US Navy Standard Missile Family

Is there any plan to Develop a new Rocket motor to replace the MK 104 Solid fuel Rocket motor with the same size ?
 
kqcke for you said:
Is there any plan to Develop a new Rocket motor to replace the MK 104 Solid fuel Rocket motor with the same size ?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there's a whole lot more thrust that can be delivered, even if you went exotic and used CL20 as the rocket fuel.

So what's wrong with the Mk104?
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not sure there's a whole lot more thrust that can be delivered, even if you went exotic and used CL20 as the rocket fuel.

So what's wrong with the Mk104?
Click to expand...
I mean Mk104 is not from Yesterday so i was thinking that there range Upgrades. I still Hope for dual/ Quad Pack SM-2's in a MK.57. So more range is allways good. If i remember right there were new actuators for jagm which increases range. And this VTS Nozzle Thing wasn't that able to "adjust" the Trust of the missile? I think stuff Like that could give ous some extra range which ich allways nice to have as not only sm 2 has something from this but also SM-6 and "older" SM-3 Versions.
 
kqcke for you said:
I mean Mk104 is not from Yesterday so i was thinking that there range Upgrades. I still Hope for dual/ Quad Pack SM-2's in a MK.57. So more range is allways good. If i remember right there were new actuators for jagm which increases range. And this VTS Nozzle Thing wasn't that able to "adjust" the Trust of the missile? I think stuff Like that could give ous some extra range which ich allways nice to have as not only sm 2 has something from this but also SM-6 and "older" SM-3 Versions.
Click to expand...
They may be trying to build to cost for the moment, so that the USN can afford full magazines of SM2s. As the costs for those mods come down, it may be possible to include them in a new production batch of missiles without greatly increasing price.
 
Does anyone know if there are any improvements in the MK104 Mod4 engine used in the SM-6 compared to the MK104 Mod3 engine used in the SM-2ER Block IV? I've searched for a long time but haven't found any relevant information
 
You could email Raytheon your query and ask for any information cleared for public release.
 
Last edited:
AI098 said:
Does anyone know if there are any improvements in the MK104 Mod4 engine used in the SM-6 compared to the MK104 Mod3 engine used in the SM-2ER Block IV? I've searched for a long time but haven't found any relevant information
Click to expand...

THere's no public info, but I think it's unlikely to be significant. My hunch is that the differences between Mod 3 and Mod 4 are more about producibility or something along those lines. Why?

1) When SM-6 was initially announced (and as recently as 2016, when this graphic was rerleased), Raytheon said it was using the MK 104 Mod 3 DTRM.

NAVAL FORCES 02/2017

monch.com monch.com

1706448176101.png

2) However, we do know that both Mod 3 and Mod 4 exist, also from 2017:

MK 104 MOD 3 & 4 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor (DTRM) and the MK 72 MOD 1 & 2 Booster for Standard Missile (SM)

Federal Contract Opportunity for MK 104 MOD 3 & 4 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor (DTRM) and the MK 72 MOD 1 & 2 Booster for Standard Missile (SM). Posted Oct 5, 2017. Due Oct 20, 2017. Naval Sea Systems Command (DOD - Navy)
govtribe.com
 
Standard has always had some form of SSM role, but have there ever been specialized warheads for land attack?

Seems like Standard high ceilings and long ranges would make them incredibly efficient for precision strike with a hard target penetrating payload.
 
MadRat said:
Standard has always had some form of SSM role, but have there ever been specialized warheads for land attack?

Seems like Standard high ceilings and long ranges would make them incredibly efficient for precision strike with a hard target penetrating payload.
Click to expand...

Land-Attack Standard had a warhead modified for land targets, but it was designed for fragmentation, not hard target penetration. I've never seen a hard-target warhead for Standard.
 
TomS said:
Land-Attack Standard had a warhead modified for land targets, but it was designed for fragmentation, not hard target penetration. I've never seen a hard-target warhead for Standard.
Click to expand...
Standards don't really have the right sensor set for going after hard targets.

Though I suppose making a hardened penetrator case instead of continuous rod or preformed fragments wouldn't be particularly complex. Especially if the casing holding the explosive was machined into shape from a large block. You could simply not do the thinning for holding the continuous rod or tungsten fragments and have a decently thick case wall for hard targets.
 
I wonder if there're any details available about exactly what sort of hardware changes there are?
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if there're any details available about exactly what sort of hardware changes there are?
Click to expand...

When they say obsolescence issues, it usually means there's some part (likely a computer chip) that isn't manufactured any more, so they are replacing it with a newer one. These changes don't usually translate into actual functional differences.
 
A question about RIM-2 Terrier. Have its nuclear-tipped version the ability to strike land targets? The nuclear-tipped Talos have such capability, but I'm not sure about Terrier.
 
I'd never really considered the possibility but if conventional Terriers had the ability to strike ships or targets on shore, I don't see why the nuclear version would not. As far as I know the missile itself essentially functions the same as the conventional variant, one of the two just has a much bigger boom.
But I can't find any quick references to surface-to-surface capability for the Terrier (unlike Talos).
 
Dilandu said:
A question about RIM-2 Terrier. Have its nuclear-tipped version the ability to strike land targets? The nuclear-tipped Talos have such capability, but I'm not sure about Terrier.
Click to expand...

The only nuclear version, BT-3A(N), was still a beam-rider, so it should go wherever it was pointed. The conventional versions of BT-3A were considered to have a surface-to-surface capability, mainly for antiship use, but could also presumably work on land targets as well, so long as there was sufficient radar contrast.
 
Dilandu said:
A question about RIM-2 Terrier. Have its nuclear-tipped version the ability to strike land targets? The nuclear-tipped Talos have such capability, but I'm not sure about Terrier.
Click to expand...
ISTR in Friedman's cruiser book it was mentioned that in the mid to late '50s guns (other than perhaps the 3" 70) were seen as being redundant in the future because Terrier with a nuclear warhead could do all necessary shore bombardment such as area effect, defoliating, and dealing with hardened targets (that pillbox is GONE!). 3 inch guns were considered completely adequate for anything else a gun was needed for and were thought to be effective close in weapons. So I imagine it was at least considered.
 
TomS said:
The only nuclear version, BT-3A(N), was still a beam-rider, so it should go wherever it was pointed.
Click to expand...

I found mentions about nuclear Terrier having coastal-strike capability in some early 1960s Navy hearing in Congress, so it seems that it was at least theoretically possible. No mention about how it was done, but I assume that the same method as with nuclear-tipped Talos was used (special computer calculated the target position, missile rode the beam and over target was sent to dive, then a detonation command was transmitted). After all, Terrier and Talos shared the main principles of beam-riding guidance.
 
TomS said:
The only nuclear version, BT-3A(N), was still a beam-rider, so it should go wherever it was pointed.
Click to expand...

Dilandu said:
I found mentions about nuclear Terrier having coastal-strike capability in some early 1960s Navy hearing in Congress, so it seems that it was at least theoretically possible. No mention about how it was done, but I assume that the same method as with nuclear-tipped Talos was used (special computer calculated the target position, missile rode the beam and over target was sent to dive, then a detonation command was transmitted). After all, Terrier and Talos shared the main principles of beam-riding guidance.
Click to expand...
I ran across some mention of a nuclear Talos on probably the okieboat website (USS Oklahoma City, and now I'm not finding this story on that site...), they were in the Med and being harassed by Libyans at the time. Junior weapons officer asked the guys if they could work out a surface strike on one of the harassing air bases. The enlisted say sure, we'll need to dig into the books to set it up right, so give us a bit.

So they come back to brief the junior officer about the plan, and that air base is a bit outside the missile's official range, and that there's a mountain between the base and the ocean. They'd planned it out so that the missile would be out of fuel and gliding as it was directly overhead the offending airbase, where it'd drop out of the guide beam. They mention that while the missile is beam-riding, that's not an issue since the nuclear warhead would detonate if the missile ever left the guidance beam, and that's where they want it to detonate anyways.

And that's about the time the officer loses his mind and tells them to stop all further work and planning, and he'd tell the Captain that it couldn't be done.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I ran across some mention of a nuclear Talos on probably the okieboat website (USS Oklahoma City, and now I'm not finding this story on that site...), they were in the Med and being harassed by Libyans at the time. Junior weapons officer asked the guys if they could work out a surface strike on one of the harassing air bases. The enlisted say sure, we'll need to dig into the books to set it up right, so give us a bit.
Click to expand...
Hm. It can't be USS Oklahoma City; as far as I knew, she never were in Mediterranean during all her career. Most likely it could be "Little Rock", she served in Med most of her career.

Scott Kenny said:
So they come back to brief the junior officer about the plan, and that air base is a bit outside the missile's official range, and that there's a mountain between the base and the ocean. They'd planned it out so that the missile would be out of fuel and gliding as it was directly overhead the offending airbase, where it'd drop out of the guide beam. They mention that while the missile is beam-riding, that's not an issue since the nuclear warhead would detonate if the missile ever left the guidance beam, and that's where they want it to detonate anyways.
Click to expand...
Theoretically doable, but I suspect on practice it would require too many safety measures be circumvented.
 
Dilandu said:
Hm. It can't be USS Oklahoma City; as far as I knew, she never were in Mediterranean during all her career. Most likely it could be "Little Rock", she served in Med most of her career.
Click to expand...
Could be. Now I'm annoyed that I didn't save that website.


Dilandu said:
Theoretically doable, but I suspect on practice it would require too many safety measures be circumvented.
Click to expand...
Apparently the thing about the warhead detonating if the missile ever left the guidance beam was part of the positive control that was required at the time. If the missile left the guidance beam it was no longer under control of the guidance system, so it was seen as better to detonate the warhead and maybe have it still close enough to be effective than to drop an armed nuke out of the sky.

I believe it still would have required permission from a lot farther up the chain of command than the ship's captain, however.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Apparently the thing about the warhead detonating if the missile ever left the guidance beam was part of the positive control that was required at the time. If the missile left the guidance beam it was no longer under control of the guidance system, so it was seen as better to detonate the warhead and maybe have it still close enough to be effective than to drop an armed nuke out of the sky.
Click to expand...
I knew that losing the beam was self-destruct command, butI always thought that for nuclear warhead a specific detonation command needed to be issued?
 
Dilandu said:
I knew that losing the beam was self-destruct command, butI always thought that for nuclear warhead a specific detonation command needed to be issued?
Click to expand...
From what I remember of this story, it was not.

I could see arguments both directions, for why a specific detonation command would not be required and for why one would not be required.
 
Dilandu said:
Yep. It also have self-destruct in case of signal loss, but as far as I knew, self-destruct was not nuclear.
Click to expand...

The MIM-14s equipped with the W37 warhead had to go through a specific electromechanical arming sequence after launch before the warhead was live.
 
Another question, if I may. Some sources mention that later beam-rider Terrier's (BT-3A models, with tail control and extended range) could be used in anti-ship mode. Other sources insist that only radar homing Terrier's (HT models) could be used against surface targets. So... who is right?
 
Dilandu said:
Some sources mention that later beam-rider Terrier's (BT-3A models, with tail control and extended range) could be used in anti-ship mode.
Click to expand...

I could see the RIM-2D being used in that role.

On another note why did the US Congress cancelled production of the W81 warhead as the Standard missile equipped with the warhead would've replaced the obsolete RIM-2D and its' W45 warhead?
 
NMaude said:
On another note why did the US Congress cancelled production of the W81 warhead as the Standard missile equipped with the warhead would've replaced the obsolete RIM-2D and its' W45 warhead?
Click to expand...
Mostly because nuclear warheads for SAM's weren't viewed as good solution anymore. There were two main reasons:

* Firstly, the problem they were build to counter - poor radar resolution against targets in tight formation - was sucessfully solved in 1970s by radar improvement. You see, the whole idea of nuclear-tipped SAM was actually born because 1950s fire control radars could not efficiently discriminate between several targets in tight formation. They viewed such formation as one big signature, and tried to guide missile right into the (empty) center of signature. I.e. the missile could just zoom through the center of formation, too far from actual planes to do any harm. So the idea of nuclear-tipped SAM was born, that could destroy tight plane formation in one big blast. But by 1970s, the radar resolution improved so much, that this problem disappeared.

* Secondly, the nuclear-tipped SAM's were viewed as the way to knock out enemy nukes. By subjecting the enemy atomic bomb to intence neutron flux from nuclear SAM detonation, they could be "poisoned" by creation of short-lived isotopes in their nuclea fuel. If such "poisoned" bomb would try to detonate, it would just fizzle. For 1950-1960s it worked fine - but then boosted-fission bombs were invented. And boosted-fission bombs are immune to fizzle.

So essentially nuclear-tipped SAM's weren't needed anymore. Their use in 1970-1980s would most likely hamper fleet defense more than enemy attack, by interferring with radars and datalinks.
 
Dilandu said:
By subjecting the enemy atomic bomb to intence neutron flux from nuclear SAM detonation, they could be "poisoned" by creation of short-lived isotopes in their nuclea fuel. If such "poisoned" bomb would try to detonate, it would just fizzle.
Click to expand...

Not just the creation of short-lived radio-isotopes but that neutron-flux would also heat up the plutonium causing it to slump and deform.
 
Dilandu said:
About that I'm not sure; I suspect that it would require such intense irradiation, that plane and bomb would be destroyed anyway.
Click to expand...

Not if the airburst was at high altitude, in shot HA in operation Teapot a B-36H dropped a test-device (Probably a TX-12) in a modified Mk-5 bomb-casing (It was parachute retarded) which detonated at ~40,000Ft, this test was noted for the very high neutron-flux it generated.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom