Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower

[Triton]

"Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower"
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on January 20, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/navy-seeks-rail-guns-lasers-cruise-missiles-to-improve-pacific-firepower/

CRYSTAL CITY: “I’ve never wanted to enter any tactical scenario where all I had is a defensive capability. It’s a losing proposition,” said the chief of Pacific Command, Adm. Samuel Locklear. “You will defend yourself until you’re dead.”

That was the PACOM commander’s blunt and public response when I asked him about the chronic imbalance between the offensive and defensive capabilities of the Navy’s surface warships: its cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and controversial new Littoral Combat Ships. Other admirals had angsted over the issue at last week’s annual conference of the Surface Navy Association here, but it’s no coincidence the man who’d have to command any war with China was the bluntest.

The Navy’s has a three-step plan to boost firepower:

In the short term, revive the long-range skip-killing capability it lost when it phased out the 600 -mile-range Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) years ago.
In the mid term, free up missile launchers for offensive use by replacing defensive missiles — each of which can be used against incoming enemy aircraft or missiles just once — with lasers that can keep firing as long as the ship’s generators turn.
In the long term, equip ships with electromagnetic rail guns that can launch solid metal slugs at targets over the horizon at seven times the speed of sound.

“With respect to lasers, we’re talking more about defense,” said Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare for the Chief of Naval Operations (staff section N96), when I pulled him aside at the conference. “On the offensive side of the house, we have the electromagnetic rail gun.” Both will be able to fire far more times than any set of missile launchers; the laser will, in theory, hit incoming missiles at literally the speed of light; and the rail gun can fire projectiles at the enemy at velocities no missile can match.

“If you’re getting Mach 7,” Rowden told me, “speed is a difficult thing to defend against.”

That said, rail guns will complement long-range missiles, not replace them: While the rail gun shot would be harder to dodge, the missile can go much farther.

“We’ll have to see what kind of range we’re going to get out of the railgun,” Rowden said. So, I asked, would it ever be comparable to a Tomahawk cruise missile? The admiral laughed out loud. “No! I think it’d be Mach 40 or something like that to get the kind of range.” Rail gun tests to date have suggested they could hit targets up to 125 miles away.

All these weapons, of course, are in the near future. The triple-threat solution is still very much a work in progress, with all three prongs of the Navy’s new trident still in development:

The Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), though a derivative of a proven Air Force weapon, is still in testing, with contractor Lockheed Martin putting up $30 million of its own money to bridge a funding gap. “Our lack of urgency on development of the next generation of surface-launched, over-the-horizon cruise missiles is troubling,” Locklear told the conference.
The first prototype defense laser will deploy this summer to the Persian Gulf for tests in real conditions. But this baby-steps ray gun is only strong enough to shoot down relatively slow-moving drones, not supersonic anti-ship missiles. Even future high-powered lasers will remain relatively short-ranged defensive weapons, unable to fire at targets over the horizon and out of line of sight.
Finally, the Navy’s rail gun has managed some dramatic tests on land, but the weapon’s raw power wears out components — especially the barrel — at an impractical rate. Even when (or if) the Navy gets a rail gun it can fit on ships, only three vessels currently in service or on contract can generate enough electricity to fire one, specifically the three DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers.

Meanwhile potential adversaries have invested in ever more weapons designed to sink our ships, the most recent example being China’s test of a prototype “hypersonic” missile. (Hypersonic means at least five times the speed of sound).

“That particular test doesn’t bother me,” Locklear told the conference. “[But] this isn’t just about China…..A lot of nations are pursuing hypersonics,” he said, and whoever develops it, “it’s going to get sold.”

Even with current technology, US Navy warships are “out-sticked” by their Chinese counterparts: Their anti-ship missiles have longer range (diagram attached), so they can hit us at distances where we can’t hit back.

Modern warfare is about much more than ships (or tanks, or planes) trading shots with their equal and opposite counterparts on the other side, of course. Today’s weapons range from torpedoes to computer viruses, and they can be launched by platforms ranging from airplanes to the NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland. Even if you specifically want to sink an enemy ship with an anti-ship missile, you don’t need your own ship to do it: You can use submarines, aircraft, or launchers ashore. Most Iranian and Chinese anti-ship missile launchers live on dry land.

That said, surface ships can sail far from their homeland to threaten targets a shore-based weapon cannot reach, and they can carry far more missiles than an aircraft or even a submarine. So sinking enemy ships is something the US Navy still needs to be able to do. The problem is that its main tool to do so, in the absence of a long-range cruise missile, is the disco-vintage Harpoon, a missile that entered service in 1977 and whose maximum range is roughly 75 miles.

“People pooh-pooh that Harpoon weapon system,” Rear Adm. Rowden told me. “I think that is a gross underestimation of that weapon.” That said, he went on, the Navy’s working hard “to ensure that we have those long range missiles [to fight for] sea control.”

The Harpoon can be fired from either the Navy’s mainstay F-18 fighter-bombers or from shipboard launchers, but the Navy has removed Harpoon systems from its frigates and never even installed them on its newer destroyers. In fact, the mainstay of the surface navy, the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke, was designed from the beginning not to attack the enemy but to defend the rest of the fleet, especially the aircraft carriers, with a radar and missile system called “Aegis,” after the goddess Athena’s shield. In recent years, Aegis has taken on a new defensive role in ballistic missile defense of cities and bases ashore.

That’s all useful, even essential, but we can no longer assume that no other navy will challenge us with its ships. “We need to think about what is surface warfare’s role in other than defensive operations,” Locklear said, “[and] pay more particular attention to the ability to show up on the scene and be lethal and be dominant.”

“This has been an issue for my entire career,” said Vice Adm. Thomas Copeman, commander of naval surface forces, speaking at the same conference. “We need to improve the offensive lethality of the entire surface force,” he said, “[and] free up more space in the missile launchers for offensive weapons.”

 

[Moose]

Oh the luddites are going to be sore when the sea testing starts. But its going to be fun to watch.

 

[TomS]

Have they solved the rail erosion issue yet? I imagine a series of graduated armatures, each slightly larger than the last, as in the Paris Guns. But that would be impractical to say the least.

 

[fredymac]

Have they solved the rail erosion issue yet? I imagine a series of graduated armatures, each slightly larger than the last, as in the Paris Guns. But that would be impractical to say the least.

They are in fact addressing this specific issue. At 1:00 mark the spokesman talks about barrel erosion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qTSzh-H3Q4

 

[Moose]

Have they solved the rail erosion issue yet?

No one has found a magic bullet, pardon the pun, for the issue but word out of the program has been that the rail life is increasing at an acceptable rate as they iterate. Their goal is a rail life around 3000 rounds for the first generation operational weapon.

 

[DSE]

K2 signs US Navy's hypersonic railgun battery supply contract
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsk2-signs-us-navys-hypersonic-railgun-battery-supply-contract-4482374

 

[TomS]

Have they solved the rail erosion issue yet?

No one has found a magic bullet, pardon the pun, for the issue but word out of the program has been that the rail life is increasing at an acceptable rate as they iterate. Their goal is a rail life around 3000 rounds for the first generation operational weapon.

I supposed 3,000 rounds would be reasonable -- about the same as the effective full-charge life of the old 5-inch Mark 42 gun (and about half that of the Mk 45). I wonder if a rail change on a gun like this would be similar in scope to a liner change on a conventional gun.

 

[pathology_doc]

The issue with the lasers is going to be engagement time and range. It doesn't matter that your laser can keep firing indefinitely if it can't destroy its targets fast enough to scythe them all down before the last one hits; you're better off having a gun-based CIWS with a significantly enlarged magazine. Where the laser will gain time is in not having to allow for lead or drift, and in the effectively zero dead time between pulling the trigger and the energy starting to arrive on target. The big question is whether it will LOSE more time dumping sufficient wattage into the target to destroy it. Start putting ablative armour geared against lasers on the larger, faster missiles (especially if you know what the wavelength and energy delivery pattern are) and you risk a situation where the laser can't pump enough energy into enough missiles quickly enough to destroy them all, yet a 30mm DU round or small calibre railgun shot might punch straight through that ablative armour and wreck something critical, or produce sufficient airframe contour distortion that the missile's own speed does the rest.


In short, I think there's going to be an opening for ballistic defences for some significant time into the future.


The US Navy's air-defence ships have hitherto been able to concentrate on a defensive load-out because the air groups of the carriers were the offensive arm. This meant that the surface-to-surface capability of the Western navies was allowed to atrophy. The Soviets (and consequently their clients, and others as they became more sophisticated) did not until recently have - or decided they could never afford - significant carrier forces of their own (India is probably the only exception over the years, having operated the Vikrant since forever and more recently the Viraat), while the Soviets knew they could probably not always rely on their naval aviation component, and that was probably the spur to develop bigger, better and faster SSMs.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2015/Railgun-at-Future-Force-EXPO.aspx

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Conference-Event-ONR/Future-Force-Expo.aspx

 

[Triton]

My best guess for a topic to post this article, but your mileage may vary. I will defer to a Moderator if you consider it to be in the wrong place.

"Navy Considering Railgun for Third Zumwalt Destroyer"
By: Sam LaGrone
February 5, 2015 4:13 PM

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Engineering studies to include an electromagnetic railgun on a Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000) have started at Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA’s head said Thursday.

The work will do the math to determine if the Zumwalt-class will have the space, power and cooling to field a railgun – likely replacing one of the two 155mm BAE Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) ahead of the ship’s deck house, Vice Adm. William Hilarides told USNI News following remarks at the Office of Naval Research Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo.

“We have begun real studies – as opposed to just a bunch of guys sitting around – real engineering studies are being done to make sure it’s possible,” Vice Adm. William Hilarides said following remarks at

The likely candidate for the weapon would be the third planned Zumwalt, Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) currently under construction at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) with an expected delivery date of 2018.

He said the first two ships – Zumwalt (DDG-1000) and Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) – would be less likely to field the capability initially due to the schedule of testing with the new class.

“The team is working diligently now but it would not happen until after delivery of the ships – probably the third ship is where we’d have it,” Hilarides said.
“That would certainly be my recommendation.”

The Navy is in early stages of testing and fielding a railgun – which forgoes the gunpowder in the shells of conventional naval guns and instead uses high powered electromagnetic pulses along a set of rails to shoot a projectile at super sonic speeds.

The Navy plans to test a BAE Systems prototype railgun onboard the Joint High Speed Vessel USNS Millinocket (JHSV- 3) next year.

Last year, then Navy director of surface warfare now commander of U.S. Surface Forces Command, Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden told USNI News the Zumwalts would be likely used as test beds for emerging technologies like railguns and directed energy weapons the Navy wants for its next large surface combatant due to the ship’s size an ability to generate power.

The integrated power system (IPS) on the 16,000-ton ships– powered by two massive Rolls Royce MT-30 gas turbines and two smaller Rolls-Royce RR450– allow the ships to route and generate 80 mega-watt power – much more electrical power than the current crop of U.S. destroyers and cruisers.

On Wednesday, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said a Zumwalt would likely be the first ship to get the capability.

The inclusion of the railgun does mean a capabilities trade for the ship.

"We’ll go do the studies and I suspect they’ll say ‘yes,’ but it’s going to come at a cost of some of the capabilities on this ship – of course,” Hilarides said.

“It’s physics. Without taking something off, you’re not putting on a many ton system, so a gun would be a logical thing to take off and put the railgun in its place.”

The three ship Zumwalt-class were – in part – originally designed to address a gap in naval surface fire support with the AGS firing the Long-Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) at a range of up to 75 nautical miles.

Each ship is designed to field two AGS.

Zumwalt is expected to deliver to the service next year.

 

[Moose]

You forgot the link.
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer

 

[Triton]

You forgot the link.
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer

Thanks, Moose. I was having Internet connection problems.

 

[Moose]

You forgot the link.
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer

Thanks, Moose. I was having Internet connection problems.

No worries, I've had my share

 

[bobbymike]

http://video.lauraingraham.com/US-Navy-railgun-makes-public-debut-28510059

Video of weapon not new although I haven't seen the footage of the projectile going through several steel plates before, some new commentary, however.

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/hill-to-navy-hurry-up-on-rail-guns-lasers/?hootPostID=75c7aa54dfc72b36165930537ee38e0c

 

[bobbymike]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/pentagon-looking-at-integrating-anti.html

Integrated anti-air including Rail Guns and lasers

 

[jsport]

Request for Information (RFI) for development of Fire Control Sensor for use with Navy Railgun

The RFI focuses on recommended options for sensors or sensor upgrades through technology advancements, new sensor and single sensor architectures, or an overall mixed sensor architecture with the performance capabilities of interests that can also be delivered as a prototype ready for use no later than 3rd quarter fiscal year 2018. The Navy requests industry inputs related to architectural constructs and approaches that might be incorporated into a future railgun weapon system. Inputs should relate to one or more of the following.

1. Ability to track Low RCS targets at extended ranges. Details to be provided at Industry day.

2. Electronically scanned coverage (FOV) of greater than 90 degrees in azimuth and elevation.

3. Endo atmospheric tracking and engagement of ballistic missile targets.

4. Environmental clutter rejection (weather, surface, biological).

5. Support raid handling for ballistic missile, Anti-Air Warfare and Surface engagements.

6. Simultaneous tracking of inbound targets and outbound supersonic projectiles.

7. Enhanced battle damage assessment.

8. Improved resistance to technical and tactical countermeasures.

9. Rapid fire control loop closure times.

10. High data rate tracking and data collection.

11. Maturity sufficient to deliver operational prototype in the 2018 timeframe. (TRL 6).

12. Maturity sufficient to deliver operational capability in the 2020 to 2025 timeframe.

Appears to be defensive direct fire system not an indirect fire bombarbment system.. great.

 

[TomS]

Yes, this RFI relates to railguns as defensive weapons. Railguns for naval surface fire support would fit much more easily into the existing Naval Fires Control System and future developments. There's a lot of work on fire support coordination for time-critical targets; a shore bombardment railgun would just be another weapon input into such a system.

 

[jsport]

Yes, this RFI relates to railguns as defensive weapons. Railguns for naval surface fire support would fit much more easily into the existing Naval Fires Control System and future developments. There's a lot of work on fire support coordination for time-critical targets; a shore bombardment railgun would just be another weapon input into such a system.

minus nukes every hull-still stick-in to chemicals over capacitors as the best solution for indirect fire.
Those HV rounds sound great.

 

[bobbymike]

New missile for future frigate

http://news.usni.org/2015/06/22/navy-issues-rfi-for-new-frigate-anti-surface-missile

 

[bobbymike]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/kratos-gets-20-million-railgun-contract.html

 

[bobbymike]

CRS Report on the topic

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44175.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

http://news.usni.org/2015/12/01/navy-finding-offensive-uses-for-defensive-systems-to-support-distributed-lethality

One recent example of this is taking a proven defensive system – the Standard Missile 6 air defense missile – and giving it offensive capabilities as well.

“There are systems that we’re using that we’re moving from defensive capability into a very aggressive offensive capability,” Program Executive Officer for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) Rear Adm. Jon Hill said during the panel discussion, referring to the SM-6.

Surface Ship Weapons Office Program Manager Capt. Michael Ladner told USNI News in November that he was pursuing software-only upgrades to the missile that would allow it to take on other missions, which he said he could not discuss. But he said the new missions “focus on distributed lethality and shifting to an offensive capability to counter our adversaries’ [anti-access/area-denial] capabilities.”

Hill said the Navy was looking for additional over-the-horizon missiles, and “we’re going to start with what we can pull out of industry today and we’re going to extend that in the future.”

Director of Surface Warfare (OPNAV N96) Rear Adm. Peter Fanta said during the panel discussion that he is similarly looking at new uses for the Tomahawk land attack cruise missile.

“We still have a requirement for a Tomahawk cruise missile to attack surface ships sitting on the books – in fact, it’s been reiterated for the past 15 years that we still have that requirement,” he said.
“It’s amazing what you do when you dust off an old requirement and say I’m going to do this again. Let me put it this way: we know what the Tomahawk is capable of – the reason we got rid of it was because our sensors were not long-range enough to keep up with the range of the Tomahawk. Our sensors have evolved to the position now where we can track and target things out to the range of a Tomahawk, so now we have a need for something Tomahawk-esque to go out and reach out that far.”

Speaking to how this reuse of the Tomahawk missile would fit into the distributed lethality concept, Fanta said, “so imagine what happens when I’m carrying 3,000 Tomahawks at sea at any one time and they become dual-mission or multi-mission weapons. I don’t care which adversary you are on the face of the earth, 3,000 missiles coming at you at the same time is a really bad day. That’s the idea behind, can we make this thing do more than one [mission]. That’s what we’re talking about, evolving the capabilities that we have. I’ve got a great truck, it’s a big missile sitting inside my [vertical launching system] cells right now. What else can we do with it? How else can we make it work? What other things could we put on it or make it do?”

 

[sferrin]

They won't even have as many as they want for air defense. Seems like a waste to use them plinking speedboats.

 

[TomS]

They won't even have as many as they want for air defense. Seems like a waste to use them plinking speedboats.

That's probably not what he was talking about. More likely they're referring to things like this CSBA study:

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2014/11/17/csba-report-commanding-seas-surface-fleet-on-offense/19183273/
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/47-seconds-from-hell-a-challenge-to-navy-doctrine/

So they're talking about using long-range missiles like SM-6 to kill standoff missile platforms before launch and to engage time-sensitive shore targets like ASCM batteries. I'm not sure this should really be considered "offensive" since it's just a case of "kill the archer not the arrow" but that seems to be the language they're using.

 

[bobbymike]

They won't even have as many as they want for air defense. Seems like a waste to use them plinking speedboats.

That's probably not what he was talking about. More likely they're referring to things like this CSBA study:

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2014/11/17/csba-report-commanding-seas-surface-fleet-on-offense/19183273/
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/47-seconds-from-hell-a-challenge-to-navy-doctrine/

So they're talking about using long-range missiles like SM-6 to kill standoff missile platforms before launch and to engage time-sensitive shore targets like ASCM batteries. I'm not sure this should really be considered "offensive" since it's just a case of "kill the archer not the arrow" but that seems to be the language they're using.

Not to be pedantic but killing the archer not the arrow should be defined as offensive no?

 

[TomS]

You could argue it that way, for sure.

My sense is that killing a bomber that is headed toward a task force well after takeoff but before it launches missiles could be interpreted as either extended defense or as offense. Ultimately, the terminology doesn't matter that much. The real issue is how this kind of doctrine interacts with Rules of Engagement.

If "kill the archer" is defensive, it's something you do only if you're sure the archer is coming to shoot you right now and is done under fairly restrictive ROE. If it's offensive, it's something you do whenever you see him, regardless of whether you think he's coming at you right now or not and requires a more expansive ROE.

 

[sferrin]

They won't even have as many as they want for air defense. Seems like a waste to use them plinking speedboats.

That's probably not what he was talking about. More likely they're referring to things like this CSBA study:

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2014/11/17/csba-report-commanding-seas-surface-fleet-on-offense/19183273/
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/47-seconds-from-hell-a-challenge-to-navy-doctrine/

So they're talking about using long-range missiles like SM-6 to kill standoff missile platforms before launch and to engage time-sensitive shore targets like ASCM batteries. I'm not sure this should really be considered "offensive" since it's just a case of "kill the archer not the arrow" but that seems to be the language they're using.

Sounds like what they already do (or did) with the F-14 Tomcats filling the role of killing the "archers", in this case, Bears and Backfires. Didn't think SM-6 would out range things like AS-4.

 

[TomS]

SM-6 has a ridiculously long range that doesn't seem to officially be public (Jane's says 230 nm!). That compares pretty closely to the book value range for AS-4 (250 nm). Remember that you would position the AEGIS ship well up-threat of the high-value target if at all possible, and the shooter won't want to launch at absolute maximum range since that would let the target turn away and run the inbounds out of fuel. So the geometry may work out most of the time. And AS-4 is a pretty stressing threat -- most threat missiles (even Brahmos) are shorter-legged than that.

 

[marauder2048]

SM-6 has a ridiculously long range that doesn't seem to officially be public (Jane's says 230 nm!). That compares pretty closely to the book value range for AS-4 (250 nm). Remember that you would position the AEGIS ship well up-threat of the high-value target if at all possible, and the shooter won't want to launch at absolute maximum range since that would let the target turn away and run the inbounds out of fuel. So the geometry may work out most of the time. And AS-4 is a pretty stressing threat -- most threat missiles (even Brahmos) are shorter-legged than that.

One of the concerns in the CSBA study was that the surface fleet won't have (for various reasons) the carrier's AWACs and other assets to facilitate the use of SM-6 at max range. It was for this reason that I was hoping
the Brits would go for the helicopter mounted AESA pods but they were nostalgic for the 80's and went with something else. There are other options of course...

 

[bobbymike]

What system was the DARPA program Arclight going to use? Cause the range of that system was 2000km IIRK.

 

[sferrin]

What system was the DARPA program Arclight going to use? Cause the range of that system was 2000km IIRK.

SM-3 Block IIA if I recall correctly. Plus that was a boost glider.

 

[sferrin]

SM-6 has a ridiculously long range that doesn't seem to officially be public (Jane's says 230 nm!). That compares pretty closely to the book value range for AS-4 (250 nm). Remember that you would position the AEGIS ship well up-threat of the high-value target if at all possible, and the shooter won't want to launch at absolute maximum range since that would let the target turn away and run the inbounds out of fuel. So the geometry may work out most of the time. And AS-4 is a pretty stressing threat -- most threat missiles (even Brahmos) are shorter-legged than that.

Just to give a feel for SM-6's possible performance, there was an early SM-3 test wherein they had an inert 3rd stage. First stage fired, 2nd stage fired, then they separated and let the 3rd stage tumble ballistically. On the way up it went from 310,000 feet to 350,000 feet in 14 seconds (that's an average vertical velocity component of about 2000 mph),so it would have continued on well past that in altitude. It appeared in the video to be at about 45 degrees when they separated so the actual velocity would have been much higher. It was airborne for over 5 minutes. Don't know how much drag or weight difference there would be between a tumbling SM-3 upper stage and an SM-6. Yes the SM-6 would weigh more than the SM-3 upper stage but at that point, after 2nd stage motor burnout, it's moot. Don't know if the timing or the orientation in the video is accurate. Just taking it at face value.

Start around 9:20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_1L-8cp6jo

 

[marauder2048]

SM-6 has a ridiculously long range that doesn't seem to officially be public (Jane's says 230 nm!). That compares pretty closely to the book value range for AS-4 (250 nm). Remember that you would position the AEGIS ship well up-threat of the high-value target if at all possible, and the shooter won't want to launch at absolute maximum range since that would let the target turn away and run the inbounds out of fuel. So the geometry may work out most of the time. And AS-4 is a pretty stressing threat -- most threat missiles (even Brahmos) are shorter-legged than that.

Just to give a feel for SM-6's possible performance, there was an early SM-3 test wherein they had an inert 3rd stage. First stage fired, 2nd stage fired, then they separated and let the 3rd stage tumble ballistically. On the way up it went from 310,000 feet to 350,000 feet in 14 seconds (that's an average vertical velocity component of about 2000 mph),so it would have continued on well past that in altitude. It appeared in the video to be at about 45 degrees when they separated so the actual velocity would have been much higher. It was airborne for over 5 minutes. Don't know how much drag or weight difference there would be between a tumbling SM-3 upper stage and an SM-6. Yes the SM-6 would weigh more than the SM-3 upper stage but at that point, after 2nd stage motor burnout, it's moot. Don't know if the timing or the orientation in the video is accurate. Just taking it at face value.

Start around 9:20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_1L-8cp6jo

Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

 

[sferrin]

Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis". ;D That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm?

 

[marauder2048]

Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis". ;D That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm?

Like a min-energy ballistic trajectory? I wouldn't think that that trajectory would put the missile at good attitude for the terminal seeker.

 

[sferrin]

Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis". ;D That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm?

Like a min-energy ballistic trajectory? I wouldn't think that that trajectory would put the missile at good attitude for the terminal seeker.

By the time it was coming down it would be. Midcourse guidance updates until it's headed down and then the active seeker starts up at the end.

 

[marauder2048]

Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis". ;D That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm?

Like a min-energy ballistic trajectory? I wouldn't think that that trajectory would put the missile at good attitude for the terminal seeker.

By the time it was coming down it would be. Midcourse guidance updates until it's headed down and then the active seeker starts up at the end.

Ah. I was thinking the longer midcourse component would put it out of range of most of the uplinking platforms requiring the active seeker to start illuminating earlier.

 

[Moose]

Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis". ;D That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm?

Like a min-energy ballistic trajectory? I wouldn't think that that trajectory would put the missile at good attitude for the terminal seeker.

By the time it was coming down it would be. Midcourse guidance updates until it's headed down and then the active seeker starts up at the end.

Ah. I was thinking the longer midcourse component would put it out of range of most of the uplinking platforms requiring the active seeker to start illuminating earlier.

Would not be out of range of an E-2D positioned between the fleet and the incoming threat.

 

[marauder2048]

Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis". ;D That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm?

Like a min-energy ballistic trajectory? I wouldn't think that that trajectory would put the missile at good attitude for the terminal seeker.

By the time it was coming down it would be. Midcourse guidance updates until it's headed down and then the active seeker starts up at the end.

Ah. I was thinking the longer midcourse component would put it out of range of most of the uplinking platforms requiring the active seeker to start illuminating earlier.

Would not be out of range of an E-2D positioned between the fleet and the incoming threat.

Probably got lost in the chatter but I was referring to the CSBA analysis in which the surface fleet did not have access (for whatever reason) to carrier AWACs/ISR assets.