There's even less in common between the 1991 SM2 and the 2025 SM2 than there is between the 1991 Patriot and the 2025 Patriot.

If you were talking about Aegis as a whole you would be correct, but to say that the SM-2 Block III is massively different from what it was in the 1980s is laughably incorrect. SM-2 still uses more or less the same motor, airframe, and warhead as it did at the end of the Cold War. All of the in-service variants use a RF seeker that has only received modest improvements since then.


The Patriot interceptor family has gone through far greater changes. In addition to GEM, which was a bigger upgrade over its predecessor than any of the Block III variants of SM-2 were, Patriot introduced an entirely new HTK missile family whose genesis is thirty years newer than any of the members of the Standard family prior to the full caliber SM-3 Block II and SM-6 Block IB, which finally adopted vaguely modern design and construction methodologies. RIM-66M on the other hand is a weapon hamstrung around 1950s and 60s technological constraints.


There are reasons why everyone who knew missile defense twenty years ago told the Navy that their SBT requirements would be best served by a variant of MSE, not a RIM-156 derivative like the Navy wanted and got. Because the reality was and remains that MSE is a far better terminal interceptor. The combination of it being far faster, far better terminal agility, a seeker that is over a generation more advanced, and hit to kill approach are what has allowed MSE to engage significantly more complex BMD targets in testing, while maintaining a similar defended area to SM-6 Block 1.


When comparing complete systems, for the lower tier BMD mission the only component of Aegis that is comprehensively more capable is the radar, which significantly outranges the MPQ-65A. MSE is in fact actively limited by the current radar system, which does not have the ability to detect RVs at distances where MSE is kinematically capable of intercepting. This is the driver for major investments by both the Army and Navy in their systems—Patriot-THAAD integration by the Army, and SM-6 counter-HGV capabilities, which it is only receiving before MSE because SM-6 has a radar with enough oomph to support it. But the driving interest for Aegis-MSE integration is HGVs and other advanced threats, because for that mission space MSE is straight up better

And pretty soon the in-service SM2 will have the same active seeker as the SM6. Though I still think there's a reason to keep the dual IIR/radar seeker versions around as well. Wouldn't be surprised if the variant after SM2 Active has an added IIR seeker to help counter radar-stealthy aircraft and missiles.

There isn't the physical space for the IR seeker in the IIIC design, that is all taken up by seeker power and control electronics. The MHIP seeker is also ancient, dating back to the eighties, and requires replacement to be effective against modern threats.
 
If you were talking about Aegis as a whole you would be correct, but to say that the SM-2 Block III is massively different from what it was in the 1980s is laughably incorrect. SM-2 still uses more or less the same motor, airframe, and warhead as it did at the end of the Cold War. All of the in-service variants use a RF seeker that has only received modest improvements since then.
I thought the SM2s got a new motor and revised strake shape in the early 2000s?


There isn't the physical space for the IR seeker in the IIIC design, that is all taken up by seeker power and control electronics. The MHIP seeker is also ancient, dating back to the eighties, and requires replacement to be effective against modern threats.
Seeker power and control may be share-able with the IR seeker (depends on architecture of each). You'd definitely be able to share guidance control between the two.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom