US Navy Standard Missile Family

[Vanessa1402]

But I've seen 90 nm range cited for SM-2MR (from the US Navy Fact File, so apparently official).

Can you post that here?
Is that SM-2 with or without booster?

 

[TomS]

But I've seen 90 nm range cited for SM-2MR (from the US Navy Fact File, so apparently official).

Can you post that here?
Is that SM-2 with or without booster?

That's SM2 Block III/IIIA/IIIB, which means no booster.

Standard Missile

Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) is the U.S Navy's primary surface-to-air air defense weapon. It is an integral part of the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) aboard Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class

www.navy.mil

 

[bobbymike]

MDA looks to validate beefed up SM-6 for improved protection of U.S. combat flotillas​

The Defense Department is readying a major live-fire test to bolster the last line of defense against ballistic missiles for major warship formations, such as aircraft carrier strike groups, by pitting a pair of the newest Standard Missile-6 variants against a medium-range ballistic missile target in waters off Hawaii

 

[NMaude]

Is there an equivalent thread in this sub-forum for the RIM-2 Terrier?

 

[isayyo2]

Is there an equivalent thread in this sub-forum for the RIM-2 Terrier?

Asides from the land-based Terrier thread, I don’t think so

 

[NMaude]

Is there an equivalent thread in this sub-forum for the RIM-2 Terrier?

Asides from the land-based Terrier thread, I don’t think so

I was thinking about creating a Terrier-LEAP thread.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Russian spy ship operating off Kauai, Navy confirms | Honolulu Star-Advertiser

A Russian spy ship parked in international waters off Kauai for several days has delayed a Missile Defense Agency missile test, officials said.

www.staradvertiser.com

A Russian spy ship parked in international waters off Kauai for several days has delayed a Missile Defense Agency missile test, officials said.

U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor said in a statement that it “is aware of the Russian vessel operating in international waters in the vicinity of Hawaii, and will continue to track it through the duration of its time here. Through maritime patrol aircraft, surface ships and joint capabilities, we can closely monitor all vessels in the Indo-Pacific area of operations.”

It was not immediately clear if the Russian vessel is broadcasting an automatic identification system, or AIS, signal. If it is, the ship’s presence — beyond Pacific Fleet’s significant detection capabilities — would be a clear indicator of the ship’s presence to possibly interfere with the missile test.

That test could be for an SM-6 intercept of a replicated cruise missile threat. The Missile Defense Agency could not be immediately reached for comment this morning.

 

[Forest Green]

Maybe it's a charitable donation of a test target.

 

[tequilashooter]

better luck next time I suppose https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...ils-intercept-test-missile-target-2021-05-29/ ironically RT reports that ship was there from Havocs source monitoring the tests

 

[NMaude]

I just found this interesting Raytheon video about the history of the Standard Missile family:

It's rather interesting.

 

[NMaude]

I have here several Raytheon patents which are clearly to do with the SM-2 Block IV variant:

The patent to do with missile fusing appears to be related to the cancelled SM-2 Block IVA version, the second maybe associated with all Block IV versions, the third patent is probably to do with the planar-array antenna that replaced the original conical-scan antenna and the last would appear to be to do with interfacing with the launch vessel.

 

[Vanessa1402]

I have here several Raytheon patents which are clearly to do with the SM-2 Block IV variant:

The patent to do with missile fusing appears to be related to the cancelled SM-2 Block IVA version, the second maybe associated with all Block IV versions, the third patent is probably to do with the planar-array antenna that replaced the original conical-scan antenna and the last would appear to be to do with interfacing with the launch vessel.

thank you, those are very good source

 

[Cordy]

MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>

 

[isayyo2]

MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>

Would Dual II use the new 21” body?

 

[NMaude]

Last week from the DTIC website I found this interesting test report of the fire-hazard testing of the SM3 Block-IA:

 

[TomS]

MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>

Would Dual II use the new 21” body?

No, the 21-inch version is SM-6 Block 1B. SM-6 Dual II seems to be a simple upgrade of the Dual I version, which enabled both air and missile defense in a single missile.

 

[NMaude]

MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>

Would Dual II use the new 21” body?

No, the 21-inch version is SM-6 Block 1B. SM-6 Dual II seems to be a simple upgrade of the Dual I version, which enabled both air and missile defense in a single missile.

However I wonder if a 21" version of the SM-6 would be developed as it would not only have a much greater range it would have a larger warhead and more capable seeker due to a wider antenna and more volume for seeker-electronics.

 

[sferrin]

MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>

Would Dual II use the new 21” body?

No, the 21-inch version is SM-6 Block 1B. SM-6 Dual II seems to be a simple upgrade of the Dual I version, which enabled both air and missile defense in a single missile.

However I wonder if a 21" version of the SM-6 would be developed as it would not only have a much greater range it would have a larger warhead and more capable seeker due to a wider antenna and more volume for seeker-electronics.

Why put a larger warhead on it? That would just take away the range you got yourself with the larger motor.

 

[TomS]

MDA with Navy July 24 tested SM-6 Dual II, fired four from Burke destroyer Ralph Johnson off Hawaii, presuming to test if effective in defending a carrier against the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missiles DF-21 and 26

" one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed"

Anyone know the difference between the SM-6 Dual I and Dual II?

From <https://www.mda.mil/news/21news0012.html>

Would Dual II use the new 21” body?

No, the 21-inch version is SM-6 Block 1B. SM-6 Dual II seems to be a simple upgrade of the Dual I version, which enabled both air and missile defense in a single missile.

However I wonder if a 21" version of the SM-6 would be developed as it would not only have a much greater range it would have a larger warhead and more capable seeker due to a wider antenna and more volume for seeker-electronics.

It's already in development. It appears that the seeker will actually be unchanged, resulting in a sort of necked down shape. So improved kinematics but not a dramatically improved seeker.

 

[NMaude]

It's already in development. It appears that the seeker will actually be unchanged, resulting in a sort of necked down shape.

Do you have a link to any information on this?

 

[TomS]

It's already in development. It appears that the seeker will actually be unchanged, resulting in a sort of necked down shape.

Do you have a link to any information on this?

The necked down configuration is speculation from the author, but seems plausible.

Navy To Supersize Its Ultra Versatile SM-6 Missile For Even Longer Range And Higher Speed

The SM-6 is getting a way bigger rocket motor that will allow it to reach even farther than before and enemy ships may be its primary target.

www.thedrive.com

 

[T. A. Gardner]

In the video they show some of the early Bumblebee test missiles, you may or may not be familiar with.

In the earliest stages, Bumblebee was launching Burner Test and Cobra Test Vehicles (BTV and CTV). These were ramjets of varying size, speed, and range used to perfect the ramjet design of the eventual operational missile.

Very early BTV


A later Cobra Test Vehicle



Once the basic concept of the ramjet missile was proven, concurrent development of a control system was started. The first missiles for this were the Control Test Vehicle (CTV) missiles. These were subsonic and tested various methods of powering control surfaces and guiding the missile.



From there a supersonic control test missile was developed (STV). This would prove so viable it became Terrier



There's a museum on Topsail Island, N Carolina dedicated to Bumblebee as this was where most of the testing occured.



Bumblebee also was the missile project that invented the necessary means to make a single large booster rocket using solid fuel viable. Allegany Ballistics Laboratory (ABL) did a massive project into developing the best geometry for how the fuel needed to be cast in the booster to maximize its thrust and burn time. Up to that point everybody was using multiple smaller booster rockets with the attendant problems of things like uneven thrust requiring either the missile was spun or that it had sufficient control that it could correct its trajectory for asymmetric thrust.

 

[Dilandu]

From there a supersonic control test missile was developed (STV). This would prove so viable it became Terrier

Ironic, isn't it? The most advanced shipborbe SAM was essentially born by accident.

I wonder, how would USN SAM developed if STV was made, say, with liquid-fuel rocket? And not suitable for conversion into missile? No Terrier, no Tartar, no Standard. What would be instead? More Talos, combined with Zeus/Arrow guided 8-inch shells?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

From there a supersonic control test missile was developed (STV). This would prove so viable it became Terrier

Ironic, isn't it? The most advanced shipborbe SAM was essentially born by accident.

I wonder, how would USN SAM developed if STV was made, say, with liquid-fuel rocket? And not suitable for conversion into missile? No Terrier, no Tartar, no Standard. What would be instead? More Talos, combined with Zeus/Arrow guided 8-inch shells?

The USN in working on the earlier project Gorgon came to the conclusion pretty early on that shipboard missiles had to be solid fuel. Liquid fuel missiles were simply to volatile and dangerous for use onboard ships. Thus, all the early USN SAM projects--Little Joe (quick and dirty to get something operational now), Lark (a bit more sophisticated to get something that would work at a minimal level), and then Bumblebee (a properly thought out design that would really meet the necessary requirements) did not use liquid fuel. These three represent the USN's wartime SAM development programs.

When the war ended, Little Joe was cancelled except for launching already produced missiles. Lark continued limited testing and development, and Bumblebee became the Navy's primary program.

Bumblebee and Talos that came out of it used a ramjet (with reasonably safe kerosene / jet fuel) because it was, at the time, the only really practical means of getting a missile that could reach out to 10 + miles (the original requirement) and 35,000 feet. That goal was exceeded by late 1944 (these were supersonic going about Mach 1.5) and it was obvious that a ramjet powered SAM could go a lot further.
Compare that to what the Germans were doing in SAM development...

An interesting aside was that Bumblebee created a need for a large supersonic wind tunnel for testing but none existed in the US at the time. One of the first large ones was created at what is now Lone Star Steel / US Steel Tubular Products near Daingerfield Texas and remained in operation into the 70's, mostly under the control of NASA.

The STV program moved to what is now China Lake and Pt. Mugu in California for development as they had longer range instrumented ranges than the 10 to 12 mile one set up at Topsail Island. A worry with firing at Topsail Island as the range of missile shots grew was that one might hit coastal shipping by accident. Thus a motivation for the move.

 

[NMaude]

More Talos,

The end goal of project Bumblebee WAS the Talos missile.

 

[Dilandu]

Thus, all the early USN SAM projects--Little Joe (quick and dirty to get something operational now), Lark (a bit more sophisticated to get something that would work at a minimal level), and then Bumblebee (a properly thought out design that would really meet the necessary requirements) did not use liquid fuel

Er... Lark was liquid-fuel powered.

 

[Ainen]

Why put a larger warhead on it? That would just take away the range you got yourself with the larger motor.

Attempt at universal missile.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Thus, all the early USN SAM projects--Little Joe (quick and dirty to get something operational now), Lark (a bit more sophisticated to get something that would work at a minimal level), and then Bumblebee (a properly thought out design that would really meet the necessary requirements) did not use liquid fuel

Er... Lark was liquid-fuel powered.

And, that was one of its downfalls. Lark is contemporary with Gorgon in many respects too. One interesting aspect of Gorgon was it was the project that made the first attempt to use an Air-to-air missile against a flying target. The guidance was CLOS using a television camera and it was found the operator couldn't control the missile due to the closing speed with the target. Thus, the need for radar guidance was solidified.

 

[Forest Green]

More Talos,

The end goal of project Bumblebee WAS the Talos missile.

There was the RIM-50 Typhon LR.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

More Talos,

The end goal of project Bumblebee WAS the Talos missile.

The end goal was a working SAM system for shipboard use that could--at least initially when Bumblebee started--could reliably take down an aircraft at 10 miles up to 35,000 feet. Bumblebee was a huge Navy program at the time. It resulted in many advances in missile design that are still in use today.

 

[NMaude]

Here's a patent from Thiokol to do with the SM3's Mk-136 TSRM and manufacture:

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1433852377870839808

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

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

 

[NMaude]

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

Very interesting! It's clear that the missile launched was a Block IV SM-2 also I wonder how many F-4N's are left since the video was made as most of the surviving ones after retirement in the mid-80s were expended as QF-4N missile-targets.

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

I wonder how many F-4N's are left since the video was made as most of the surviving ones after retirement in the mid-80s were expended as QF-4N missile-targets

on the AMARC fields no one F-4N today

The AMARC Experience - Aircraft Type Summary

AMARC - Aircraft Maintenance And Regeneration Center. 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group. Comprehensive source of information on the important j

www.amarcexperience.com

 

[litzj]

it is hard to believe sm series for ata because they are too heavy and make bad impact for maneuverability. it makes sense only when it would be used for MD or intercept mission.

otherwise, it will be used for strike purpose, sm6 regarded as antiship missile.

 

[bring_it_on]

Need help with ID'ing the attached rocket motor..

It's included in a Navy document linked below that also provides some background on the 21" SM-6 1B SRM development. The Navy completed the development/prototyping in about 9 months and owns the TB package for the system which I guess opens up other future potential uses as well.

https://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcwd/sites/g/files/jejdrs601/files/2021-04/NAWCWD%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

The document also references a "Special Capability Pod" for the Growler, that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere. Other notable references include Navy's support to 2 USAF/DARPA hypersonic "live-fire tests" in 2020 which I'm also having some difficulty attributing to a specific program that may have had those test activities in 2020 (previous DOD statements had claimed that the planned 2020 flight tests were all delayed and moved to 2021 or beyond).

 

[TomS]

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.)

 

[bring_it_on]

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.

 

[TomS]

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?