Standard Missile projects.

[Scott Kenny]

I was seeing PAC3MSE as a replacement for ESSMs.

And it should be a pretty easy thing to do, the PAC3MSE is right at 10"ish in diameter already.

It's not. MSE is 12 inches in diameter, which means it will not quadpack into a Mk41 canister.

It also costs much more than ESSM -- ESSM is around $2 mil, MSE is more than $4 mil.

Hrm. that's not a detail I'd seen before. I'd seen PAC3 at 10" and MSE at maybe 11".

Cost is honestly a "whatever" to me, if that's what it costs to get the capabilities that's what it costs.

 

[TomS]

Hrm. that's not a detail I'd seen before. I'd seen PAC3 at 10" and MSE at maybe 11".

The 11-inch diameter is one of the two values Wikipedia lists (it also says 12 inches in the data block on the same page). Both appear to be wrong. The number I was able to confirm still rules out a quadpack in Mk 41.

GD lists the PAC-3 MSE rocket motor casing as 11.5 inch diameter and 98 inches long, compared to 10 inches diameter and 98 inches long for PAC-3 CRI.

Structural Components

Design, development, qualification and integration of high-performance lightweight composite pressure vessels for aircraft, satellite, launch vehicle and missile platforms.

www.gd-ots.com

LM has a briefing that says the motor is 11.4 inches. And the fixed fins may actually push the box dimension a bit larger than that (which might explain the 12-inch figure).

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/mfc/documents/pac-3/2022-01-05_LM_PAC-3_MSE_Overview.pdf

Cost is honestly a "whatever" to me, if that's what it costs to get the capabilities that's what it costs.

Cost has a very real impact on the number of missiles you can buy to stuff into those cells. Budgets are not infinitely expandable.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Hrm. that's not a detail I'd seen before. I'd seen PAC3 at 10" and MSE at maybe 11".

The 11-inch diameter is one of the two values Wikipedia lists (it also says 12 inches in the data block on the same page). Both appear to be wrong. The number I was able to confirm still rules out a quadpack in Mk 41.

GD lists the PAC-3 MSE rocket motor casing as 11.5 inch diameter and 98 inches long, compared to 10 inches diameter and 98 inches long for PAC-3 CRI.

Structural Components

Design, development, qualification and integration of high-performance lightweight composite pressure vessels for aircraft, satellite, launch vehicle and missile platforms.

www.gd-ots.com

LM has a briefing that says the motor is 11.4 inches. And the fixed fins may actually push the box dimension a bit larger than that (which might explain the 12-inch figure).

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/mfc/documents/pac-3/2022-01-05_LM_PAC-3_MSE_Overview.pdf

View attachment 700536

Yes, I follow. If the missile is that big it can't be quad packed. Which is a shame, but makes sense for an Army missile trying to get shoved into a Navy launcher. And it's honestly an issue for the VLS system in general. Yes, it's great that it has better performance, but I think the USN is running into end of growth capabilities for the 21" VLS.

I'd been looking at the differences between the PAC2 and PAC3, where PAC2s were single packed and PAC3s were quad packed into a similar size box.

Cost is honestly a "whatever" to me, if that's what it costs to get the capabilities that's what it costs.

Cost has a very real impact on the number of missiles you can buy to stuff into those cells. Budgets are not infinitely expandable.

But if the choice is pay $4mil per to have the capabilities or don't have them at all, that's where you pretty much have to suck it up and pay the money. Because it's embarrassing to lose a multi billion dollar DDG because some congresscritter thought $4mil a missile was too much money.

 

[TomS]

But if the choice is pay $4mil per to have the capabilities or don't have them at all, that's where you pretty much have to suck it up and pay the money. Because it's embarrassing to lose a multi billion dollar DDG because some congresscritter thought $4mil a missile was too much money.

But it's not all or nothing. ESSM will deal with most air threats, and PAC-3 can deal with the same plus some really stressing threats that ESSM can't. And there may actually be threats where ESSM is better, like short-range surface targets. So you can buy mostly ESSM, with a small number of silver bullet PAC-3s as well and end up with a lot more missiles overall or have money to spend on other capabilities.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But if the choice is pay $4mil per to have the capabilities or don't have them at all, that's where you pretty much have to suck it up and pay the money. Because it's embarrassing to lose a multi billion dollar DDG because some congresscritter thought $4mil a missile was too much money.

But it's not all or nothing. ESSM will deal with most air threats, and PAC-3 can deal with the same plus some really stressing threats that ESSM can't. And there may actually be threats where ESSM is better, like short-range surface targets. So you can buy mostly ESSM, with a small number of silver bullet PAC-3s as well and end up with a lot more missiles overall or have money to spend on other capabilities.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Though given packaging, we'd be talking about replacing SM2MRs.

 

[bring_it_on]

There are many things to consider here that we are not in the best position to ascertain at this point. For example, the planned SM-6 1B inventory, and the impact of it on production rate. The planned SM-6 ramp up and the 1A to 1B split, and the evolution of the 1A as it replaces the current guidance and impact on cost. The Navy plans to upgrade about 1K SM-2's to IIIC. I think there is room to introduce competition into missiles (its quite crazy that its a monopoly) but with the agile interceptor effort, there may be other reasons here that we may come to know over the next few years if that program develops further.

 

[NMaude]

The Navy plans to upgrade about 1K SM-2's to IIIC.

Is that Block-IIIC the one with an active radar seeker similar to the SM-6's?

 

[TomS]

The Navy plans to upgrade about 1K SM-2's to IIIC.

Is that Block-IIIC the one with an active radar seeker similar to the SM-6's?

Yes.

 

[Firefinder]

Considering the sizes of the MK41 in service.


I do wonder if its possible to upgrade the RIM66 to have PAC3 performance while maintaining its AA ability.

Likely needs a brand new design, but the RIM66 Airframe is basically a 1960s design so it may be overdue for that...

 

[NMaude]

I do wonder if its possible to upgrade the RIM66 to have PAC3 performance while maintaining its AA ability.

Isn't the RIM-66 SM-1 long out of production?

 

[Firefinder]

I do wonder if its possible to upgrade the RIM66 to have PAC3 performance while maintaining its AA ability.

Isn't the RIM-66 SM-1 long out of production?

Yes but no.

Cause the RIM66 designation covers BOTH the SM1 and SM2 with the difference between the two being the guts and programing. The RIM66 SM1 was for the old Tarter systems while the RIM66 SM2 is for the Aegis sets and New Threat upgrade.

Airframe wise? Aka the body with the wings and like?

Thats been basically the same design since the Tarters.

Enough so that multiple RIM66As got rebuilded into RIM66Js then to rebuilds Ks, Ls, then the Current N models. Since it was a simple undo a few screws follow by a gutting and replacement of tge insides with the newer kit.

So I do wonder how much more performance can be eked out by modifing the airframe and aerodynamics of the deal.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I do wonder if its possible to upgrade the RIM66 to have PAC3 performance while maintaining its AA ability.

Isn't the RIM-66 SM-1 long out of production?

Yes but no.

Cause the RIM66 designation covers BOTH the SM1 and SM2 with the difference between the two being the guts and programing. The RIM66 SM1 was for the old Tarter systems while the RIM66 SM2 is for the Aegis sets and New Threat upgrade.

Airframe wise? Aka the body with the wings and like?

Thats been basically the same design since the Tarters.

Enough so that multiple RIM66As got rebuilded into RIM66Js then to rebuilds Ks, Ls, then the Current N models. Since it was a simple undo a few screws follow by a gutting and replacement of tge insides with the newer kit.

So I do wonder how much more performance can be eked out by modifing the airframe and aerodynamics of the deal.

Given that it seems most SAMs across the globe use the "strakes and tail fins" basic airframe, I'm not sure how much improvement we can get. I mean, Sea Sparrows went from looking like a Sparrow to looking like a Standard when they went to the ESSM evolution, the NASAMS is using the same rough design, even Tor and Buk Russian SAMs are using strakes and tail fins.

As are the PAC3 and PAC3MSE.

 

[NMaude]

Does anyone know anything about Raytheon's Terrier Missile Target (TMT)? From what I understand they've been made converting retired RIM-67 SM-2ERs.

 

[TomS]

Does anyone know anything about Raytheon's Terrier Missile Target (TMT)? From what I understand they've been made converting retired RIM-67 SM-2ERs.

The term Terrier Missile Target seems to be descriptive rather than referring to one specific design -- TMTs have been used as both ballistic and sea-skimming missile simulants.

The ballistic version was good for around 140 miles range and a 50+ mile apex, so a useful simulant for SRBMs. Around the turn of the century, it was used as a target for testing the Linebacker/Navy Area Defense system (SM2 Block IV missiles).

Linebacker

www.globalsecurity.org

 

[sferrin]

I do wonder if its possible to upgrade the RIM66 to have PAC3 performance while maintaining its AA ability.

Isn't the RIM-66 SM-1 long out of production?

Yes but no.

Cause the RIM66 designation covers BOTH the SM1 and SM2 with the difference between the two being the guts and programing. The RIM66 SM1 was for the old Tarter systems while the RIM66 SM2 is for the Aegis sets and New Threat upgrade.

Airframe wise? Aka the body with the wings and like?

Thats been basically the same design since the Tarters.

They're very different.

RIM-24 Tartar


RIM-66 Block III

 

[NMaude]

Yeah, there is a noticeable difference between the airframe of a RIM-24 and a RIM-66.

 

[sferrin]

Yeah, there is a noticeable difference between the airframe of a RIM-24 and a RIM-66.

Consider the latest RIM-66 SM-2 Block III has about double the speed and ten times the range of the original RIM-24A.

 

[sferrin]

Does anyone know anything about Raytheon's Terrier Missile Target (TMT)? From what I understand they've been made converting retired RIM-67 SM-2ERs.

The term Terrier Missile Target seems to be descriptive rather than referring to one specific design -- TMTs have been used as both ballistic and sea-skimming missile simulants.

The ballistic version was good for around 140 miles range and a 50+ mile apex, so a useful simulant for SRBMs. Around the turn of the century, it was used as a target for testing the Linebacker/Navy Area Defense system (SM2 Block IV missiles).

Linebacker

www.globalsecurity.org

Aegis Readiness Assessment Vehicles (ARAV)

The ARAV, a product of the NSWC PHD White Sands Detachment, is a solid-fuel rocket-based target vehicle that emulates ballistic missile threats.

www.kratosdefense.com

 

[kqcke for you]

Could one not take the 2 PAC-3 MSE and put them in the dual Container which was developted for i think SM-2s? In case they also want more range i remember you guys where talking about a 10" rocket motor which could be mounted under it. Or remember i something wrong?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Could one not take the 2 PAC-3 MSE and put them in the dual Container which was developted for i think SM-2s? In case they also want more range i remember you guys where talking about a 10" rocket motor which could be mounted under it. Or remember i something wrong?

PAC3MSEs are apparently 11.5" in diameter or a bit more.

 

[kqcke for you]

PAC3MSEs are apparently 11.5" in diameter or a bit more.

I know but was'nt the max diameter under 25in. as the cell on the Outside has a 25in. width? I mean i don't know the cell wall thickness but if it doesnt exceed 1 in. it could be possible tought a very tight fit.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I know but was'nt the max diameter under 25in. as the cell on the Outside has a 25in. width? I mean i don't know the cell wall thickness but if it doesnt exceed 1 in. it could be possible tought a very tight fit.

I can draw the needed packing for a duo, but I can't lay out the math to figure out the maximum possible missile diameter.

 

[Firefinder]

I can draw the needed packing for a duo, but I can't lay out the math to figure out the maximum possible missile diameter.

You dont need to math it out.

Someone else has.

Sort of an old idea (the patent is from 1994) but I've never seen art for it before.

Dual-Pack Canister for the Mk 41 VLS.

The missile is not named in the patent, but at the time, they were talking about something derived from SM2MR minus the fins. This one seems to be related to Block IIIB with the side-mounted IR seeker.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You dont need to math it out.

Someone else has.

Patent does not give missile sizes.

 

[TomS]

Patent does not give missile sizes.

Notionally, it's an SM2MR minus fins, so about 13.5 inches diameter. Now, this was never actually built, to my knowledge, which means even if this canister is possible it still needs development and testing.

Ostensibly that dual-pack is big enough for PAC-3 MSE, depending on how the MSE fins fold. However, Lockheed has said that the reason their current Naval PAC-3 offering is a single-pack is that they do not want to modify MSE at all, just be able to pull Army and Navy rounds off the same assembly line. That means that from their perspective, there is something about a multipack that would require some Navy-specific missile mods. (I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)

 

[Firefinder]

(I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)

I recall the US doing a missile test in like 2016 that involves an Aegis destroyer guiding a Patriot Missile from an Army launcher while the MPQ53/64 guided a Sm2 from the Ship vls.

So likely been done for a hot minute.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Notionally, it's an SM2MR minus fins, so about 13.5 inches diameter. Now, this was never actually built, to my knowledge, which means even if this canister is possible it still needs development and testing.

Ostensibly that dual-pack is big enough for PAC-3 MSE, depending on how the MSE fins fold. However, Lockheed has said that the reason their current Naval PAC-3 offering is a single-pack is that they do not want to modify MSE at all, just be able to pull Army and Navy rounds off the same assembly line. That means that from their perspective, there is something about a multipack that would require some Navy-specific missile mods. (I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)

There's a lot to be said for that.

 

[PMN1]

Notionally, it's an SM2MR minus fins, so about 13.5 inches diameter. Now, this was never actually built, to my knowledge, which means even if this canister is possible it still needs development and testing.

Ostensibly that dual-pack is big enough for PAC-3 MSE, depending on how the MSE fins fold. However, Lockheed has said that the reason their current Naval PAC-3 offering is a single-pack is that they do not want to modify MSE at all, just be able to pull Army and Navy rounds off the same assembly line. That means that from their perspective, there is something about a multipack that would require some Navy-specific missile mods. (I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)

Thinking Red Strom Rising, do Army and Navy missiles have differing resistance to salt water......?

 

[sferrin]

Thinking Red Strom Rising, do Army and Navy missiles have differing resistance to salt water......?

They almost certainly have different requirements for corrosion, durability, and sensitivity.

 

[kqcke for you]

Notionally, it's an SM2MR minus fins, so about 13.5 inches diameter. Now, this was never actually built, to my knowledge, which means even if this canister is possible it still needs development and testing.

Ostensibly that dual-pack is big enough for PAC-3 MSE, depending on how the MSE fins fold. However, Lockheed has said that the reason their current Naval PAC-3 offering is a single-pack is that they do not want to modify MSE at all, just be able to pull Army and Navy rounds off the same assembly line. That means that from their perspective, there is something about a multipack that would require some Navy-specific missile mods. (I think they've already adapted MSE to incorporate both of the necessary datalink frequencies, which is the only other obvious difference.)

So it is possible but Lockheed said it would be to mutch work and cost for nothing. The atleast they could throw a booster at it but that could also be to mutch for them

 

[TomS]

So it is possible but Lockheed said it would be to mutch work and cost for nothing. The atleast they could throw a booster at it but that could also be to mutch for them

Too much work to do for free, anyway.

We've been over this before in this very thread.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/standard-missile-projects.7671/post-599819

 

[kqcke for you]

Ah yes my bad

 

[GTX]

Somehow it seems this hasn't been posted yet:

First Land-Based Tomahawk And SM-6 Launcher Delivered To Army

The Typhon Weapon System will give the Army its first ground-based medium-range missile strike capability in decades.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

Somehow it seems this hasn't been posted yet:

First Land-Based Tomahawk And SM-6 Launcher Delivered To Army

The Typhon Weapon System will give the Army its first ground-based medium-range missile strike capability in decades.

www.thedrive.com

Still seems odd that the Army is buying SM-6s... Tomahawks I understand.

 

[NMaude]

Still seems odd that the Army is buying SM-6s.

Perhaps because the US Army doesn't have an existing requirement missile that fits their requirements for a long-range SAM also the SM-6 has an active-radar seeker. Another thing about using an existing tested design is that it lowers unit costs due to a larger production volume.

 

[TomS]

Perhaps because the US Army doesn't have an existing requirement missile that fits their requirements for a long-range SAM also the SM-6 has an active-radar seeker. Another about using an existing tested design is that it lowers unit costs due to a larger production volume.

The Army is buying SM-6 as an antiship missile, not a SAM.

This is the return of Army Coast Artillery, with Tomahawk MST and SM-6 as complimentary antiship missiles (MST is slow, low, and has a big warhead; SM-6 is high, fast, but a relatively small bang). Ultimately I think the antiship PrSM is going to take a lot of the SM-6 role.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Kind of annoyed that the US Army reused the name Typhon.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Army is buying SM-6 as an antiship missile, not a SAM.

This is the return of Army Coast Artillery, with Tomahawk MST and SM-6 as complimentary antiship missiles (MST is slow, low, and has a big warhead; SM-6 is high, fast, but a relatively small bang). Ultimately I think the antiship PrSM is going to take a lot of the SM-6 role.

Not sure if it's antiship or ground attack. And when PrSM finally shows up any remaining SM6s can go to the SAM role.

 

[aonestudio]

U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Danish Defense Forces Train on SM-6 Missile Launcher Together

BORNHOLM, Denmark - In a demonstration of ongoing commitment to transatlantic security and defense interoperability, U.S. Naval Forces Europe, in conjunction with the Danish Defense Forces, will be

www.navy.mil

Navy Unveils Truck-Mounted SM-6 Missile Launcher In European Test (Updated)

A recent Navy demonstration in Europe reflects growing interest in new ground-based long-range missile capabilities across the US military.

www.thedrive.com

 

[NMaude]

In regards to the SM-3 Block II does it still use a single piece nose that is ejected to the side like in the Block I or does it use two-piece clamshell type nosecone?