Standard Missile projects.

totoro said:
Block 1b uses a new diameter booster but the rest of the missile remains the same. Which means that the air launched version is not going to profit from it, as it can't use the booster.
Click to expand...
No, the Block 1b uses the same Mk72 booster with a new rocket motor in the missile proper that is 21" in diameter. Keeps the same warhead and electronics.

I'd hope that the Block 1b gets a bigger radar antenna to take advantage of the extra body diameter instead of keeping the 13.5" antenna, but at least the plans-as-described don't include that. 21" body diameter is getting into nearly a fighter class radar!
 
Forest Green said:
Not necessarily, a Mk72 weighs 1,540lbs. That would theoretically put the weight at 1,760lbs but you have added pylon attachment interface weight, which might add 130lbs.
Click to expand...
Okay, that might put the Block 1B total stack at ~5100lbs instead (~3500lbs of Block 1B missile and 1540lbs of Mk72 booster). Still a big damn missile to be hot launching!
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, the Block 1b uses the same Mk72 booster with a new rocket motor in the missile proper that is 21" in diameter. Keeps the same warhead and electronics.

I'd hope that the Block 1b gets a bigger radar antenna to take advantage of the extra body diameter instead of keeping the 13.5" antenna, but at least the plans-as-described don't include that. 21" body diameter is getting into nearly a fighter class radar!
Click to expand...

So does mean the Block-1B would look like the ESSM Block-I on steroids with the 13.5" seeker and warhead section mated to the 21" DTRM by a conical adapter section?
 
Scott Kenny said:
USN might disagree about what you want to shoot them at, they'd certainly be capable of being used like Phoenixes to shoot any Chinese bombers attempting to launch AShCMs.:
Click to expand...

Thing is, roles shifted, even before the F-14 retired. AEGIS ships are the main fleet air defense assets, and now have missiles with enough range to cover a large chunk of the Outer Air Battle area. We should not expect a version of "Dance of the Vampires" with China throwing multi-regimental Badger raids at a USN carrier task force. (If China was thinking that way, they'd have fielded a Backfire-alike capability, probably.)

NMaude said:
The Mk-72 booster could be used for the AIM-174B if the missile was encapsulated in a 21" diameter jettisonible fairing with a Von Karman profile nose with a strong integrated into the fairing to mount the suspension lug to attach it to the launch pylon.
Click to expand...

That's now pushing 5000 pounds enclosed (with canister), and the drag profile is kinda terrifying. I don't understand the obsession with boosters here.
 
TomS said:
Thing is, roles shifted, even before the F-14 retired. AEGIS ships are the main fleet air defense assets, and now have missiles with enough range to cover a large chunk of the Outer Air Battle area. We should not expect a version of "Dance of the Vampires" with China throwing multi-regimental Badger raids at a USN carrier task force. (If China was thinking that way, they'd have fielded a Backfire-alike capability, probably.)
Click to expand...
To be fair, the roles shifted because the threat from Soviet Naval Aviation disappeared along with the Soviet Union. As you said, the primary threat was no longer multi-regiment bomber raids, but was missile armed speedboats, shore fired AshMs, and anti ship ballistic missiles. Threats for which a surface based defense built around AEGIS was better suited for.

But there has always been a concern that either Russia or China would reconstitute a heavy anti ship strike ability that our current AAMs were ill suited to handle. Be that in the form of a rebuilt Backfire force, or built around something like the Khinzal launched from the MiG-31. Being able to take out that kind of threat, whether it's built around Tu-22s or MiGs, is a very high priority for the Navy. At the very least, by being able to eliminate airborne threats via long range AAMs, it let's the destroyers in the strike group focus on things like AShBMs, drones, etc. It just adds another layer of air defense in an era where it looks increasingly likely that great power conflict is firmly back on the table.
 
NMaude said:
If you an air-launched SM-6 with extra-long range.
Click to expand...

That's what the plane provides -- both cruise range to the launch point and extra launch speed. At some point, you have enough range, and SM-6 ALC is very long-legged anyway.
 
Although it would be a beast to carry I'm wondering if the USAF should look an air-launched AIM-161D SM-3 Block II from an F-15's centreline station, Why? Well since an SM-3 Block IA was used 16 years in 2008 to shoot-down the defunct from launch USA-193 (A radar recon sat) it seems to me that the Block II version would make a good ASAT.
 
NMaude said:
Although it would be a beast to carry I'm wondering if the USAF should look an air-launched AIM-161D SM-3 Block II from an F-15's centreline station, Why? Well since an SM-3 Block IA was used 16 years in 2008 to shoot-down the defunct from launch USA-193 (A radar recon sat) it seems to me that the Block II version would make a good ASAT.
Click to expand...
The Block IA did it from the surface. Did not use an aircraft.
 
Christopher Wang said:
In the RAND monograph Shaking the Heavens and Splitting the Earth, Cliff et al. (2011) assesses the growth of China's PLAAF and provides recommendations on what actions the United States should take in response. One option briefly explored is for a large aircraft such as the Rockwell B-1 Lancer capable of carrying a large number (e.g. 20 or more) of extremely long-range (e.g. 200 nautical miles) air-to-air missiles based on existing airframes such as the Standard SM-2ER / RIM-67 (p. 240).

The problem is that the authors failed to account for the dimensional differences between the the B-1's weapons bays and the proposed missiles. As shown below, the B-1's three weapons bays each have a length of 180 inches or 15 feet. By removing the moveable bulkhead, the forward two weapons bays could be combined into a larger weapons bay of 375 inches or 31.25 feet.
View attachment 733909

Depending on the variant, the Standard missile family has a length of 21.5 feet with the Mark 72 booster or 15.5 feet without the Mark 72 booster. Thus, the B-1 could only internally carry eight Standard missiles with or without the Mark 72 booster if the forward two weapons bays were combined into one. The B-1 could also possibly carry an additional six to twelve Standard missiles using the six external hardpoints.

The B-1 Lancer carrying and firing eight AIM-174 Standard ERAMs internally plus six to twelve additional AIM-174s externally would be an impressive sight.

REFERENCE: Cliff, R. et al. (2011). Shaking the Heavens and Splitting the Earth: Chinese Air Force Employment Concepts in the 21st Century. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG915.pdf
Click to expand...
I feel as though this would be the most sensible application of giving a bomber the 'missile truck' role... the B-21, while stealthy, lacks the speed to quickly reposition and escape from engagements.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom