Standard SM-3 News & Dev.

[sferrin]

There doesn't seem to be a specific thread for SM-3 (there are many SM-3 threads with a post here and there) so I decided to start one and put this here (Looks like the IIB config):

"SM-3 Next Generation 27" LSSS Configuration"

http://www.systima.com/prod/Space%20Systems.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/alert/maiden-flight/

First flight SM-3 Block IIA

 

[fredymac]

The kinetic energy of block 2 may eventually give it some capability against full up ICBM class targets. With ships being able to position themselves along probable firing trajectories, this could wind up being better than land based systems. I remember seeing an old CGI video of a KE interceptor missile launched off a ship. That would indicate it would have likely fit inside the physical limits of a VLS cell.

 

[sferrin]

The kinetic energy of block 2 may eventually give it some capability against full up ICBM class targets.

There's no reason the current version couldn't if they wanted it to. It took out a satellite, an ICBM is slower.

 

[fredymac]

I wasn't sure what the apogee of an ICBM would be. I think that satellite was down around 200 miles. It was going faster but it was low enough for a head-on geometry intercept.

 

[TomS]

I remember seeing an old CGI video of a KE interceptor missile launched off a ship. That would indicate it would have likely fit inside the physical limits of a VLS cell.

There were very prelminary studies of larger naval missiles that could handle the NMD (now GMD) EKV interceptor. That needed a new VLS launcher that would replace a standard Mk 41 module with a "six-pack" launcher with 26-inch cells. The six-pack might also stick up above the deck, depending on exactly how much velocitry you needed out of the interceptor.

 

[sferrin]

I wasn't sure what the apogee of an ICBM would be. I think that satellite was down around 200 miles. It was going faster but it was low enough for a head-on geometry intercept.

Why would you want to be shooting at an ICBM at it's apogee? And why would you need to anyway? If an SM-3 Block I equipped Aegis ship was defending Hawaii say, the ICBM has to come DOWN in order to hit Hawaii. It would come right into the SM-3s envelope. Same with THAAD.

 

[fredymac]

I would prefer to engage as close as possible to the launch point. Failing that, I would want to engage before bus staging. And finally, I would like as many shots as possible. Worst case would be a crossing angle apogee intercept. The block 2 extends the arc along the uphill/downhill trajectory towards apogee over which an intercept is possible. But if you are presented with a lousy shot and are looking at apogee or nothing, then you would like to have it.

 

[sferrin]

I would prefer to engage as close as possible to the launch point. Failing that, I would want to engage before bus staging. And finally, I would like as many shots as possible. Worst case would be a crossing angle apogee intercept. The block 2 extends the arc along the uphill/downhill trajectory towards apogee over which an intercept is possible. But if you are presented with a lousy shot and are looking at apogee or nothing, then you would like to have it.

Obviously everybody would love infinite shot opportunities. But just because you don't get them doesn't mean system X has no capability.

 

[pathology_doc]

I remember reading one of Arthur C. Clarke's diatribes against the impossiblity of SDI - his conclusion was that you could not put up an unbreakable shield but you could put up a leaky umbrella, which might be worth having.


However, that was in the context of a massive exchange with a nation such as the USSR or perhaps China, and in a very different technological era. While such an event is perhaps still possible (though I don't think the current leaders of either nation are sufficiently insane), the more likely threat today is a small number of missiles from a rogue state, in which I think you CAN put up an unbreakable shield if you're willing to fire enough ABMs (and who wouldn't be?). The real question is whether you're willing to put nuclear warheads in some of them to enhance your chances of an apogee kill.

 

[fredymac]

SM 3 Block 2 first flight test video.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xewbilshLSQ

 

[sferrin]

Compared to the usual SM-3 that looks like a friggin' torpedo launching out of that cell. Wish they'd have release a real-time with sound video. :'(

(Any idea why they would lean the entire VLS at an angle like that? ??? )

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.janes.com/article/54408/dsei-2015-raytheon-receives-first-sm-3-block-iia-procurement-contract

 

[TomS]

(Any idea why they would lean the entire VLS at an angle like that? ??? )

Avoiding booster fall-back damage, probably. At sea, the ship is underway, so it will usually have sailed out from under the missile before the booster comes back down (boosters have hit ships a few times - it's can be pretty exciting with unspent fuel all over the place.) But on land, the booster needs a little help to ensure it clears the test rig.

 

[sferrin]

But haven't all land SM-3 Block I / SM-2 Block IV / SM-6 launches been vertical? Also Land Based SM-3 is vertical as well.

 

[TomS]

I think the Desert Ship launcher has some tilt to it, but I'm not sure. Could be an issue of range safety as well -- if the safe zone isn't big in one direction, angling the launch might help them stay out of trouble.

 

[fredymac]

17 more SM3 block II's to be purchased for additional testing. Initial deployment is set for 2018 both for sea and for the Aegis Ashore installations in Europe.


http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2015-09-16-Raytheon-receives-87-million-SM-3-Block-IIA-contract

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.popsci.com/contractor-wants-to-bring-anti-missile-star-wars-back

 

[sferrin]

http://www.popsci.com/contractor-wants-to-bring-anti-missile-star-wars-back

Ugh.

 

[marauder2048]

http://www.popsci.com/contractor-wants-to-bring-anti-missile-star-wars-back

Ugh.

Pure Click-bait; sure to come up on a google search for "Star Wars" which in these days leading up to the premier
will be frequent.

 

[sferrin]

U.S. Succeeds In Next Flight Test of Advanced Missile Defense Interceptor

"POINT MUGU NAVAL STATION, Calif. --- The U.S. Navy and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) conducted the second successful flight test of the Raytheon Company Standard Missile-3 Block IIA.

During the Controlled Test Vehicle-02 flight test, an SM-3 Block IIA was launched from a MK 41 launcher located at the U.S. Navy's Point Mugu Sea Range on Saint Nicolas Island in California. A target intercept was not included in the testing scenario.

The mission evaluated the SM-3 Block IIA's kinetic warhead and divert and attitude control system functionality, in addition to nosecone performance, steering control section function, booster separation, and second and third stage rocket motor separation. "

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/169593/us%2C-japan-test-sm_3-block-iia-missile-interceptor.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raytheons-sm-3-contract-boosted-to-543-3m-russias-s-400-missile-defense-to-protect-north-pole-us-north-korean-sub-damaged-in-failed-slbm-test-032052/?utm_campaign=Contact+SNS+For+More+Referrer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=snsanalytics

 

[sferrin]

Land-Based SM-3 Demonstrates First Ballistic Missile Intercept Supported By AN/TPY-2 Radar

KAUAI, Hawaii --- The Missile Defense Agency conducted the first intercept test of a Raytheon Land-Based Standard Missile-3 Block IB from the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex.

The SM-3 destroyed an intermediate range ballistic missile target in space by using remote track data from an AN/TPY-2 ballistic missile defense radar in a 'launch-on-remote' engagement.

The test's success keeps the Aegis Ashore program and the SM-3 Block IB on track for deployment in Romania by the end of this year, in line with the second phase of the Phased Adaptive Approach, the U.S.'s plan for missile defense in Europe.

"In many ways, the SM-3 system is the crown jewel of ballistic missile defense," said Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence, Raytheon Missile Systems president. "No other sea- and land-based regional missile defense system comes close in terms of range and defended area, especially when paired with the AN/TPY-2 radar."

The SM-3 and AN/TPY-2 have been used together in flight tests before. "

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2015-12-10-Land-Based-SM-3-demonstrates-first-ballistic-missile-intercept-supported-by-AN-TPY-2-radar


Target was an air-launched ballistic missile:

http://news.usni.org/2015/12/10/aegis-ashore-scores-in-first-intercept-test

 

[fredymac]

U.S. Succeeds In Next Flight Test of Advanced Missile Defense Interceptor

"POINT MUGU NAVAL STATION, Calif. --- The U.S. Navy and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) conducted the second successful flight test of the Raytheon Company Standard Missile-3 Block IIA.

During the Controlled Test Vehicle-02 flight test, an SM-3 Block IIA was launched from a MK 41 launcher located at the U.S. Navy's Point Mugu Sea Range on Saint Nicolas Island in California. A target intercept was not included in the testing scenario.

The mission evaluated the SM-3 Block IIA's kinetic warhead and divert and attitude control system functionality, in addition to nosecone performance, steering control section function, booster separation, and second and third stage rocket motor separation. "

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/169593/us%2C-japan-test-sm_3-block-iia-missile-interceptor.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXaEKka5zmM

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2WGLQJtiCY&feature=youtu.be

Launch, staging and intercept video.

 

[bobbymike]

Wrong link

http://spacenews.com/raytheon-wins-2-3-billion-sole-source-award-for-sm-3-variant/

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/05/27/video-mda-navy-conduct-flight-test-upgraded-sm-3-block-ib

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-russia-iran-america-wants-kill-nuclear-missiles-16395

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-pentagon-will-test-fire-its-new-larger-sm-3iia-16568

 

[fredymac]

Video from USNI on Aegis Ashore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw-1MW35lXw&feature=youtu.be

 

[marauder2048]

Judging by the NOTAM below for Point Mugu, looks like the first SM-3 Block IIA intercept test is on for Nov. 1st.

M0592/16 NOTAMN
Q) ZLA/QXXXX/IV/NBO/A/000/999/3407N11907W005 A) KNTD B) 1610301733 C) 1611010101
E) SURFACE LAUNCHES IN EFFECT FOR THE FOLLOWING DATES AND TIMES:
01NOV2016 1400-1800L (2100-0100Z) IN SUPPORT OF THESE SURFACE
LAUNCHES R2519 WILL BE ACTIVATED. AIRCRAFT, MEN AND EQUIPMENT WILL
BE REQUIRED TO REMAIN NORTH OF TAXIWAY A-2. MISSION ESSENTIAL
FLIGHT REQUIRING TRANSITION THROUGH THE RESTRICTED AREA SHALL
CONTACT POINT MUGU RANGE CONTROL AT (805) 989-8220 OR 280.7 FOR
DECONFLICTION.
CREATED: 30 Oct 2016 17:33:00
SOURCE: KNTD

 

[fredymac]

SM3 Block II Intercept Test

No actual date given in the article (they say "soon"). Also some notable typo errors ("able to travel more than 600 miles per hour").

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1677991-sm-3iia-interceptor-to-attack-missile-target

 

[marauder2048]

It was originally scheduled for late Oct/early Nov.

 

[bring_it_on]

There is also an SM6 vs MRBM test scheduled.

U.S. Missile Defense Agency Plans Trio Of Flight Tests

MDA is looking for some wins in three major upcoming flight tests: the first intercept test of the Raytheon Standard Missile-3 Block IIA, jointly developed with Japan; the first multiple firing of Standard Missile-6 “Dual I” against a medium-range ballistic missile; and the validation of upgrades to Boeing’s Ground-Based Interceptor and Raytheon’s Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle against an intercontinental ballistic missile...

Because of the significance and complexity of these weapons tests, a successful target intercept counts more than meeting proposed launch dates. Nevertheless, missed milestones cost money, and MDA has already slipped past its planned October intercept test of SM-3 Block IIA, designated SFTM-01, with no new test time frame set. “It will be conducted following completion of preflight testing to reduce the risk of anomalies during the flight test,” MDA says, adding “we’re taking all possible measures to ensure a successful flight test.”...

Another significant test for the agency will be the salvo firing of SM-6 Dual I in December, barring unforeseen setbacks. SM-6 has already proven itself against aircraft, cruise missiles, ships and short-range ballistic missiles. But this will be SM-6 Dual I’s first attempt at defeating a medium-range ballistic missile (1,000-3,000 km), the same class of weapon as North Korea’s Nodong and Musudan rockets.

 

[sferrin]

This is interesting/puzzling. At least according to this slide that would put it in the same category as THAAD:



Except I doubt SM-6 is remotely capable as THAAD. On the other hand, I think THAAD and PAC-3 (particularly the MSE variant) are probably understated here.

 

[marauder2048]

BMD option touted for UK frigate

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/bmd-option-touted-uk-frigate/

01st December 2016 - 14:53 by Rose Moriarty in London


Raytheon has called on the Royal Navy to consider adopting its SM-3 short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile defence (BMD) system, on its future Type 31 frigate.

No official requirement for this exists, and the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) released in November 2015 did not indicate that a sea-based ballistic missile defence system would be required, so Raytheon is looking towards the next SDSR to address this capability gap.

Andy Rhodes, business development lead for missile systems at Raytheon, told an industry technology day on 29 November that the UK MoD should consider this in its 2020 SDSR, which could pave way for integration on the Type 31 by 2023-24.

The vessel is expected to carry the Mark 41 vertical launching system, which can fire Raytheon’s SM-3 interceptor, Rhodes told Shephard. Current planning could also see MBDA’s Sea Ceptor used and there is an aspiration to operate the Raytheon Tomahawk missile from the frigate, he says.

However, industry sources have observed that the role of the frigate is yet to be determined, and at best it is designed to be an affordable and agile vessel. A BMD-capable SM-3 would increase costs.

A radar would also be needed to support the SM-3 on the Type 31, but it would be cumbersome. It may not even be possible to integrate it onto the frigate and might have to be carried by another ship.

But Rhodes insisted that potential aggressor states would find it cheaper to deploy ballistic missiles than traditional for forces and the UK must take this threat seriously, highlighting North Korean capabilities.

Pyongyang develops the Soviet Scud-derived Hwasong series of ballistic missiles, and is also developing a 10,000km-range weapon. Iran, meanwhile, has a ‘difficult interpretation of the nuclear deal’, he said and has also acquired North Korean-developed ballistic missiles.

‘The UK needs a long-range interceptor, and there is only one on the market,’ Rhodes says. ‘We need a national solution that doesn’t rely on NATO. The only product available to protect the UK is SM-3.’

However, a future variant of the Aster 30 missile that is already operated on the RN’s Type 45 destroyers called Sea Venom could be used as a BMD weapon. A Block 1 New Technology configuration is being developed by MBDA for France which has a BMD application. The destroyers could be used for BMD as the baseline Aster system is already integrated.

 

[TomS]

This is interesting/puzzling. At least according to this slide that would put it in the same category as THAAD:

Except I doubt SM-6 is remotely capable as THAAD. On the other hand, I think THAAD and PAC-3 (particularly the MSE variant) are probably understated here.

Charts like that really don't tell a very useful picture.

Just being able to intercept an MRBM wouldn't put SM-6 into THAAD territory. An SM-6 intercept would be a terminal phase engagement with a very small defended footprint, while THAAD would take the same missile in mid-course with a much larger footprint.

 

[marauder2048]

This is interesting/puzzling. At least according to this slide that would put it in the same category as THAAD:

Except I doubt SM-6 is remotely capable as THAAD. On the other hand, I think THAAD and PAC-3 (particularly the MSE variant) are probably understated here.

From a LinkedIn Lockheed Martin employee profile:

"Analyzing intelligence-provided target trajectory and aerodynamic data in order to enhance the non-ballistic trajectory prediction algorithm in the SBT Increment 2 predicted intercept point design"

 

[sferrin]

This is interesting/puzzling. At least according to this slide that would put it in the same category as THAAD:

Except I doubt SM-6 is remotely capable as THAAD. On the other hand, I think THAAD and PAC-3 (particularly the MSE variant) are probably understated here.

From a LinkedIn Lockheed Martin employee profile:

"Analyzing intelligence-provided target trajectory and aerodynamic data in order to enhance the non-ballistic trajectory prediction algorithm in the SBT Increment 2 predicted intercept point design"

Maneuvering RV? That's what they did here with PAC-3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMrugIQlzOk

 

[sferrin]

An SM-6 intercept would be a terminal phase engagement with a very small defended footprint, while THAAD would take the same missile in mid-course with a much larger footprint.

I wonder if it would even be as effective as PAC-3 in that role simply because PAC-3 has the thrusters up front that are probably faster reacting than SM-6s purely aerodynamic controls. Against a ballistic target that would be less of an issue.