter part of Russian or Indian big supersonic missiles?

What would be the target set? Russian new builds are corvettes and frigates. Chinese ships are generally much smaller than their USN counterparts except the brand new Type 55.

Probably for the new chinise carriers?

 

[Josh_TN]

I don’t think it particularly necessary. If one missile doesn’t do the job, use six. A b-52 can carry twenty AGM-158; a B-1 two dozen. That seems adequate for now. If the US needs something faster, the USAF has three different hypersonic programs that will reach IOC in three years. None of those have terminal guidance as far as a know, but if I were going to make an AGM-158C follow up, it would be based on one of the several hypersonic missiles entering service in the next several years.

 

[bobbymike]

Inside Defense (pay site)

Raytheon confident SM-3 Block IIA can intercept ICBM warheads
Raytheon is “very confident” the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA -- a new ballistic missile interceptor developed with Japan to defeat medium- and intermediate-range threats -- can also knock down intercontinental ballistic missiles, delivering Washington and Tokyo more than they originally bargained for

 

[Forest Green]

There's good news. Shame the IIB was cancelled.

 

[Sferrin]

I would like to see THAAD tested against an ICBM as well. I would not be at all surprised if it could hit one.

 

[Forest Green]

I would like to see THAAD tested against an ICBM as well. I would not be at all surprised if it could hit one.

I always wondered the same thing. Longer range IRBMs aren't really that far off ICBMs in terms of RV speeds. I think the THAAD-ER and anti-HGV THAAD version will almost definitely be capable.

 

[bobbymike]

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2020-...c-sourcing-deal-for-Standard-Missile-programs

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

The Missile Defense Agency is looking for a potential contractor to provide Standard Missile-3 ballistic missile interceptor rounds and support the technology's integration into U.S. Navy vessels and Aegis Ashore combat facilities in Europe.

The agency said in a request for information posted Tuesday on the beta SAM website that its Sea Based Weapons Systems office is seeking information on SM-3 Block IIA production and delivery services ahead of starting work on the potential nine-year contract by fiscal 2021.

https://blog.executivebiz.com/2020/...-interceptor-production-integration-services/

 

[dumpster4]

The Army Has Officially Selected The Navy's SM-6 Missile To Be Used In A Strike Role:

"the U.S. Army has now officially chosen to adopt the Navy's SM-6 (RIM-174) surface-to-air missile to satisfy
its ground-based Mid-Range Capability (MRC) as part of its larger Long-Range Precision Fires initiative. As
such, the weapon's secondary ballistic missile-like surface-to-surface strike capabilities will become a primary
capability set for the Army units equipped with it in the future. This will initially be a prototype effort to
combine the missile with a fully integrated ground-based fire control and launching system, but barring any
unforeseen major setbacks, which are unlikely for a relatively mature off-the-shelf system like SM-6, it will
facilitate the fielding of the missile in an operational capacity in 2023."

See:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...avys-sm-6-missile-to-be-used-in-a-strike-role

 

[Cordy]

In the 2019 DOT&E report on the Ship Self Defense for DDG 1000 reported that the trials were not a success, Zumwalt system fitted to the unmanned trials ship, the Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS), an ex 8,000t Spruance destroyer, assuming fitted with the full Zumwalt system, Raytheon CMS (TSCE), SPY-3 AESA X-band radar and the semi-active homing head ESSM and SM-2 IIIAZ missiles both with a new JUWL, Joint Universal Weapon Link, X-band

War Zone reported Oct 15 that Navy planning to replace Zumwalts Raytheon's AN/SPY-3 radar before every used on an active deployment, Navy did not say which radar would replace SPY-3, SPY-3 also fitted Ford class CVN's, will be costly as SPY-3 three panel antennas integrated into the large Zumwalt deck house.

Any thoughts if this reason why SPY-3 will be canned.

To be noted the Thales Nederland APAR AESA X-band radar has had no problems in operating/controlling ESSM and SM-2 missiles as understand uses some of its ~ 3,500 TRMs per panel for terminal illumination guidance, presuming SPY-3 would do the same, whereas Burkes use the separate AN/SPG-62 I/J-band radars used to give the continuous wave illuminating RF for the painting of the target for terminal semi-active homing ESSM and SM-2 missile guidance, Thales tech was licensed to Japan for use in their radars.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Army Has Officially Selected The Navy's SM-6 Missile To Be Used In A Strike Role:

"the U.S. Army has now officially chosen to adopt the Navy's SM-6 (RIM-174) surface-to-air missile to satisfy
its ground-based Mid-Range Capability (MRC) as part of its larger Long-Range Precision Fires initiative. As
such, the weapon's secondary ballistic missile-like surface-to-surface strike capabilities will become a primary
capability set for the Army units equipped with it in the future. This will initially be a prototype effort to
combine the missile with a fully integrated ground-based fire control and launching system, but barring any
unforeseen major setbacks, which are unlikely for a relatively mature off-the-shelf system like SM-6, it will
facilitate the fielding of the missile in an operational capacity in 2023."

See:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...avys-sm-6-missile-to-be-used-in-a-strike-role

I assume that both these will be a Mid-Range capability which could give us some indication of what the new SM-6 with the 21" upgrade and a new warhead might get when used in a naval application.

 

[marauder2048]

In the 2019 DOT&E report on the Ship Self Defense for DDG 1000 reported that the trials were not a success, Zumwalt system fitted to the unmanned trials ship, the Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS), an ex 8,000t Spruance destroyer, assuming fitted with the full Zumwalt system, Raytheon CMS (TSCE), SPY-3 AESA X-band radar and the semi-active homing head ESSM and SM-2 IIIAZ missiles both with a new JUWL, Joint Universal Weapon Link, X-band

War Zone reported Oct 15 that Navy planning to replace Zumwalts Raytheon's AN/SPY-3 radar before every used on an active deployment, Navy did not say which radar would replace SPY-3, SPY-3 also fitted Ford class CVN's, will be costly as SPY-3 three panel antennas integrated into the large Zumwalt deck house.

Any thoughts if this reason why SPY-3 will be canned.

To be noted the Thales Nederland APAR AESA X-band radar has had no problems in operating/controlling ESSM and SM-2 missiles as understand uses some of its ~ 3,500 TRMs per panel for terminal illumination guidance, presuming SPY-3 would do the same, whereas Burkes use the separate AN/SPG-62 I/J-band radars used to give the continuous wave illuminating RF for the painting of the target for terminal semi-active homing ESSM and SM-2 missile guidance, Thales tech was licensed to Japan for use in their radars.

DOT&E said nothing about the trails being unsuccessful; the Navy just punted based on the predictions. They've done that before.

Meanwhile...

https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/N...sfully-completes-first-standard-missile-shot/

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9mG5kOIXIE&feature=youtu.be

 

[Cordy]

In the 2019 DOT&E report on the Ship Self Defense for DDG 1000 reported that the trials were not a success, Zumwalt system fitted to the unmanned trials ship, the Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS), an ex 8,000t Spruance destroyer, assuming fitted with the full Zumwalt system, Raytheon CMS (TSCE), SPY-3 AESA X-band radar and the semi-active homing head ESSM and SM-2 IIIAZ missiles both with a new JUWL, Joint Universal Weapon Link, X-band

War Zone reported Oct 15 that Navy planning to replace Zumwalts Raytheon's AN/SPY-3 radar before every used on an active deployment, Navy did not say which radar would replace SPY-3, SPY-3 also fitted Ford class CVN's, will be costly as SPY-3 three panel antennas integrated into the large Zumwalt deck house.

Any thoughts if this reason why SPY-3 will be canned.

To be noted the Thales Nederland APAR AESA X-band radar has had no problems in operating/controlling ESSM and SM-2 missiles as understand uses some of its ~ 3,500 TRMs per panel for terminal illumination guidance, presuming SPY-3 would do the same, whereas Burkes use the separate AN/SPG-62 I/J-band radars used to give the continuous wave illuminating RF for the painting of the target for terminal semi-active homing ESSM and SM-2 missile guidance, Thales tech was licensed to Japan for use in their radars.

DOT&E said nothing about the trails being unsuccessful; the Navy just punted based on the predictions. They've done that before.

Meanwhile...

https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/N...sfully-completes-first-standard-missile-shot/

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9mG5kOIXIE&feature=youtu.be

This is the actual wording used by DOT&E, in my language that's unsuccessful

"Assessment • The Navy has discovered severe problems [my emphasis] during the DDG 1000 SDTS events that will adversely affect the operational effectiveness of the combat system if not corrected. Consequently, the Navy has put the test program on hold and is currently working to identify the root cause of these problems."

Navy Sea Systema Command quote
"As the first-in-class ship, USS Zumwalt successfully demonstrated its capability to detect, track and engage an Anti-Ship Cruise Missile threat with a SM-2. The structural test fire assessed the material readiness of the ship against shock and vibration of the weapon firing, as well as measure any hazards or degradations as a result of firing live ordnance.
“Today’s successful test not only demonstrates the ship’s capability to fire missiles and conduct self-defense, it is also a significant step toward more advanced combat system testing and operations for our Navy’s most technically innovative warship,” said Capt. Matt Schroeder, DDG 1000 program manager. “The USS Zumwalt crew and Surface Development Squadron One are working hand-in-hand with the acquisition community to advance this ship’s operational capability.”

I'm suspicious as wording vague in that it does not explicitly state the SM-2 hit an AShM target drone, thou it goes into detail on the test of the structual impact on Zumwalt of firing a missile for the first time from the new Mk 57 VLS cell.

Ignoring above can you suggest any other reason at all as to why Navy would be scrapping Zumwalts new SPY-3 radars and replacing them with different radars at a cost likely well over hundred+ million$ if Navy claim operational capable?

 

[marauder2048]

in my language ...


I'm suspicious

Sounds like a personal problem.

 

[Firefinder]

Ignoring above can you suggest any other reason at all as to why Navy would be scrapping Zumwalts new SPY-3 radars and replacing them with different radars at a cost likely well over hundred+ million$ if Navy claim operational capable?

Well I I can think of one.

Cost.

If they replace the 4 of a kind, 3 ZUMs and 1 Fords, SPY-3 with the far more capable SPY-6 you get a far more capable system, and future proof the ships for the next 20 years for maintance and parts since the SPY6 is to be the new standard. Odds are high at her first major refit the Ford will get theirs replaced as well.

If they do go through with the pull the AGS out for hypersonics missile tubes plan, that be a good time to do so since you are putting so much money in it may as well replace the major iffy systems with stuff that work....

ALso the SPY-6 is a far more capable system with newer tech. Remember the SPY3 was design and tested in the aughts. While the the SPY6 is a post 2015 design with all the newest radar and processing tricks. Multi core and thread processor with GAN elements among other goodies. Sure 5 years is not long, but remember how much computers have came in the last 3 years let alone 10!

The Computer part has been the biggest limiter for the Radar systems, and that has exploded in the last 20 years in leaps and bounds allowing radars to do tricks that expects 20, even 10 years ago said was impossible. Add in the new antenna designs with different element for more sensitive systesm? Fun stuff, and SPY6 has all the from start, the SPY3 doesn't.

 

[marauder2048]

Ignoring above can you suggest any other reason at all as to why Navy would be scrapping Zumwalts new SPY-3 radars and replacing them with different radars at a cost likely well over hundred+ million$ if Navy claim operational capable?

it may as well replace the major iffy systems with stuff that work....

The number of at-sea SPY-6 detect, track and engagements is zero right?


Meanwhile, Per Raytheon:

POINT MUGU, Calif. (Oct. 21, 2020) – The U.S. Navy completed the USS Zumwalt’s (DDG 1000) first live-fire test using a Raytheon Missiles & Defense Standard Missile-2 Block IIIA to destroy a subsonic target off the coast of southern California.

https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefe...nches-standard-missile-2-first-live-fire-test


The cost of orphaning the ICWI ESSM and SM-2 line is going to outweigh any gains from SPY-6.
There's no way SPY-6 pays back on any front unless it is magically the lowest O&S radar in history
And the projected O&S costs keep creeping up in the SARs...

 

[Cordy]

in my language ...


I'm suspicious

Sounds like a personal problem.

LOL resorting to personal attack , sounds very much your the one with a problem.

 

[marauder2048]

m suspicious as wording vague in that it does not explicitly state the SM-2 hit an AShM target drone, thou it goes into detail on the test of the structual impact on Zumwalt of firing a missile for the first time from the new Mk 57 VLS cell.

I'm suspicious

in my language ...


I'm suspicious

Sounds like a personal problem.

LOL resorting to personal attack , sounds very much your the one with a problem.

It was meant as a joke. Sorry if it miscarried.

 

[Sferrin]

U.S. Successfully Conducts SM-3 Block IIA Intercept Test Against An Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Target

"The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), and U.S. Navy sailors aboard an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System-equipped destroyer intercepted and destroyed a threat-representative Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) target with a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missile during a flight test demonstration in the broad ocean area northeast of Hawaii, Nov. 16.

At approximately 7:50 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time, (12:50 a.m., Nov. 17, Eastern Standard Time), the ICBM-representative target was launched from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, located on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, toward the broad ocean area northeast of Hawaii.

In this developmental test, the destroyer used engage-on-remote capabilities through the Command and Control Battle Management Communications (C2BMC) network as part of a defense of Hawaii scenario. After receiving tracking data from the C2BMC system, the destroyer launched a SM-3 Block IIA guided missile which destroyed the target."

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/a...a-missile-intercepts-icbm-target-in-test.html
Now they need to give it a go with Block IB and THAAD.

 

[Cordy]

My limited understanding there can be a substantial amount of debris accompanying warhead and the decoys, parts of nose cone and final stage motor etc, making it difficult for the radar and missile seeker sensor to home in on the actual warhead and not debris.

Thinking of the new GMD Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV) program designed to collide with the target warhead which was cancelled last year after $1.7 billion spend presumably due failure of sensor to be able to pick out the warhead ? think SM-3 IIA was planned to use the same RKV.

A big IF then was how realistic was the "threat-representative Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) target"?

 

[bring_it_on]

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.

 

[Moose]

U.S. Successfully Conducts SM-3 Block IIA Intercept Test Against An Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Target

"The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), and U.S. Navy sailors aboard an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System-equipped destroyer intercepted and destroyed a threat-representative Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) target with a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missile during a flight test demonstration in the broad ocean area northeast of Hawaii, Nov. 16.

At approximately 7:50 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time, (12:50 a.m., Nov. 17, Eastern Standard Time), the ICBM-representative target was launched from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, located on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, toward the broad ocean area northeast of Hawaii.

In this developmental test, the destroyer used engage-on-remote capabilities through the Command and Control Battle Management Communications (C2BMC) network as part of a defense of Hawaii scenario. After receiving tracking data from the C2BMC system, the destroyer launched a SM-3 Block IIA guided missile which destroyed the target."

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/a...a-missile-intercepts-icbm-target-in-test.html
Now they need to give it a go with Block IB and THAAD.

Not sure why the omit the name of the DDG in these releases, it was USS JOHN FINN DDG-113.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328706114880462851

View: https://twitter.com/MissileDefAdv/status/1328706114880462851

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328717080221380616

View: https://twitter.com/MissileDefAdv/status/1328717080221380616

 

[Sferrin]

They sure were careful not to show anything actually interesting.

 

[Cordy]

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.

 

[bring_it_on]

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.

 

[Moose]

Fairly good animation of FTM-44

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328625744075919360

View: https://twitter.com/tinfoil_globe/status/1328625744075919360

 

[Sferrin]

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.

 

[Cordy]

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.

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.