US Navy Standard Missile Family

[sferrin]

Video describing the various aspects of the off-range launch, control, and evaluation of the high performance AQM-37C(EP) Target to be engaged by SM-2 Block IV over White Sands Missile Range. Video developed by George Helfrich and produced by JHU APL, 22 July 1992. Provides a description of how the target was to be launched from a Navy F-4 aircraft at a speed of Mach 1.5 and an altitude of 50,000 ft. over Albuquerque NM and then climb and accelerate to desired speed and altitude for intercept over White Sands Missile Range.

4 mach Baby

Or Mach 5:

In 1981, the U.S. Navy modified 10 AQM-37As under the Challenger program with a refined high-g autopilot, and enlarged heat-resistant tail surfaces, to allow for higher speed, altitude and manoeuverability. These features were incorporated into the AQM-37C, which was delivered to the Navy from 1986 onwards. The AQM-37C has a radio command control system, which allows changes in the flight path after launch, including a terminal dive at a controlled dive angle. It also features a digital autopilot, and improved radar augmentation in four different frequency bands. Some of the latest AQM-37Cs have further improved heat insulation, and can also be used to simulate ballistic missile threats, being able to fly ballistic trajectories to an altitude of 100 km (330000 ft) and a range of 425 km (265 miles), with terminal speeds of Mach 5.

Raytheon AQM-37

 

[sferrin]

To me, the unexpected revelation here is that SM-6 Block 1B, the new version with 21-inch propulsion stack, is shown as strictly an ASuW weapon. Maybe just matter of doctrine? (SM-6 Blk IA will do everything necessary in the AAW role)

The Navy has been consistent in this in its graphics on the program. I think this will be a much faster weapon capable of lofting a lot higher than the SM-61A and as such will be an extended range strike weapon. Could they use the same motor as an upgrade to the SM-61A? Probably and perhaps that could be one path they take towards hypersonic defense.

Makes sense. I wonder whether there's an actual technical reason you couldn't shoot one at an aircraft target? Like is there not enough control authority from of the fins to steer a much heavier missile against a maneuvering target? Or is it just a doctrinal issue of not wanting to waste very scarce Block IB rounds on air targets when Block I/IA will achieve the same thing?

Or different guidance system. I'm more surprised it doesn't have anti-missile capability. I thought that was the whole point of the bigger booster - more oomph for the more difficult targets.

 

[TomS]

Or different guidance system. I'm more surprised it doesn't have anti-missile capability. I thought that was the whole point of the bigger booster - more oomph for the more difficult targets.

I thought the seeker and warhead are the same as Block 1A, hence the necked-down fuselage.

 

[bring_it_on]

The warhead is not shared with the 1A and is apparently optimized for the variant. Interestingly, Aviation Week cites Hondo Guerts as claiming that the weapon will retain other missions of the SM-6 family. It may well be that the Navy set up the current program so that they develop the new motor and warhead, control surface and other modifications to deal with the higher speed, and then test it out in the ASuW capacity before operationalizing it. Perhaps other capabilities will be developed and qualified over time with the current acquisition focusing solely on the surface warfare role. This will likely be a $5+ million AUR so not sure you want to go after cruise missiles etc with it.

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

 

[TomS]

The warhead is not shared with the 1A and is apparently optimized for the variant. Interestingly, Aviation Week cites Hondo Guerts as claiming that the weapon will retain other missions of the SM-6 family. It may well be that the Navy set up the current program so that they develop the new motor and warhead, control surface and other modifications to deal with the higher speed, and then test it out in the ASuW capacity before operationalizing it. Perhaps other capabilities will be developed and qualified over time with the current acquisition focusing solely on the surface warfare role. This will likely be a $5+ million AUR so not sure you want to go after cruise missiles etc with it.

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

Assuming this weapon really is SM-6 Blk 1B and not some other, previously undisclosed, program. That may not be a safe assumption.

 

[bring_it_on]

Was able to dig up the US Navy prototyping contract award for the SM-6 1B 21 inch Extended range rocket motor -

USAspending.gov

www.usaspending.gov

 

[bobbymike]

Video describing the various aspects of the off-range launch, control, and evaluation of the high performance AQM-37C(EP) Target to be engaged by SM-2 Block IV over White Sands Missile Range. Video developed by George Helfrich and produced by JHU APL, 22 July 1992. Provides a description of how the target was to be launched from a Navy F-4 aircraft at a speed of Mach 1.5 and an altitude of 50,000 ft. over Albuquerque NM and then climb and accelerate to desired speed and altitude for intercept over White Sands Missile Range.

4 mach Baby

Or Mach 5:

In 1981, the U.S. Navy modified 10 AQM-37As under the Challenger program with a refined high-g autopilot, and enlarged heat-resistant tail surfaces, to allow for higher speed, altitude and manoeuverability. These features were incorporated into the AQM-37C, which was delivered to the Navy from 1986 onwards. The AQM-37C has a radio command control system, which allows changes in the flight path after launch, including a terminal dive at a controlled dive angle. It also features a digital autopilot, and improved radar augmentation in four different frequency bands. Some of the latest AQM-37Cs have further improved heat insulation, and can also be used to simulate ballistic missile threats, being able to fly ballistic trajectories to an altitude of 100 km (330000 ft) and a range of 425 km (265 miles), with terminal speeds of Mach 5.

Raytheon AQM-37

You mean they can drop a high speed missile from an aircraft and it works?

Hey ARRW engineers are you paying attention?

 

[zen]

Interesting chart here, showing the potential targets of the various major ship-launched missiles in the USN inventory.

To me, the unexpected revelation here is that SM-6 Block 1B, the new version with 21-inch propulsion stack, is shown as strictly an ASuW weapon. Maybe just matter of doctrine? (SM-6 Blk IA will do everything necessary in the AAW role)

Edit: It appears I owe this PowerPoint jockey an apology: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/standard-missile-projects.7671/page-4#post-343886

(Smaller revelation is that they don't consider RAM or ESSM to have ASuW capability, despite HAS being a thing since the late 1990s. Could also be a doctrinal rather than technical choice.)


View attachment 673305

What is CPS? It looks like the Hypersonic Velocity Projectile.

 

[TomS]

What is CPS? It looks like the Hypersonic Velocity Projectile.

CPS really should be IR-CPS, which is Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike. It's a missile that is being codeveloped with the US Army, which calls their version the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon. The warhead shown in that slide is the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). Similar in shape to HVP, but not the same at all, and substantially larger.

 

[NMaude]

What is CPS? It looks like the Hypersonic Velocity Projectile.

CPS really should be IR-CPS, which is Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike. It's a missile that is being codeveloped with the US Army, which calls their version the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon. The warhead shown in that slide is the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). Similar in shape to HVP, but not the same at all, and substantially larger.

View attachment 673458

The CPS booster looks like a stretched Trident II.

 

[sferrin]

What is CPS? It looks like the Hypersonic Velocity Projectile.

CPS really should be IR-CPS, which is Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike. It's a missile that is being codeveloped with the US Army, which calls their version the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon. The warhead shown in that slide is the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). Similar in shape to HVP, but not the same at all, and substantially larger.

View attachment 673458

The CPS booster looks like a stretched Trident II.

Trident is 83" in diameter.

 

[NMaude]

The CPS booster looks like a stretched Trident II.

Trident is 83" in diameter.

I'm aware of that however i'm talking about what it reminded me of.

 

[litzj]

Missile Analysis w/ Aerospace-SIM - SM-3 and SM-6

[See Previous Contents] Aerodynamics Series For a while, I considered "Attacking Missile" rather than others to validate ballistic traj...

jaesan-aero.blogspot.com

find possibility of versatile usage of SM-3/6

 

[NMaude]

I just watched a YT video about 10 new US weapon systems/weapons going into production and to my surprise one of them was the Standard Missile Block IIIC, I thought that the USN had retired all of its' SM-2 Block III missiles and that it was still only in use by export customers.

 

[Cordy]

My understanding the IIIC is the new block variant of the SM-2 with its active seeker taken from the AIM-120C-5? with a larger antenna as SM-2 is larger in dia than the AMRAAM, Block IIIC due to be fitted to Constellation with its SPY-6 V(3) and the CSC with its SPY-7 and expect others. Raytheon re-started production of the SM-2 Blk IIIA and IIIB five years ago with their semi-active seekers in 2017.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-paris-raytheon-idUSKBN1990XO

 

[NMaude]

Raytheon re-started production of the SM-2 Blk IIIA and IIIB five years ago with their semi-active seekers in 2017.

Why would they restart the Block IIIA and IIIB production line, I was under the impression that the Block III had been superseded by the SM-2 Block IV.

 

[TomS]

Raytheon re-started production of the SM-2 Blk IIIA and IIIB five years ago with their semi-active seekers in 2017.

Why would they restart the Block IIIA and IIIB production line, I was under the impression that the Block III had been superseded by the SM-2 Block IV.

Block IV has the big Mk 72 booster but was only procured in relatively small numbers (~100 rds). Blocks IIIA and IIIB are the bulk of the Standard Missile inventory.

 

[NMaude]

Blocks IIIA and IIIB are the bulk of the Standard Missile inventory.

The problem with the Block III is that it can't be launched from the Mk-41 VLS due to the Mk-70 booster's tail-fins.

 

[TomS]

Blocks IIIA and IIIB are the bulk of the Standard Missile inventory.

The problem with the Block III is that it can't be launched from the Mk-41 VLS due to the Mk-70 booster's tail-fins.

OK, time for a breakdown.

The SM family used to consist of two main versions: MR and ER. MR has no booster and the form factor to fit in rapid-fire rail launchers (Mk 13 or Mk 26) or VLS. ER had the long Mk 70 booster and manual tail finning, which didn't work at all with VLS (too long, plus the fin issue)

Block numbers could be duplicated between the MR and ER families -- there were SM-2MR Block II and SM-2ER Block II, for example. But I think ER never reached Block III. Then they jumped to the VLS compatible Block IV with the short Mk 72 booster (sometimes called AEGIS ER but not at all the same as the older ER family).

The old long ER missiles have totally disappeared and now the practice is to drop the MR term entirely. So when we say SM-2 Block III today this refers to a short SM (no booster)

 

[Cordy]

Raytheon re-started production of the SM-2 Blk IIIA and IIIB five years ago with their semi-active seekers in 2017.

Why would they restart the Block IIIA and IIIB production line, I was under the impression that the Block III had been superseded by the SM-2 Block IV.

My understanding the SM-2 Blk IV was the ER, extended range, variant with the 21" dia Mk72 booster added, which morphed into the SM-6 with Mk72 booster and new Mk104 13.5" dual thrust rocket motor.
PS The SM-2 Blk III's classed as MR, medium range.

 

[bobbymike]

SM-6 Missile Used To Strike Frigate During Massive Sinking Exercise In Pacific

An SM-6 missile was among an assortment of anti-ship weapons that hammered a decommissioned frigate at the end of the Valiant Shield 22 exercise.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

Regarding the planned Aegis ship replacements for Japan's abortive Aegis Ashore procurement:

New Aegis system-equipped ships will likely carry long-range cruise missiles

To increase deterrence against North Korea’s missiles, the government plans to place domestic long-range cruise missiles on two naval vessels equipped with the Aegis system it plans to build, it was learned Tuesday. These missiles are capable of striking land-based targets as the ships will be...

japannews.yomiuri.co.jp

The government decided in December 2020 to build two Aegis system-equipped ships as an alternative to deploying Aegis Ashore, a land-based interceptor system. The government gave up deploying Aegis Ashore due to factors including opposition from the public.

The plan is for the eight existing Aegis-equipped ships of the Maritime Self-Defense Force to operate in such waters as those around the Senkaku Islands of Okinawa Prefecture, while the new Aegis system-equipped ships are expected to be constantly deployed in the Sea of Japan to keep an eye out for ballistic missile launches by North Korea.

The SPY-7 radar for Aegis Ashore will be equipped on the new vessels. The government has already signed a contract to purchase the state-of-the-art radar from a U.S. firm. SM-6 missiles, which can intercept cruise missiles, have also been decided on as equipment for the two ships.

In addition to the advanced radar and missiles, the Aegis system-equipped ships are likely to carry cruise missiles that will be upgraded versions of the Type 12 surface-to-ship missile currently used by the Ground Self-Defense Force. After the upgrades, the missile’s range will extend to about 1,000 kilometers and it will be mounted on naval vessels.

Concerning the hull’s design, however, the government had originally considered constructing the ships with multiple hulls to make them less susceptible to the impact of waves.

Because few actual naval vessels have been developed with multiple hulls and the construction costs of such ships are likely to balloon, the government has decided on a single hull.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Given that full-caliber SM-6 would be a rather heavy, fast, high-diver, I foresee a whole lot of kinetic energy damage, in addition to the warhead. With luck, a big chunk of the debris blows out through the bottom of the target's hull.

Absolutely a nice close to vertical hole from the top of the ship through the bottom of the hull would be problematic for continued operations to say the least.

Like Talos did to this destroyer escort.

https://www.okieboat.com/Copyright%20images/Talos%20surface%20target%202%201024.jpg

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Dumb question. Why did the Navy give up on air breathing high speed missiles. I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.

 

[NMaude]

I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.

As far as I know there wasn't anything wrong with the Typhon missile itself but with the fire-control system and IIRC there massive cost overruns.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.

As far as I know there wasn't anything wrong with the Typhon missile itself but with the fire-control system and IIRC there massive cost overruns.

But why wasn’t the air breathing missile continued? Separate from the radar system that was canceled.

 

[TomS]

But why wasn’t the air breathing missile continued? Separate from the radar system that was canceled.

They managed some really dramatic improvements in solid rocket performance over the years, which was probably sufficient to fully exploit the available radar/illuminator range at the time.

 

[NMaude]

Another thing about the Typhoon is that it was, like the Tacos, a very large missile so in order to have an adequate number of them in the ship's magazine it would've needed a very large magazine meaning a large (And expensive) cruiser.

 

[TomS]

Another thing about the Typhoon is that it was, like the Tacos, a very large missile so in order to have an adequate number of them in the ship's magazine it would've needed a very large magazine meaning a large (And expensive) cruiser.

Typhon ER was roughly the size of Terrier. Not that big.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Dumb question. Why did the Navy give up on air breathing high speed missiles. I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.

There are several reasons. As missiles got longer ranges and could go to higher altitudes, a ramjet (the usual air breather) became impractical as there was not enough air to make it work at those altitudes.
The use of liquid fuel aboard ship is a more serious fire hazard than that of solid fuel missiles.
Modern solid fuel missiles require little maintenance time. Most US missiles are loaded on the ship and the crew performs little or no maintenance on the missile itself while deployed.
Solid fuels have a higher specific impulse than ramjets. That is, they've gotten better enough that they exceed the thrust a compact sized ramjet can deliver.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Dumb question. Why did the Navy give up on air breathing high speed missiles. I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.

There are several reasons. As missiles got longer ranges and could go to higher altitudes, a ramjet (the usual air breather) became impractical as there was not enough air to make it work at those altitudes.
The use of liquid fuel aboard ship is a more serious fire hazard than that of solid fuel missiles.
Modern solid fuel missiles require little maintenance time. Most US missiles are loaded on the ship and the crew performs little or no maintenance on the missile itself while deployed.
Solid fuels have a higher specific impulse than ramjets. That is, they've gotten better enough that they exceed the thrust a compact sized ramjet can deliver.

So why the continued interest in air breathers in the US and other countries? Anyone have specs or reports detailing the pros/cons?

 

[NMaude]

Another thing about the Typhoon is that it was, like the Tacos, a very large missile so in order to have an adequate number of them in the ship's magazine it would've needed a very large magazine meaning a large (And expensive) cruiser.

Typhon ER was roughly the size of Terrier. Not that big.

I just checked on the wiki RIM-50 Typhon article and I stand corrected, I suspect that if the Vietnam war hadn't happened it would've likely entered service.

Does anyone know if there are any online historical monographs describing the development of the RIM-50?

 

[isayyo2]

Dumb question. Why did the Navy give up on air breathing high speed missiles. I mean Typhon was doing Mach 4+ 60 yrs ago. Is rocket propulsion just cheaper/easier? What are the pros/cons of rocket vs air breathing.

Storage of liquid propellant was a major safety issue and precluded rapid launches.

I asked a similar question about the lack of Terrier ships built in the 70s and 80s and discovered how focused the Navy was on rapid launchers like the Mk26 and Mk41; specifically for the RIM-66. Finning and fueling liquid ramjets takes way too much time when a horde of Vampires are only seconds away...

That being said, solid state ramjets look very promising for artillery shells and missile applications.

 

[NMaude]

Finning and fueling liquid ramjets takes way too much time when a horde of Vampires are only seconds away...

The Talos missiles were prefueled IIRC before being loaded into the ship's magazine, several were kept in launch ready positions in the magazine and the fins could attached fairly quickly.

 

[Firefinder]

Finning and fueling liquid ramjets takes way too much time when a horde of Vampires are only seconds away...

The Tacos missiles were prefueled IIRC before being loaded into the ship's magazine, several were kept in launch ready positions in the magazine and the fins could attached fairly quickly.

Yup the UKs Seadart was similar.

And its launcher had similar performance to the Mk26 irc.

So it is possible to have a rapid fire ramjet missile.

Question is, that are the other cons of ramjets, like less agility and services ceiling worth it over standardizing, heh, on solids.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Another thing about the Typhoon is that it was, like the Tacos, a very large missile so in order to have an adequate number of them in the ship's magazine it would've needed a very large magazine meaning a large (And expensive) cruiser.

Typhon ER was roughly the size of Terrier. Not that big.

I just checked on the wiki RIM-50 Typhon article and I stand corrected, I suspect that if the Vietnam war hadn't happened it would've likely entered service.

Does anyone know if there are any online historical monographs describing the development of the RIM-50?

Technical Digest

www.jhuapl.edu

 

[NMaude]

Technical Digest

www.jhuapl.edu

Thanks.

 

[jeffb]

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]

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

Excellent! I wonder how long it will be before Ukraine gets some of them?

I find it interesting how the US Army's land-based system (Firing the Tomahawk and SM-6) is going to be called the Typhon System.

 

[jeffb]

All seems very reminiscent of Russian AD set ups and even the containerised Klub scare of a few years ago.