Standard Missile Discussion

Forest Green

Forest Green

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Joined
11 June 2019
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
13,886
news.northropgrumman.com

Northrop Grumman’s Ballistic Missile Target Successfully Launched for Aegis Weapon System Test

CHANDLER, Ariz. – March 29, 2024 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) successfully launched a ballistic missile target vehicle to support the Missile Defense Agency’s Flight Test Aegis Weapon System 32 (FTM-32), in cooperation with the U.S....
news.northropgrumman.com news.northropgrumman.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1773802312760279420
View: https://x.com/northropgrumman/status/1773802312760279420?s=20

www.navalnews.com

MDA, US Navy Conducts Successful Intercept with SM-6 - Naval News

MDA, Navy Conducts Successful Intercept with SM-6; Advances collaboration with Australia
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1773816896477077986
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1773816896477077986?s=20
 
Is it only the SM3 that has been modified to a 21" rocket diameter? Everything else still using the 13.5" core diameter?
 
Forest Green said:
I thought there was also a 21in SM-6 planned as a hypersonic interceptor? Seems a bit short-sighted that CPS isn't destined for ASuW either.
Click to expand...

I don't recall any mention of that in the official program of record.
 
There's been a new test of the SM-6 Block-1A:

US Military's 'Groundbreaking' New Missile Reaches Milestone​

Published Apr 03, 2024 at 3:04 PM EDT Updated Apr 03, 2024 at 7:54 PM EDT
Click to expand...

The U.S. Navy conducted a successful test of a cutting-edge missile system last week, intercepting a ballistic missile target over the ocean in "a groundbreaking advancement for naval defense," according to the military news outlet Special Operations Forces Report (SOFREP).

SOFREP on Wednesday reported that the SM-6 missile, manufactured by the U.S. defense contractor Raytheon, achieved a "significant milestone" on March 29 when it "successfully intercepted a medium-range ballistic missile target during a sea trial."
Click to expand...

I haven't been able to find any YouTube videos concerning this test but according to the article it was a test of the 21" diameter SM-6.
 
Newsweek is not an authoritative source these days, 1B is the expanded-diameter SM-6, this was a rest of Block IA (Dual II) which shares the same dimensions as Block I.
 
NMaude said:
There's been a new test of the SM-6 Block-1A:

I haven't been able to find any YouTube videos concerning this test but according to the article it was a test of the 21" diameter SM-6.
Click to expand...

This is the same March 29 test mentioned in Post #1.


Moose said:
Newsweek is not an authoritative source these days, 1B is the expanded-diameter SM-6, this was a rest of Block IA (Dual II) which shares the same dimensions as Block I.
Click to expand...

Neither is SOFREP (surprise!) They managed to state that this was a Block 1A and Block 1B test in the same article, despite linking to the actual RTX press release specifically saying Block 1A.
 
Moose said:
1B is the expanded-diameter SM-6, this was a rest of Block IA (Dual II) which shares the same dimensions as Block I.
Click to expand...

I thought there was something a bit odd about that in the article.

TomS said:
This is the same March 29 test mentioned in Post #1.
Click to expand...

I missed that post.

TomS said:
They managed to state that this was a Block 1A and Block 1B test in the same article, despite linking to the actual RTX press release specifically saying Block 1A.
Click to expand...

It looks like the editor didn't do a good job of proof-reading the article before it was published.
 
sferrin said:
What does this even mean?
Click to expand...

Basically, they've demonstrated that they can run the AEGIS combat system software on generic computing hardware rather than on dedicated systems. (Think of it like emulation for video games, running old games on new, much more sophisticated, hardware). Which means that in the future, they'll be able to run the same software on a variety of different and much more compact computing systemsmeaning they only have to worry about maintaining a single software standard. They will also be able to update it on the fly, ensuring that ships always have the latest version of the system on board.

More detailed explanation here:

www.defensenews.com

Navy certifying virtualized Aegis Combat System on its first destroyer

The Navy is certifying its virtualized Aegis Combat System on destroyer Winston Churchill for the first time after months of hardware and software testing.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Last edited:
pedrospe said:
Prob

Probably means no human intervention needed to intercept an air target, everything is fully automatic:)
Click to expand...

AEGIS has been doing that for a long time.

Auto-Special mode has been available in AEGIS basically from the outset. In that mode, the only human intervention is to enable or disable launch authority. Put the AEGIS system in Auto-Special and it will engage everything it thinks is an air threat until it runs out of targets, it runs out of ammunition, or you tell it to stop.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Basically, they've demonstrated that they can run the AEGIS combat system software on generic computing hardware rather than on dedicated systems. (Think of it like emulation for video games, running old games on new, much more sophisticated, hardware). Which means that in the future, they'll be able to run the same software on a variety of different and much more compact computing systemsmeaning they only have to worry about maintaining a single software standard. They will also be able to update it on the fly, ensuring that ships always have the latest version of the system on board.

More detailed explanation here:

www.defensenews.com

Navy certifying virtualized Aegis Combat System on its first destroyer

The Navy is certifying its virtualized Aegis Combat System on destroyer Winston Churchill for the first time after months of hardware and software testing.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
This also opens the door to load AEGIS into ships which wouldn't have gotten it before because they weren't built with the hardware in mind. I'm hoping we'll see a DDG-1000 with SPY -6 and virtualized AEGIS before too long.
 
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, the "back end" of Aegis has been made mostly software instead of hardware/firmware, making it so it's largely independent of what hardware it runs on? (You still need the sensors to provide input obviously.)
 
sferrin said:
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, the "back end" of Aegis has been made mostly software instead of hardware/firmware, making it so it's largely independent of what hardware it runs on? (You still need the sensors to provide input obviously.)
Click to expand...
Yes. You still need some fast computers to run the emulators (see running a DOSBox on a modern computer), but now that Aegis is pure software you can stick it on anything with enough computer horsepower. Those Israeli Sa'ar corvettes? If they have PESA or AESA radars, they can have Aegis now. LCS, if you give them a radar upgrade at the same time? No problem.
 
Is there a link to somewhere that details the LM LV-2 BMD target?
 
NMaude said:
Is there a link to somewhere that details the LM LV-2 BMD target?
Click to expand...


Quite honestly, the three images in that tweet have the most technical detail I've ever seen about LV-2. It's been around for a long time (c 2008) as the surviving member of the Future Target Family. But MDA/BMDO has always been reluctant to share many details of their targets. The one thing we do know is that LV-2 wasn't an untroubled development -- it uses a lot of existing components, but assembled in new ways, so it took longer than planned to make it all work reliably.

Getting the FTF target’s components through the qualification process, however, was more difficult and costly than the program expected. For example, MDA originally planned to launch the first FTF target—a 72-inch LV-2—in a 2008 STSS flight test, but the test was rescheduled due to delays in satellite integration and target affordability and availability. While many of the target missile’s components are found on existing systems, their form, fit, function, and the environment they fly in have been changed for the 72inch LV-2 target. Consequently, many critical components initially failed shock and vibration testing and other qualification tests and had to be redesigned. The process was recently scheduled to be complete in early October 2008 but, after several delays, was not finished until December 2008. Despite this, MDA expects the target to be complete and ready for its first launch in a third quarter fiscal year 2009 Aegis BMD flight test (FTM15).
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone else have an urge to see a complimentary thread to this one, titled: Non-standard missile discussion?
 
totoro said:
Does anyone else have an urge to see a complimentary thread to this one, titled: Non-standard missile discussion?
Click to expand...

There is an irony in how the Navy's Standard missile project, originally replacing Terrier, Tartar and Talos, has evolved into three separate missiles..
 
Kiltonge said:
There is an irony in how the Navy's Standard missile project, originally replacing Terrier, Tartar and Talos, has evolved into three separate missiles..
Click to expand...
They never replaced Talos. RIM-66 Standard replaced Tartar and RIM-67 Standard replaced Terrier. It was still two different missiles. Just had different names. (The upper stage of RIM-67 was not a RIM-66.)
 
sferrin said:
Just had different names. (The upper stage of RIM-67 was not a RIM-66.)
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? The RIM-67 seems to have been just a RIM-66 with a Mk-70 booster mounted on it.
 
sferrin said:
Nope. Different motors.
Click to expand...

In the same airframe, plus a bigger battery. Pretty standardised.

RIM-67 was adopted to supplant Talos in addition to Terrier because everything else intended for that function had lapsed and no technology refreshes were funded for the big ramjet missile. 67 was 'sufficient' and reduced the logistics train.
 
Kiltonge said:
In the same airframe, plus a bigger battery. Pretty standardised.

RIM-67 was adopted to supplant Talos in addition to Terrier because everything else intended for that function had lapsed and no technology refreshes were funded for the big ramjet missile. 67 was 'sufficient' and reduced the logistics train.
Click to expand...
And frankly they could get Talos range out of a Terrier sized package now.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom