US Navy Standard Missile Family

sferrin said:
www.irishexaminer.com

Rocket found off Irish coast shrouded in mystery as Virgin Orbit rules out ownership

It was believed the engine could belong to Virgin Orbit, but the company has ruled out the prospect, prompting further questions
www.irishexaminer.com www.irishexaminer.com
Click to expand...

A very strange catch-of-the-day but judging by the photographs it's the wreckage of a spent Mk-72 rocket-booster, the question is whether or not it's from an SM-2 Block IV, SM-3 or an SM-6?

Edit: Judging by the corrosion on the RM casing it has been in the sea for a while now.
 
sferrin said:
That's what I thought too. In fact I saw this picture years before the one above. Was told it was incorrect. Not sure which is true, or if one design replaced the other.
Click to expand...
Well, there's also this supposedly official photo from https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-navy-standard-missile-family.7671/post-745429
Standard said:
slide6-n.jpg
Click to expand...
Also, could I ask where and when you found the dual-pulse photo?
 
Last edited:
Standard said:
Thanks. Looks like this conversation has happened before. It does seem strange that they would optimize the booster this much. I've seen some DTIC report claiming that single stage all-boost is the "best" thrust profile, at least for ABM missions.
Click to expand...
That is how the THAAD works, not that THAAD is a high end ABM...
 
Standard said:
Found the report. It's not really applicable to the mk72, but it might be of interest to this thread.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't surprised at all if figure five in the report is representative of the 21" version of the Mk-104 DTRM used in the SM-3 Block-II interceptor missile.
 
NMaude said:
I wouldn't surprised at all if figure five in the report is representative of the 21" version of the Mk-104 DTRM used in the SM-3 Block-II interceptor missile.
Click to expand...
I've wondered why they would complicate things further by adding a DTRM to the already boosted ER (SM2IV/SM3/SM6) model. SM-3 has 5 or 6 separate rocket pulses! The report called for "all boost" for the second stage, figure 5 is a single pulse motor.
 
Standard said:
I've wondered why they would complicate things further by adding a DTRM to the already boosted ER (SM2IV/SM3/SM6) model.
Click to expand...

They aren't adding an extra DTRM, the standard Mk-104 DTRM is 13.5" in diameter while the 21" diameter Mk-104 DTRM has the same diameter as the 21" diameter Mk-72 launch-booster, this 21" diameter DTRM has a longer burn-time and more thrust.

Standard said:
SM-3 has 5 or 6 separate rocket pulses!
Click to expand...

The SM-3 has three stages - the Mk-72 with a high-thrust, short-burn boost only burn-profile, the Mk-104 DTRM has a single-pulse dual thrust burn-profile (A high thrust thrust short burn boost phase followed by a long lower thrust sustain burn-profile) and the Mk-136 TSRM which has two pulses boost only that can be fired once or twice. This makes a total three or four burn pulses.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
They aren't adding an extra DTRM, the standard Mk-104 DTRM is 13.5" in diameter while the 21" diameter Mk-104 DTRM has the same diameter as the 21" diameter Mk-72 launch-booster, this 21" diameter DTRM has a longer burn-time and more thrust.



The SM-3 has three stages - the Mk-72 with a high-thrust, short burn boost only burn-profile, the Mk-104 DTRM has a single-pulse dual thrust burn-profile (A high thrust thrust short burn boost phase followed by a long lower thrust sustain burn-profile) and the Mk-136 TSRM which has two pulses boost only that can be fired once or twice. This makes a total three or four burn pulses.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I mixed up the terminology. By pulses, I was referring to distinct burn profiles. The main thing that I'm wondering is why the original 13.5" SM2IV/SM3/SM6 has a booster (mk72) and then a boost-sustain motor (mk104, designed for MR) on top of that, giving it a boost-boost-sustain profile instead of the usual simple boost-sustain. It might make sense to use an off-the-shelf mk104 as an interim, but you said the new 21" 2nd stage is also dual-thrust? Perhaps the mk72 doesn't provide enough boost?
 
Standard said:
Perhaps the mk72 doesn't provide enough boost?
Click to expand...

The Mk-72 gives plenty of thrust, having a 21" Mk-104 DTRM with boost/sustain burn-profile results in a much higher terminal velocity and the SM-3 Block-II has a sufficiently high burnout speed that it can, IIRC, engage short-range ICBMs.
 
Standard said:
Sorry, I mixed up the terminology. By pulses, I was referring to distinct burn profiles. The main thing that I'm wondering is why the original 13.5" SM2IV/SM3/SM6 has a booster (mk72) and then a boost-sustain motor (mk104, designed for MR) on top of that, giving it a boost-boost-sustain profile instead of the usual simple boost-sustain. It might make sense to use an off-the-shelf mk104 as an interim, but you said the new 21" 2nd stage is also dual-thrust? Perhaps the mk72 doesn't provide enough boost?
Click to expand...
The Mk72 is a short burn to get the entire stack up past Mach 1 and pointed in more or less the right direction.
 
NMaude said:
What exactly do you mean?
Click to expand...
He asked why the DTRM also has boost and sustain and in the end its a cost question. Do any possible enhancements from reducing of removing that boost phase outweight the cost of having a seperate line for the different pulse profile. That cost more then using you're run of the mill MK 104 from SM-2
 
Standard said:
Sorry, I mixed up the terminology. By pulses, I was referring to distinct burn profiles. The main thing that I'm wondering is why the original 13.5" SM2IV/SM3/SM6 has a booster (mk72) and then a boost-sustain motor (mk104, designed for MR) on top of that, giving it a boost-boost-sustain profile instead of the usual simple boost-sustain. It might make sense to use an off-the-shelf mk104 as an interim, but you said the new 21" 2nd stage is also dual-thrust? Perhaps the mk72 doesn't provide enough boost?
Click to expand...
Let's try explaining it this way: the Mk72 "simulates" an aircraft launching the missile, by getting the whole stack up, pointed in the right direction, and supersonic. When the Mk72 cuts out, that's equivalent to the point that the aircraft fires the missile. The missile then boosts up to its cruising speed, sustains for a while at high altitude for max range, and then tips over and comes screaming down from 100,000ft to ruin the day of some incoming aircraft/missile.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom