Standard Missile Discussion

Document Likely Shows SM-6 Hypersonic Speed, Anti-Surface Role | Aviation Week Network

The terse reference in a written submission by Navy officials to the House Armed Services Committee on March 11 also likely offers the first proof that the SM-6 Block 1B remains in development.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
“Additional work for guidance and control as well as warhead design will yield a new capability that provides antiair-warfare capability, including cruise missile defense, in support of ships [sic] self-defense, as well as anti-surface warfare,” Guerts’ testimony states.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1870129283043340470
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Have to launch those from a B-52, I don't think any of the Hornet pylons could take that big a load.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would be an issue. The 480 Gal tank total weight is 3600lbs and the current Blk 1 SM-6 is 3300lbs. I doubt a redesigned SM-6 Blk-1B is going to add more than another 20% to the weight of the total missile which brings it right around 4k lbs. The pylon limit would be either 4 or more likely 5k lbs.
 
Ozair said:
I don't think it would be an issue. The 480 Gal tank total weight is 3600lbs and the current Blk 1 SM-6 is 3300lbs. I doubt a redesigned SM-6 Blk-1B is going to add more than another 20% to the weight of the total missile which brings it right around 4k lbs. The pylon limit would be either 4 or more likely 5k lbs.
Click to expand...
current AIM174B is 13.5" diameter. Block-1Bs are 21" diameter. That's a 42% larger volume inside the body, so it's pretty safe to assume 42% heavier, roughly 2700lbs without the booster. The booster is ~1500lbs all by itself. Total stack would be 5200lbs or so.

Not that the USN could load a Block-1B on a plane, the stack is too tall for the weapons elevators.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Have to launch those from a B-52, I don't think any of the Hornet pylons could take that big a load.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of the F-15.

Ozair said:
I don't think it would be an issue. The 480 Gal tank total weight is 3600lbs and the current Blk 1 SM-6 is 3300lbs
Click to expand...

This is a good point.

Scott Kenny said:
current AIM174B is 13.5" diameter. Block-1Bs are 21" diameter. That's a 42% larger volume inside the body, so it's pretty safe to assume 42% heavier, roughly 2700lbs without the booster.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of an air-aunched SM-6 Block-IB without the Mk-72 launch-booster. However I think an F-15 could carry two SM-6 Block-IBs with Mk-72 boosters.
 
TomS said:
The loads on that joint between booster and missile would just be absurd.
Click to expand...

I've thought about that and an air-launched full SM-6 stack would need a jettisonable wrap-around clamshell shrouds encapsulation the Mk-72 booster and SM-6 tail-section to function as a strong-back to carry load.
 
Last edited:
defensearchives.com

Raytheon awarded $333 million contract by US Navy to boost Standard Missile-6 production - Defense Archives

The United States Navy has awarded a $333 million contract to RTX Corporation’s Raytheon business segment to increase the production capacity of the RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), or Standard Missile-6 (SM-6). SM-6 is an anti-air warfare missile, capable of engaging a...
defensearchives.com defensearchives.com

www.navalnews.com

RTX's Raytheon awarded $333 million contract for SM-6 Block IA production - Naval News

On January 14, 2025, RTX announced that the U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon a $333 million contract to produce SM-6 Block IA missiles.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
Last edited:
Can someone help explain why are SM-6 missiles so much heavier than other missiles? Heavier as in denser?

Here are some comparisons. Volume measurements are my own. They are a bit approximate when it comes to cone sections but they should still be within a few percent of true figure. Sure, there are other variables like wings and fins weight, older construction, role etc, but those still shouldn't sway the results too much.

SM-6 supposedly weighs 850 kg without the booster. its volume is 0.403 m3 give or take. density is thus 2109 kg per m3.

Let's look at some other missiles.
PAC-2 weighs 914 kg, 5.3 m long , 0.41 m diameter (0.666 m3 volume. 1371 kg per m3)
PAC-3 312 kg, 5.2 m long, 0.25 m diameter (0.243 volume. 1284 kg per m3)
48N6 1799 kg, 7.5 m long, 0.52 m to 0.44 m diameter. (approx 1.400 volume. 1285 kg per m3)
9M96E2 - 420 kg, 5.6 m long, 0.24 m diameter (0.242 volume. 1735 kg per m3)
9M317 - 715 kg, 5,5 m long, 0.4 to 0.34 m diameter (approx 0.590 volume. 1212 kg per m3)
SM-2MR - 707 kg, 4.7 m long, 0.34 m diameter (0.404 volume. 1750 kg per m3)

Here are some AA missiles as well.
AIM-174 supposedly weighs 890 kg. (0.403 volume. 2204 kg per m3)
R-37 weighs 510 kg. (0.432 m3 volume. 1186 kg per m3)
AIM-54 weighs 460 kg, 3.9 m long, 0.38 m diameter. (0.413 volume. 1112 kg per m3)
Super 530d, 270 kg, (0.191 volume, 1413 kg per m3)

Generally, density of a missile seems to be around 1200 kg to 1400 kg per m3, give or take. AA missiles seem somewhat less dense, but marginally so.
We do have a few outliers, though. the SM-2MR. And the 9M96. Why are those so packed and dense? (something like 33% denser)
But I guess even those aren't such a huge increase. Compared to SM-6. Which is like 60% denser.
Interestingly, the 9M317 which is VERY similar design concept wise, is far less dense than SM-2.

Questions:
1. How come SM-6 is so much more dense than even the SM-2? Even though it shares so much with the SM-2?

2. Why is SM-2MR visibly denser than the average competitor of its era?

3. Is it the (modern) rocket propellant that is so dense? Or are modern, tightly packed electronics more dense?

4. Why is PAC-3, which a fairly modern missile, of lets say more comparable design to sm-2/6 than pac2's missile/48n6, far less dense, in comparison?
 
Part of the seeming weight overhang may lie in rather dubious attempts to incorporate COTS components into the design to cut costs, I suspect. That sort of rubbish has brought down many an important defense project over the last couple decades or so. Dogma doesn't even begin to describe it.
 

Attachments

  • SM-2Blk3CCU.png
    SM-2Blk3CCU.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 23
Re above the 2024 DOT&E report says
The SM-2 Block IIIC and Block IIICU have a new dorsal fin design and a thrust vectoring jet tab assembly that control trajectory as the missile egresses the launcher. The Navy’s Guidance Section Electronics Unit (GS EU) replacement program is making hardware changes to the SM-6 Block IA Guidance Section and Target Detection Device to address obsolescence issues. The upgraded GS EU will be qualified on the SM-6 Block IA missile as the SM-6 Block IAU. Integration of the upgraded GS EU on the SM-2 Block IIIC results in the SM-2 Block IIICU.
Click to expand...

 
www.navalnews.com

Aegis Combat System Demonstrates System's Capability to Counter Hypersonic Threats - Naval News

Using a new variant of the RIM-174 Standard Missile 6, the U.S. Navy successfully shot down a threat representative Hypersonic Target Vehicle (HTV-1) off the southern end of Hawaii.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
Kauai, Hawaii, March 25, 2025 – The USS Pinckney (DDG 91) successfully completed Flight Test Other 40 (FTX-40), also known as Stellar Banshee, using Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Combat System to detect, track and perform an engagement against a live advanced hypersonic Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) target using a simulated SM-6 Block IAU.

...Stellar Banshee introduced a new target and simulated missile
Click to expand...

www.naval-technology.com

US Navy and MDA complete hypersonic threat test

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA), in collaboration with the US Navy, has completed FTX-40 - also known as Stellar Banshee.
www.naval-technology.com www.naval-technology.com

The test, known as Flight Test Other-40 (FTX-40) or “Stellar Banshee,” was conducted on March 24 off the coast of the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii. During the exercise, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Pinckney (DDG 91) tracked and simulated an engagement against an advanced maneuvering hypersonic target using the Sea-Based Terminal (SBT) Increment 3 capability integrated within the latest Aegis Combat System software.

According to the Missile Defense Agency, the scenario involved a simulated launch of an upgraded Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) targeting a Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) equipped with a Hypersonic Target Vehicle (HTV-1). The HTV-1 is designed to mimic the behavior of next-generation hypersonic weapons and allows for operationally realistic testing.
Click to expand...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJuhbIijXME

armyrecognition.com

New Aegis test shows US Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer could face a new generation of hypersonic missile threats

New test of Aegis air defense system shows US Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer could face a new generation of hypersonic missile threats
armyrecognition.com armyrecognition.com

www.bairdmaritime.com

US Navy destroyer Pinckney participates in hypersonic missile defence test off Hawaii

The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA), in cooperation with the US Navy, has successfully executed Flight Test Other-40 (FTX-40), or Stellar Banshee, to test new t
www.bairdmaritime.com www.bairdmaritime.com

FTX-40 also provided a data collection opportunity for the hypersonic and ballistic tracking space sensor (HBTSS) demonstration satellite. Developed by the MDA, HBTSS satellites will provide continuous tracking and enable handoff for targeting of enemy missiles.
Click to expand...

www.twz.com

SM-6 Missile Closer To Proving Hypersonic Weapon Intercept Capability After Aegis Destroyer Test

The SM-6 is the U.S. military's most immediate option for tackling growing threats posed by advanced maneuvering hypersonic weapons.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Is there any information about this new target missile available?
Click to expand...

I cannot imagine any hard data on its performance will be available. But it does beg the question, if you can make a high fidelity hypersonic surrogate, why is not just a weapon system? Perhaps it uses one of the existing U.S. gliders. If so, that is a very expensive test.
 
Last edited:
So the HTV-1 is a proven design, that makes sense and no doubt the booster-stack itself is made up of proven, mature SRM designs.
 
Hypersonic weapons are easy.

Get a big old rocket and a half decent glider and you good. IE talk a old CBM rocket stack, and put a glider on the warhead holders and launch.

Getting one that you can move on the otherhand without a dedicate ship...

That hard.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom