Standard Missile Discussion

Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1814056918274670953
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1814056918274670953

www.defensenews.com

Navy missile intercepts target using Army’s new missile defense radar

The Navy's SM-6 missile intercepted a target in a test during Valiant Shield using the Army's new missile defense radar and battle command system.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
I was just about to ask if that had been demonstrated yet...

Now the USArmy has very big SAMs they can use if needed.
 
Forest Green said:
I wonder whether IBCS will include the USSF's FOO Fighters eventually for OTH shots.
Click to expand...

I do not think that program has anything to do with air defense. The GMTI satellite program may have some capability against aircraft, but if so only for very limited windows of time.
 
NMaude said:
If the US Army selects the SM-6 for this role then this should lower the unit-cost for the SM-6.
Click to expand...
Depends on how much production can be increased without major hiring or constructing new production lines.

I'm hoping the factory is just kinda idling along at very slow production speeds, and can double or quadruple their production rate without hiring more workers, but that is not clear.
 
TAOG said:
SM-6 Block1b have anti air capability, not only for strike
Click to expand...
Just read the above post and wondered if the SM-6 1B with its large diameter motor and presume minimal control surfaces could possibly have useful anti-air/ballistic missile capability due to its minimal control surfaces/wings so as to be able convert its forward thrust into lift, which is an order of magnitude kinematically efficient than directly applying lateral thrust, to give the SM-6 1B the necessary lateral terminal maneuverability required to relocate to counter a maneuvering target.
 
Cordy said:
Just read the above post and wondered if the SM-6 1B with its large diameter motor and presume minimal control surfaces could possibly have useful anti-air/ballistic missile capability due to its minimal control surfaces/wings so as to be able convert its forward thrust into lift, which is an order of magnitude kinematically efficient than directly applying lateral thrust, to give the SM-6 1B the necessary lateral terminal maneuverability required to relocate to counter a maneuvering target.
Click to expand...
Post #22
 
Scott Kenny said:
Thought they were still in production for non-US?
Click to expand...
Nobody but the US bought Block IV, the booster and low production numbers (only about 100 were produced) made it not cost effective for allies. Various Block III sub-variants have been the bulk of export sales. Today, SM-6 is being produced is larger numbers so the cost is manageable for export customers.
 
Last edited:
Just a purely speculative fiction question, but would SM-3 upper stage & kinetic interceptor require any special modification to work as space-to-space missile (fired from spacecraft against other spacecraft)? Or as long as it got firing solution programmed in, and IR seeker could track the target, it's irrelevant how exactly it was launched?

P.S. To avoid vacuum storage problem, the missile is stored in sealed container launcher, filled with nitrogen and heated/cooled to maintain temperature within tolerable range.
 
Dilandu said:
Just a purely speculative fiction question, but would SM-3 upper stage & kinetic interceptor require any special modification to work as space-to-space missile (fired from spacecraft against other spacecraft)? Or as long as it got firing solution programmed in, and IR seeker could track the target, it's irrelevant how exactly it was launched?

P.S. To avoid vacuum storage problem, the missile is stored in sealed container launcher, filled with nitrogen and heated/cooled to maintain temperature within tolerable range.
Click to expand...
I believe that is correct. As long as the missile was appropriately stored and could get the IR seeker locked onto target, the KV shouldn't care how it was launched.

HOWEVER.

What makes the SM3 so scary as an ASAT is that it mostly uses the satellite's own speed against it, mostly using the SM3 stages to get it up to the satellite's altitude.

Without the huge velocity difference it won't do very much damage, say if launched from an object in orbit at another object in the same orbit.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Might not be catastrophic, though.
Click to expand...
True. The LEAP KKV mass is about 6 kg, so at 1 km/s it would have only about 3 megajoules of energy. One kg of TNT would release about 4.8 megajoules. To make kinetic truly efficient, the velocity of impact above 3 km/s would be perefrable.
 
Dilandu said:
True. The LEAP KKV mass is about 6 kg, so at 1 km/s it would have only about 3 megajoules of energy. One kg of TNT would release about 4.8 megajoules. To make kinetic truly efficient, the velocity of impact above 3 km/s would be perefrable.
Click to expand...
1kg of TNT is about 4.184MJ. 0.75kg of TNT will do plenty of damage to a flimsy object. An A-10 30mm HEI round is only 360g doing Mach 3 and contains only 56g of explosive by comparison, and I would not like to be in a fighter aircraft getting hit by one of those, never mind a satellite.

120mm sabot round projectiles are not much more than 6kg:
en.wikipedia.org

120×570mm NATO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
This interesting video from Defense Updates has just uploaded and it concerns the USN's experimentation with reloading Mk-41 VLS cells at sea while underway:


The U.S. Navy has made a major advancement in maritime combat readiness by successfully demonstrating the Transportable Re-Arming Mechanism (TRAM) on a warship in open waters for the first time.
Click to expand...
The landmark trail occurred on October 11th off the coast of San Diego, where sailors aboard the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Chosin (CG 65) utilized the hydraulically powered TRAM device to load an empty missile canister into the ship's MK 41 vertical launching system (VLS).
Click to expand...
During the at-sea demonstration, the USS Chosin linked up with the USNS Washington Chambers (T-AKE 11), a Military Sealift Command dry cargo and ammunition ship.The supply vessel transferred the missile canister via cables to the cruiser, where the TRAM device moved the canister along a rail system, tilted it vertically, and precisely lowered it into a VLS cell using its advanced cable and pulley system.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how TRAM will fundamentally change the way the US Navy fights future wars ?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #TransportableReArmingMechanism #usnavy
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
02:10 NEED
03:54 TRAM
05:44 SLOW BUT STEADY PROGRESS
07:03 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...

Given how rapidly the USN has been expending SM-3s and SM-6s in the Red Sea and off the Israeli coast in shooting down Houthi drones and ballistic missiles this can't come about soon enough.
 
Dilandu said:
True. The LEAP KKV mass is about 6 kg, so at 1 km/s it would have only about 3 megajoules of energy. One kg of TNT would release about 4.8 megajoules. To make kinetic truly efficient, the velocity of impact above 3 km/s would be perefrable.
Click to expand...
3 megajoules of kinetic energy all (this isn't an explosion. you're going to put ALL of that KE into the target) going into an unarmored object is going to shred all but the largest sattellites. These are not objects with much in the way of hardening, and quite a lot of very flimsy parts.
 
MihoshiK said:
3 megajoules of kinetic energy all (this isn't an explosion. you're going to put ALL of that KE into the target) going into an unarmored object is going to shred all but the largest sattellites. These are not objects with much in the way of hardening, and quite a lot of very flimsy parts.
Click to expand...
My concern is it being slightly off-target and "merely" dumping all the KE into a solar panel instead of the core satellite.
 
Scott Kenny said:
My concern is it being slightly off-target and "merely" dumping all the KE into a solar panel instead of the core satellite.
Click to expand...

That probably would still be debilitating. It should dramatically lower power production, assuming the hit does not cause the whole thing to tumble and be unable to collect power at all.

ETA: in any case, that would be a failure of accuracy not a lack of KE. The interceptor might well punch a neat hole in the solar array; they are basically gossamer. Adding more KE would not change that significantly.

The U.S. seems more interested in not KE ASAT mechanisms at this point, and I strongly suspect has deployed one or more by now.
 
Josh_TN said:
That probably would still be debilitating. It should dramatically lower power production, assuming the hit does not cause the whole thing to tumble and be unable to collect power at all.
Click to expand...
I was picturing the impact poking a fairly large hole in the solar panels but not necessarily inflicting much of a tumble to the satellite, but I am not sure that would happen that way.

It's definitely something of a worst case for the USA, best case for the bad guys.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom