Standard Missile projects.

What's interesting from my post above is that C-17s seem to be succeeding with target missiles where B-52s have failed with ARRW. Bizarre! :confused:
 
Forest Green said:
What's interesting from my post above is that C-17s seem to be succeeding with target missiles where B-52s have failed with ARRW. Bizarre! :confused:
Click to expand...
C-17s, C-130s. Hell, they cobble these things together on a (relatively) shoe-string budget, and they're off to the races. That is the truly infuriating part of the failures. "Whoops, battery was dead." "Whoops, we forgot to hook up the blue wire." "Welp, we've had two failures, clearly the technology isn't ready for prime time so cancel it."
 
"“Our Patriot target vehicle uses decommissioned Minuteman motor stages, and our Medium Range Ballistic Missile T3c2 target for MDA uses a decommissioned Navy motor as the first stage and a decommissioned Air Force motor for the second stage,” offered Pudoka."

1680377188887.png

1680377458888.png

1st Stage is a Trident C-4 motor (don't know which stage).

M57A1 (2nd Stage)
Hercules solid rocket engine. Hera second stage.
AKA: Hera-2. Status: Retired 1999. Thrust: 76.00 kN (17,085 lbf). Gross mass: 1,900 kg (4,100 lb). Unfuelled mass: 300 kg (660 lb). Burn time: 59 s. Height: 2.10 m (6.80 ft). Diameter: 0.97 m (3.18 ft).

I'd guess this is likely meant to be a DF-21 or DF-26 emulator.


 
Last edited:
seruriermarshal said:
TomS said:
seruriermarshal said:
strange , I think FTM-31 E1a include 4 SM-6 attack 2 targets
Click to expand...

That was FTM-33.
Click to expand...
The patch of FTM-31 E1a ( stellar hydra ) have 4 heads
Click to expand...

Patches are not always quite so literal. Like FM-8 (Stellar Valkyrie) has four stars but didn't involved four missiles.

This is a redo of FTM-31, which was two SM-6 vs 1 MRBM. Whether the four hydra heads means anything is unclear.

However, FTM-33 was four SM-6 versus two MRBM. I've not seen a patch for it.

www.naval-technology.com

US Navy and MDA conduct Flight Test Aegis Weapon System 33

The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the US Navy have conducted a missile defence flight test over the ocean northwest of Hawaii.
www.naval-technology.com www.naval-technology.com
 
This was from some FY report and shows the tests scheduled for 2021*. Two tests were scheduled, and both involved four SM-6s, one test was against two SRBMs, and the other against an MRBM. The first test was for Dual II against MRBM and failed in early 2021.

(apologies for the multiple edits, I mixed up some of the dates)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210604-220034-1.jpg
    Screenshot_20210604-220034-1.jpg
    73 KB · Views: 12
  • Screenshot_20210530-020940.jpg
    Screenshot_20210530-020940.jpg
    230.9 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
TomS said:
seruriermarshal said:
TomS said:
seruriermarshal said:
strange , I think FTM-31 E1a include 4 SM-6 attack 2 targets
Click to expand...

That was FTM-33.
Click to expand...
The patch of FTM-31 E1a ( stellar hydra ) have 4 heads
Click to expand...

Patches are not always quite so literal. Like FM-8 (Stellar Valkyrie) has four stars but didn't involved four missiles.

This is a redo of FTM-31, which was two SM-6 vs 1 MRBM. Whether the four hydra heads means anything is unclear.

However, FTM-33 was four SM-6 versus two MRBM. I've not seen a patch for it.

www.naval-technology.com

US Navy and MDA conduct Flight Test Aegis Weapon System 33

The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the US Navy have conducted a missile defence flight test over the ocean northwest of Hawaii.
www.naval-technology.com www.naval-technology.com
Click to expand...
FM-8 have 5 stars because "FM-8 the fifth of a planned six flight test series within the missile defense Block 2004 time period, scheduled for the 1st quarter of FY2004 as of February 2002. By February 2004 this test was scheduled for the 2nd quarter of FY2005."
 

Attachments

  • FM8.jpg
    FM8.jpg
    230.2 KB · Views: 26
seruriermarshal said:
TomS said:
seruriermarshal said:
TomS said:
seruriermarshal said:
strange , I think FTM-31 E1a include 4 SM-6 attack 2 targets
Click to expand...

That was FTM-33.
Click to expand...
The patch of FTM-31 E1a ( stellar hydra ) have 4 heads
Click to expand...

Patches are not always quite so literal. Like FM-8 (Stellar Valkyrie) has four stars but didn't involved four missiles.

This is a redo of FTM-31, which was two SM-6 vs 1 MRBM. Whether the four hydra heads means anything is unclear.

However, FTM-33 was four SM-6 versus two MRBM. I've not seen a patch for it.

www.naval-technology.com

US Navy and MDA conduct Flight Test Aegis Weapon System 33

The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the US Navy have conducted a missile defence flight test over the ocean northwest of Hawaii.
www.naval-technology.com www.naval-technology.com
Click to expand...
FM-8 have 5 stars because "FM-8 tis he fifth of a planned six flight test series within the missile defense Block 2004 time period, scheduled for the 1st quarter of FY2004 as of February 2002. By February 2004 this test was scheduled for the 2nd quarter of FY2005."
Click to expand...
FM-7/8 were super interesting tests. I was just reading about them earlier today. They apparently demoed two of four possible "burn" options for the SDACS/KW.

While I'm still going through the sources, what I have gathered so far is that:

The high-energy mode mentioned in the GAO document seems to be a single pulse "all burn", while sustain-mode seems to be two pulses + a coast. There is also a burn-coast-burn mode (which has been discussed in many documents) and a no-burn (?) mode hinted at by Simon Peterson on twitter.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20230401_205145.jpg
    IMG_20230401_205145.jpg
    367.2 KB · Views: 25

DOD delays by two years maiden intercept attempt of hypersonic glide vehicle target​

By Jason Sherman Inside Defense / May 17, 2023
The U.S. military has delayed by two years the planned first test of a naval counter-hypersonic capability, pushing from 2023 to 2025 an intercept attempt by a SM-6 against an ultra-fast maneuvering target to validate a new version of the Aegis Sea Based Terminal capability designed to protect aircraft carrier strike groups from the new class of threats.
Click to expand...
 
Navy ships lack 'capability and capacity' to defeat complex raids; Lockheed offering PAC-3 MSE
By Jason Sherman / May 22, 2023 / Inside Defense

Lockheed Martin is offering the most advanced variant of the Patriot interceptor -- the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement -- to bolster ship defense in the wake of a newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" to defeat complex raids of hypersonic and cruise missiles. The company is self-funding an effort to adapt the PAC-3 MSE as a lower-tier, hit-to-kill capability for Navy surface combatants and plans to test a new sensor that is being added to the Army guided missile..
Click to expand...

Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
 
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
 
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Presuming the driver for the Navy for looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor is to counter the threat from the Chinese anti-carrier hypersonic missiles which beyond capability of the SM-2. Recently unexpectedly full details of a Chinese simulation revealed as to how they would 'successfully' sink the Ford with 24 hypersonic anti-ship missile attack.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3221495/chinese-scientists-war-game-hypersonic-strike-us-carrier-group-south-china-sea
 
I imagine the defence wouldn't be just with SAMs alone. The targeting and communications satellites will likely be destroyed first.*

*Although that will use SAMs too, but you know what I mean.
 
Last edited:
Cordy said:
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Presuming the driver for the Navy for looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor is to counter the threat from the Chinese anti-carrier hypersonic missiles which beyond capability of the SM-2. Recently unexpectedly full details of a Chinese simulation revealed as to how they would 'successfully' sink the Ford with 24 hypersonic anti-ship missile attack.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3221495/chinese-scientists-war-game-hypersonic-strike-us-carrier-group-south-china-sea
Click to expand...
Only 24? That seems low, even if we assume a threat axis that only allows 2x Burkes to engage, instead of 3x Burkes or 2x Burke and 1x Tico.
 
Cordy said:
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Presuming the driver for the Navy for looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor is to counter the threat from the Chinese anti-carrier hypersonic missiles which beyond capability of the SM-2. Recently unexpectedly full details of a Chinese simulation revealed as to how they would 'successfully' sink the Ford with 24 hypersonic anti-ship missile attack.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3221495/chinese-scientists-war-game-hypersonic-strike-us-carrier-group-south-china-sea
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put much weight behind shoddy simulations done on an even worse rip-off of the already bad CMO "game".
 
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Diversity in the missile defense supplier base is always good, especially as the Navy taps into a line that has high production and will probably see an increase in the near future due to demand. But this aspect aside, how does MSE fit into the "Compact Agile Interceptor" program, as LM officials have said, they will only be putting one MSE per cell due to "commonality" reasons with the Army/Existing lines. I'm also curious what Raytheon will propose for something like this. A boosted ESSM with 8-10 inch diameter boosters would definitely be something worth looking at for addressing cruise-missile raids at distances approaching those of the SM-2.
 
NASA said:
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Diversity in the missile defense supplier base is always good, especially as the Navy taps into a line that has high production and will probably see an increase in the near future due to demand. But this aspect aside, how does MSE fit into the "Compact Agile Interceptor" program, as LM officials have said, they will only be putting one MSE per cell due to "commonality" reasons with the Army/Existing lines. I'm also curious what Raytheon will propose for something like this. A boosted ESSM with 8-10 inch diameter boosters would definitely be something worth looking at for addressing cruise-missile raids at distances approaching those of the SM-2.
Click to expand...
1685229898435.png

1685230009717.png
 
sferrin said:
Lampshade111 said:
The Standard Missile family has grown to include a great number of variants over the years. I figured I would create this topic to discuss the designs and proposals based around the Standard Missile.

One program I have had a very difficult time finding any info on, is the Standard Missile 5. The only reference I could find to the SM5 was a mention of the missile as a weapon to destroy cruise missiles. Can anybody shed some light on this design?

Another variant I am looking for details of is the AIM-97 Seekbat. Which was intended to be a long-range missile for the F-15 Eagle.
Click to expand...

There's a picture floating around of an F-106 carrying a Standard missile of some sort in relation to either the Seekbat program or the Standard-based ASAT program.
Click to expand...
20150312025643-8e93892f-me.jpg
 
NASA said:
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Diversity in the missile defense supplier base is always good, especially as the Navy taps into a line that has high production and will probably see an increase in the near future due to demand. But this aspect aside, how does MSE fit into the "Compact Agile Interceptor" program, as LM officials have said, they will only be putting one MSE per cell due to "commonality" reasons with the Army/Existing lines.
Click to expand...
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.


NASA said:
I'm also curious what Raytheon will propose for something like this. A boosted ESSM with 8-10 inch diameter boosters would definitely be something worth looking at for addressing cruise-missile raids at distances approaching those of the SM-2.
Click to expand...
? ESSMs are already a 10" diameter missile. Did you mean adding an up-to-14ft long 10" diameter booster stage like an SM2ER?
 
Scott Kenny said:
NASA said:
bring_it_on said:
Cordy said:
Is this Lockheed bid that the Navy should replace SM-2's due to its newly revealed lack of "capability and capacity" with the PAC-3 MSE?
Click to expand...
Lockheed has had the Naval MSE proposal for years. What's different this time is that the Navy has a new start program looking at an advanced, compact agile interceptor that has the potential to both address stressing targets and increase magazine size. It isn't a coincidence that LM started self funding work on integration and new components needed to navalize the MSE right at the time the Navy formally programmed funding for such a system. It is probably good for the Navy to diversify its missile defense supplier base a little.
Click to expand...
Diversity in the missile defense supplier base is always good, especially as the Navy taps into a line that has high production and will probably see an increase in the near future due to demand. But this aspect aside, how does MSE fit into the "Compact Agile Interceptor" program, as LM officials have said, they will only be putting one MSE per cell due to "commonality" reasons with the Army/Existing lines.
Click to expand...
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.


NASA said:
I'm also curious what Raytheon will propose for something like this. A boosted ESSM with 8-10 inch diameter boosters would definitely be something worth looking at for addressing cruise-missile raids at distances approaching those of the SM-2.
Click to expand...
? ESSMs are already a 10" diameter missile. Did you mean adding an up-to-14ft long 10" diameter booster stage like an SM2ER?
Click to expand...
Yeah sorry, I meant the latter. Including a booster to the ESSM and making it tactical length or strike length-sized in terms of length.
 
Scott Kenny said:
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.
Click to expand...
Replacing some SM-2 capacity with MSE does not reduce missile count but does provide better defense against manuevering and ballistic missiles. LM has never claimed the ability to magically put 4 MSE missiles in the current VLS. Its probably not possible.
 
bring_it_on said:
Scott Kenny said:
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.
Click to expand...
Replacing some SM-2 capacity with MSE does not reduce missile count but does provide better defense against manuevering and ballistic missiles. LM has never claimed the ability to magically put 4 MSE missiles in the current VLS. Its probably not possible.
Click to expand...
There was talk of dual packing the MSE from LM officials hence why they tried clarifying some more during the recent SNA that they weren't pursuing this for commonality reasons. I suppose the MSE is still a very nice capability to supplement SM-6 on the terminal.
 
NASA said:
bring_it_on said:
Scott Kenny said:
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.
Click to expand...
Replacing some SM-2 capacity with MSE does not reduce missile count but does provide better defense against manuevering and ballistic missiles. LM has never claimed the ability to magically put 4 MSE missiles in the current VLS. Its probably not possible.
Click to expand...
There was talk of dual packing the MSE from LM officials hence why they tried clarifying some more during the recent SNA that they weren't pursuing this for commonality reasons. I suppose the MSE is still a very nice capability to supplement SM-6 on the terminal.
Click to expand...

They aren't pursuing design changes as an internal investment. That doesn't mean that the USN cannot fund those if it is interested, especially since its create a new R&D program to go out and seek an agile, small form factor interceptor this year. If (a big if) the Navy pursues this, integration with a booster and design changes to allow two per cell may well be on the roadmap. The Navy is taking about 1000 SM-2 missiles through IIIC upgrade. That leaves a pretty large gap for anti-raid (active RF) weapon that sits below the SM-6.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Scott Kenny said:
LM will need to stuff their PAC3MSEs 4 per pack if they want this contract. Full stop. No way the navy will accept a reduction in missile count that large.
Click to expand...
Replacing some SM-2 capacity with MSE does not reduce missile count but does provide better defense against manuevering and ballistic missiles. LM has never claimed the ability to magically put 4 MSE missiles in the current VLS. Its probably not possible.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom