US Navy Standard Missile Family

phantonphan said:
Wouldn't this system basically allow any fairly large ship (including commercial) to become a missile platform? Park it on the deck and let 'er rip.
Click to expand...
Well yes, but don't forget that this system is mostly for point-to-point bombardment.
You don't get any fancy guidance stuff with it, that all has to be added or offloaded onto other ships.
 
NMaude said:
TomS said:
NMaude said:
Another thing about the Typhoon is that it was, like the Tacos, a very large missile so in order to have an adequate number of them in the ship's magazine it would've needed a very large magazine meaning a large (And expensive) cruiser.
Click to expand...

Typhon ER was roughly the size of Terrier. Not that big.
Click to expand...

I just checked on the wiki RIM-50 Typhon article and I stand corrected, I suspect that if the Vietnam war hadn't happened it would've likely entered service.

Does anyone know if there are any online historical monographs describing the development of the RIM-50?
Click to expand...

RIM-50 mostly died because it was expensive to make, like all ramjet missiles, and not because of Vietnam.

Ramjet motored missiles were extremely nice to have for about 5-10 years and then solid fuel rockets pretty much had surpassed them in performance. The USN procured oodles of RIM-66Cs and RIM-67s in the post-Vietnam malaise and never bought a batch of RIM-50s or anything for the SCANFAR CGN-9 or Talos boats, which would have been a fairly trivial modification all this considered, for instance.

Sea Dart's mere existence is something of a bizarre anomaly TBH. I guess that's just because the UK entered the 1960's as the reigning world champion of naval combat systems and left them a second rate player, at best. Perhaps if the Typhon Combat System had actually worked the RIM-50 would have been deployed, but it didn't. By the 1970's there just wasn't much point as solid motors were showing a lot of muscular performance increases with things like the RIM-66B nearly doubling range performance of RIM-24B.

I don't think that would be the case though, as I suspect the USN would figure a way to finagle the Standards to work with Typhon too. Or they'd just scrap all maybe three or four Typhon escorts like they did the Long Beach and stuff.
 
Kat Tsun said:

RIM-50 mostly died because it was expensive to make, like all ramjet missiles, and not because of Vietnam.

Ramjet motored missiles were extremely nice to have for about 5-10 years and then solid fuel rockets pretty much had surpassed them in performance. The USN procured oodles of RIM-66Cs and RIM-67s in the post-Vietnam malaise and never bought a batch of RIM-50s or anything for the SCANFAR CGN-9 or Talos boats, which would have been a fairly trivial modification all this considered, for instance.

Sea Dart's mere existence is something of a bizarre anomaly TBH. I guess that's just because the UK entered the 1960's as the reigning world champion of naval combat systems and left them a second rate player, at best. Perhaps if the Typhon Combat System had actually worked the RIM-50 would have been deployed, but it didn't. By the 1970's there just wasn't much point as solid motors were showing a lot of muscular performance increases with things like the RIM-66B nearly doubling range performance of RIM-24B.

I don't think that would be the case though, as I suspect the USN would figure a way to finagle the Standards to work with Typhon too. Or they'd just scrap all maybe three or four Typhon escorts like they did the Long Beach and stuff.
Click to expand...

RIM-67 would have been compatible with the Mk 10 GMLS, whilst RIM-66 would probably be compatible with the Mk 14 GMLS, the only question is whether the Typhon escorts would have enough topweight margins for AEGIS, given that in the late 60s it was to take the form of two Mk 20 Mod 0 deckhouses, carrying SPY-1 and the illuminators, with each deckhouse weighing 200 tons which was too much for CGN-38. Given the last Typhon DLGN design SCB 240.65 displaced 12,000 tons, there may well have been margins even for that, alternatively sanity could prevail like it did for DDG/CG-47, and they could put some of the AEGIS hardware lower down in the ship, without having everything in self-contained modules.

Failing that, they can just use NTU radars.
 
Another reason ramjet missiles died off is that they are inherently less maneuverable than pure rockets. This is because the rate of change in direction directly impacts the intake inlet of the engine and can cause loss of air flow resulting in something like a compressor stall in a jet engine. The missile flames out and that is bad.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Another reason ramjet missiles died off is that they are inherently less maneuverable than pure rockets. This is because the rate of change in direction directly impacts the intake inlet of the engine and can cause loss of air flow resulting in something like a compressor stall in a jet engine. The missile flames out and that is bad.
Click to expand...
Do we have any g- or maneuvering limits available for Sea Dart (or Standard-family) to compare? A quick search on the net gets zero.
 
starviking said:
T. A. Gardner said:
Another reason ramjet missiles died off is that they are inherently less maneuverable than pure rockets. This is because the rate of change in direction directly impacts the intake inlet of the engine and can cause loss of air flow resulting in something like a compressor stall in a jet engine. The missile flames out and that is bad.
Click to expand...
Do we have any g- or maneuvering limits available for Sea Dart (or Standard-family) to compare? A quick search on the net gets zero.
Click to expand...
I don't have any specifics, but this issue was mentioned in the Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest Vol 13 Nov 1 1991 in an article by James Keirsey, Airbreathing Propulsion for Defense of the Surface Fleet. Where he mentions during wind tunnel testing this problem came up and was another reason Typhon was cancelled. He also discusses how the missile burner section had to be redesigned using burner cans as altitudes and speeds increased.
 
starviking said:
T. A. Gardner said:
Another reason ramjet missiles died off is that they are inherently less maneuverable than pure rockets. This is because the rate of change in direction directly impacts the intake inlet of the engine and can cause loss of air flow resulting in something like a compressor stall in a jet engine. The missile flames out and that is bad.
Click to expand...
Do we have any g- or maneuvering limits available for Sea Dart (or Standard-family) to compare? A quick search on the net gets zero.
Click to expand...
I'd guess it's less to do with G-load and more to do with AOA.

1663525875239.png
 
A ramjet missile probably faces relatively few problems with engaging an air breathing target. It sounds more like it was just a problem with the missile itself, rather than inherent to ramjet powered weapons. If the ramjet is having trouble maneuvering, it applies doubly so to the bomber or fighter, and this balances out in favor of the rocket.

Meteor has a much larger NEZ than Skyflash, despite being a similar size missile, because it is powered through flight rather than the boost-coast of a rocket design.
 
Speculation on my part as don't understand why Navy not planning on procuring the Army PrSM Spiral 1 for anti-ship role in preference to SM-6. PrSM with its multimode seeker designed to target ships, antenna area a big plus in any radars capability and the PrSM seeker antenna area ~60% larger than the SM-6 13.5" dia as opposed to 17" of the PrSM and expect its seeker might give additional advantage of a larger search basket area coming in vertically from great height with its ballistic trajectory. Cost of the current standard PrSM ~ $1.8, expect Spiral 1 will be more expensive with its multimode seeker, but will be less than the $5 million for SM-6 Dual II/Block 1B, so would expect Navy could procure two PrSM's for the cost of a single SM-6 . On question of range expect PrSM to be greater and have heavier warhead, PrSM would easily fit in the standard Navy Mk41 VLS launch cell.

PrSM disadvantages for Navy?
 
1) SM-6 exists today. It's also fully integrated with AEGIS.

2) SM-6 has both AAW/TBMD and ASuW capability. So it is more versatile on ships with constrained numbers of VLS cells and no easy ability to swap them out.

3) Assuming that the PrsM ASuW seeker uses the full diameter of the missile is an assumption that might not be valid. or possibly relevant. How big does the antenna need to be to pick a ship out of sea clutter from above?

4) SM-6 also drops in from above, over a very long range indeed. Especially with Block 2, with the 21-inch diameter motor.
 
TomS said:
1) SM-6 exists today. It's also fully integrated with AEGIS.

2) SM-6 has both AAW/TBMD and ASuW capability. So it is more versatile on ships with constrained numbers of VLS cells and no easy ability to swap them out.

3) Assuming that the PrsM ASuW seeker uses the full diameter of the missile is an assumption that might not be valid. or possibly relevant. How big does the antenna need to be to pick a ship out of sea clutter from above?

4) SM-6 also drops in from above, over a very long range indeed. Especially with Block 2, with the 21-inch diameter motor.
Click to expand...
5. You still need Tomahawk. The only thing SM-6 can do that Tomahawk can't (currently) is hit a ship. Block II will be more interesting but that's an expensive missile for hitting a land target.
 
sferrin said:
5. You still need Tomahawk. The only thing SM-6 can do that Tomahawk can't (currently) is hit a ship. Block II will be more interesting but that's an expensive missile for hitting a land target.
Click to expand...

Oh, for sure. I was only contrasting with PrSM for ASuW.

And we also probably need a horizontal-flight, preferably sea-skimming ASCM for ASuW as well. Diversified target profile is important.
 
Are there available online any documents about the history and development of the Mk-72 booster introduced by the SM-2 Block-IV?
 
Cordy said:
Speculation on my part as don't understand why Navy not planning on procuring the Army PrSM Spiral 1 for anti-ship role in preference to SM-6. PrSM with its multimode seeker designed to target ships, antenna area a big plus in any radars capability and the PrSM seeker antenna area ~60% larger than the SM-6 13.5" dia as opposed to 17" of the PrSM and expect its seeker might give additional advantage of a larger search basket area coming in vertically from great height with its ballistic trajectory. Cost of the current standard PrSM ~ $1.8, expect Spiral 1 will be more expensive with its multimode seeker, but will be less than the $5 million for SM-6 Dual II/Block 1B, so would expect Navy could procure two PrSM's for the cost of a single SM-6 . On question of range expect PrSM to be greater and have heavier warhead, PrSM would easily fit in the standard Navy Mk41 VLS launch cell.

PrSM disadvantages for Navy?
Click to expand...

While PrSM beats out SM-6 as an anti-surface missile on paper, the problem is that SM-6 is not intended as a primary ASuW weapon, it's intended as an AAW weapon that can snapshot ASuW targets if necessary if nothing better is available. PrSM *is* a primary ASuW weapon, but it's beaten out in nearly every respect (the exception how quick it reaches the target) by the Tomahawk, which has two and a half times the range and likely several times the warhead weight.

Then there's all the integration work, launch canister design, possible additional corrosion and fireproofing to meet navy regs, etc...
 
Hey Guys, i have gotten recently into all things naval warfare and have one question, that seems kind of obvious, but an answer is not clear to me.
(hope this is the right thread to post on)

What is the US-Navys theory on how to sink chinese ships (in the vicinity of the first island chain - like a blockade of taiwan)?


I ask because its genuinely unclear to me (especially the weapons used).
- Lrasm is procured in low numbers (and the relative ease with which the ukraine air defense has shot down russian stealth cruise missiles makes me question wether they would be really effective in sinking something like a Type 055).
- Tomahawk MST seems like a slow unstealthy missile of which you would need a huge amount to kill something capable.
- harpoon has the same problem minus the range.
- Sm 6 has a really small seeker, that is not desigend for ASuW - seems to me, that the risk would be big, that the chinese could jam/degrade it - it remains something that is not built for ASuW.
- nuke subs seem to loose their advantage in (near) litoral enviroments.

I have not read enough to have serious opinions on these matters - I would appreciate any pointers to good sources.
 
DerTheodor said:
Hey Guys, i have gotten recently into all things naval warfare and have one question, that seems kind of obvious, but an answer is not clear to me.
(hope this is the right thread to post on)

What is the US-Navys theory on how to sink chinese ships (in the vicinity of the first island chain - like a blockade of taiwan)?


I ask because its genuinely unclear to me (especially the weapons used).
- Lrasm is procured in low numbers (and the relative ease with which the ukraine air defense has shot down russian stealth cruise missiles makes me question wether they would be really effective in sinking something like a Type 055).
- Tomahawk MST seems like a slow unstealthy missile of which you would need a huge amount to kill something capable.
- harpoon has the same problem minus the range.
- Sm 6 has a really small seeker, that is not desigend for ASuW - seems to me, that the risk would be big, that the chinese could jam/degrade it - it remains something that is not built for ASuW.
- nuke subs seem to loose their advantage in (near) litoral enviroments.

I have not read enough to have serious opinions on these matters - I would appreciate any pointers to good sources.
Click to expand...

It's probably worth opening a separate topic to address the issue as it is outside the scope of just Standard missiles. Broadly speaking, while all of those missiles have liabilities, taken together they offer a large number of options and in the case of SM-6/BGM-109 are dual or multi purpose and carried in very large numbers. So there isn't a huge capability gap.
 
And the few images of Ships eating Standard Missiles we have seen show.

While it may not SINK the ship.

That Ship not doing much of anything else either for a few YEARS at minimum.
 
IIRC the Iranians found out the hard way back in the 1980s what the SM-1 does to warships in ASM mode.
 
I’ve always wondered if SM-2 blk 3B didn’t have an OTH surface to surface capability with its IR guidance. That would be a big addition to AShMs if so. And of course out to the horizon most anything the USN carries can put a hole in a ship.
 
Josh_TN said:
I’ve always wondered if SM-2 blk 3B didn’t have an OTH surface to surface capability with its IR guidance. That would be a big addition to AShMs if so. And of course out to the horizon most anything the USN carries can put a hole in a ship.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know where the IR seeker came from? Was it a new development? Or is it (more likely in my opinion) an existing seeker from another system bolted on?

How does the logic work? How does the system decide which seeker has precedence over the other for guidance?
 
timmymagic said:
Josh_TN said:
I’ve always wondered if SM-2 blk 3B didn’t have an OTH surface to surface capability with its IR guidance. That would be a big addition to AShMs if so. And of course out to the horizon most anything the USN carries can put a hole in a ship.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know where the IR seeker came from? Was it a new development? Or is it (more likely in my opinion) an existing seeker from another system bolted on?

How does the logic work? How does the system decide which seeker has precedence over the other for guidance?
Click to expand...

It came out of MHIP (Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP), which was also intended to provide a supplemental IR seeker for Sparrow. (In Sparrow, it was on the tip of the nose under a blow-off cap, with the radar seeker behind it and looking through it.)

Without going into details, the Navy's public line about MHIP in Block IIIB was that it was intended "to counter specific proliferating electronic warfare systems in existing aircraft and anti-ship cruise missile threats." So, I get the impression it was an adjunct to help the radar seeker reject countermeasures. Techniques left as an exercise for the reader.

PS: Although SM-2 Block IVA also had a side-mounted IR seeker, my recollection is that this was NOT the same MHIP seeker as in the IIIB, just the same general configuration.
 
TomS said:
timmymagic said:
Josh_TN said:
I’ve always wondered if SM-2 blk 3B didn’t have an OTH surface to surface capability with its IR guidance. That would be a big addition to AShMs if so. And of course out to the horizon most anything the USN carries can put a hole in a ship.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know where the IR seeker came from? Was it a new development? Or is it (more likely in my opinion) an existing seeker from another system bolted on?

How does the logic work? How does the system decide which seeker has precedence over the other for guidance?
Click to expand...

It came out of MHIP (Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP), which was also intended to provide a supplemental IR seeker for Sparrow. (In Sparrow, it was on the tip of the nose under a blow-off cap, with the radar seeker behind it and looking through it.)

Without going into details, the Navy's public line about MHIP in Block IIIB was that it was intended "to counter specific proliferating electronic warfare systems in existing aircraft and anti-ship cruise missile threats." So, I get the impression it was an adjunct to help the radar seeker reject countermeasures. Techniques left as an exercise for the reader.

PS: Although SM-2 Block IVA also had a side-mounted IR seeker, my recollection is that this was NOT the same MHIP seeker as in the IIIB, just the same general configuration.
Click to expand...
IIRC the one in Block IVA was much more elaborate.
 
NMaude said:
TomS said:
Cooling the dome was a lot harder, IIRC, given the speed of Block IVA.
Click to expand...

That's why the terminal-seeker was under an ejectable cover till the last few seconds of flight.
Click to expand...

"The SM-2 Block IVA was not like the SM-2 Block IIIA which added the secondary side mounted IR seeker for improved terminal performance. The SM-2 Block IVA's IR seeker was a 'side looking' system able to provide interception guidance against ballistic missiles over an area 100 km by 50 km. So presumably its sensitivity was able to support independent detection and engagement of air targets over the Mk 99's illumination horizon. You can see from this picture just how much space the Block IVA’s IR seeker occupied."

 
I will have to dig around to find it but I have several brochures mentioning the SM-2 Block-IVA I got from Raytheon ~1998-1999 when I emailed them asking them if they had anything on the missile that was cleared for public release.

If I can find them and scan them is it okay if I post them in this thread?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom