What flavor of RIM-162 is this?

[Hanse]

What flavor of RIM-162 is this? ???



http://www.armyrecognition.com/mspo_2012_show_daily_news_pictures_video_uk/raytheon_evolved_sea_sparrow_missile_essm_modernizes_polish_medium_range_air_defense_system.html


Hmmm. . .



Seems odd they'd make the front end full diameter given they've gone the opposite direction with SLAMRAAM-ER.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Block 2 ESSM

 

[Hanse]

Any idea why, with SLAMRAAM-ER they kept the narrower AIM-120 seeker section but then went full-diameter with ESSM Block 2? Seems like it would cost them in performance with higher weight and more drag (vs ESSM Block 1). ???

 

[TomS]

Possibly antenna diameter, which should translate into better resolution.

 

[Moose]

The upgraded SLAMRAAM-ER still uses an off-the-shelf AMRAAM seeker (and guidance package). It gets mid-course guidance from a datalink, then switches on the seeker for terminal intercept. Just like the AMRAAM seeker was scaled up for SM-6, the Block II seeker is more than just an "off the shelf" slammer front end. The ESSM Block II seeker includes a dual-mode Active/Semi-Active X-Band capability with enhancements to engage the new generation of threat missiles we're seeing. But it's also heavier and more expensive.

 

[Hobbes]

Any idea why, with SLAMRAAM-ER they kept the narrower AIM-120 seeker section but then went full-diameter with ESSM Block 2? Seems like it would cost them in performance with higher weight and more drag (vs ESSM Block 1). ???

The back end of ESSM block 1 has the same diameter as that of block 2. So the frontal area remains the same, I suspect drag remains the same too. The only change is that some of the drag force is applied in a different place: on the nose cone for block 2, at the diameter step for block 1.

 

[Hanse]

Any idea why, with SLAMRAAM-ER they kept the narrower AIM-120 seeker section but then went full-diameter with ESSM Block 2? Seems like it would cost them in performance with higher weight and more drag (vs ESSM Block 1). ???

The back end of ESSM block 1 has the same diameter as that of block 2. So the frontal area remains the same, I suspect drag remains the same too. The only change is that some of the drag force is applied in a different place: on the nose cone for block 2, at the diameter step for block 1.

More weight means a higher AOA required for a given turn, which means more drag. Given the weight increase is up front will make it only more so. (On the other hand, more area up front works in the opposite direction. . . wonder what the net is. On the other other hand, previously the narrower forebody would act somewhat as an aerospike "breaking the trail" as it were. Now it gets hit in the face across the full diameter.)

 

[Hanse]

Hmmm. Found this while organizing my archive.

 

[fredymac]

Test firings of block 2 ESSM to verify VLS and canister launch safety. No targets involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuUbLU-DdgA

 

[hark40]

A "silly" question. Any reason why the film was shot with the sun at such a location? On both of them there was footage shot into the sun. Was it just coincidence (unlikely with a test flight which would be timed with a certain amount of precision especially as the second shot the missile transited the sun), or was it purely to get a back lit subject (missile and smoke trail) for propulsive analysis of some sort? (Even though that was not the intent of these flights, but if something went wrong....)

 

[kqcke for you]

Is there any known plan for something like an ESSM-ER? Something making use of a full tactical or strike length cell with a boost Stage? Now for the most optimal flight one should probaly also change the propellent design in the upperstage the right flight profil but many is not infinite.

 

[NMaude]

Is there any known plan for something like an ESSM-ER?

A good question, maybe mount it on a Mk-72 21" booster with a modified adapter clamp, same thing but with the VL-ASROC's Mk-114 launch booster (14.1" in diameter), or perhaps the RGM-84's launch-booster.

 

[TomS]

A good question, maybe mount it on a Mk-72 21" booster with a modified adapter clamp, same thing but with the VL-ASROC's Mk-114 launch booster (14.1" in diameter), or perhaps the RGM-84's launch-booster.

The only way it would make any sense at all is for the booster to be the same 10-inch diameter as the missile, so it still quadpacks. If you're using a full cell for one ESSM, you might as well use an SM6.

I've never heard of a proposal to do something like that (the existing Mk 25 canister isn't long enough) but it's probably technically feasible. It would be an awfully long skinny stack though.

 

[Hanse]

Is there any known plan for something like an ESSM-ER? Something making use of a full tactical or strike length cell with a boost Stage? Now for the most optimal flight one should probaly also change the propellent design in the upperstage the right flight profil but many is not infinite.

I've been obsessed with the idea for sometime. (Doodles.)

 

[NMaude]

Although it was posted eight months ago Defence TV has put out an interesting short video about the ESSM:

The RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) is a medium-range, all-weather, surface-to-air missile designed for use by naval ships to protect against anti-ship missiles and aircraft. It was developed jointly by the United States and ten other NATO member countries, and it is currently in service with over 20 navies worldwide.

The ESSM is designed to be launched from vertical launch systems (VLS) and can engage targets at a range of up to 50 kilometers (31 miles). It uses semi-active radar guidance and has a high-speed, agile maneuverability that allows it to intercept maneuvering threats, such as sea-skimming anti-ship missiles. The missile is also equipped with a blast fragmentation warhead to neutralize its targets upon impact. Its modular design allows for easy upgrades and enhancements to keep pace with evolving threats. Overall, the RIM-162 ESSM is a critical component of modern naval defense systems, providing advanced capabilities to protect against a wide range of airborne and missile threats.

 

[NMaude]

Since the USN has test-fired from a Super Hornet an SM-6 (Without its' Mk-72 launch-booster) I wonder if we'll see the ESSM Block II test-fired in an air-launch? I suppose it would be the AIM-162 ESM aka Sparrow-IV.

 

[kqcke for you]

Do we even know what the max range of ESSM Block 2 is ? Heard everything from 40-80km. Would be interresting to know to know If a "er Version" makes sense as ESSM is expensive as fck.

 

[NMaude]

Would be interresting to know to know If a "er Version" makes sense as ESSM is expensive as fck.

A Block II ESSM-ER IMO would be a good idea especially for warships that are too small to accomodate the Standard especially the variants fitted with a Mk-72 booster. IMO an ER version would use an existing launch booster with a suitable adapter to it to the ESSM, there are several possible launch boosters - a modified Mk-134 (The rocket-motor used by the ESSM) using a higher burn-rate propellant with a boost only burn-profile and using TVC for steering (Like the Mk-114), a VL-ASROC Mk-114 launch-booster or the A/B44G-2/3 which has a burn time of 2.9s and 12,000Lb thrust.

 

[Cjc]

I've been obsessed with the idea for sometime. (Doodles.)

View attachment 713604

That looks pretty cool, what are the dule pack ones? Sm-2?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Since the USN has test-fired from a Super Hornet an SM-6 (Without its' Mk-72 launch-booster) I wonder if we'll see the ESSM Block II test-fired in an air-launch? I suppose it would be the AIM-162 ESM aka Sparrow-IV.

I'd expect an air launched SLAMRAAM-ER (AMRAAM seeker on the fat ESSM rocket) before that, so some variation of AIM-120. What letter suffix it'd get is a good question, but -E seems to be the next available.

Same overall idea as the AARGM-ER. Existing seeker with new booster.