SM-3s

[StobieWan]

If the USG owns the IP for the missile then yes it can. Doesn't happen very often though.

It's pretty much what happened with Colt on M16 manufacture - caused a minor furore as I believe Colt started muttering about their design drawings not being updated but effectively manufacture just got handed to FN a long time ago. Helps keep the contractors sharp I suppose

 

[gf0012-aust]

If the USG owns the IP for the missile then yes it can. Doesn't happen very often though.

Have seen State do some bizarre things wrt IP - quite a few don't realise that the IP lies with USG and not the vendor when FMS kicks in.

 

[fretburner]

Assuming that the SM-3 block 2B makes significant changes in the design, then much of the Raytheon design may not be relevant.

Besides, the Prime Contractor is often not the one who actually builds the pieces, just the one who oversees the process, and maybe assembles the final product. Hopefully the prime has people experienced enough to spot when subcontractor designs are diverging or failing to perform. Even Raytheon worked this way as the prime.

Lastly, if you keep using the same prime then you are likely to get stuck with a NIH philosophy that blocks anything other than incremental improvements in performance (lighter parts and faster electronics for the most part), because they know how it has to be done. If you want a fundamental rethink of the concept (clean sheet of paper) you almost have to get an outsider. And frankly, neither Lockheed or Boeing would really qualify.

As examples I would offer the classic example, the Sidewinder missile, which was not developed by industry, but as a private project at the Naval Air Weapons Station. Another would be the ‘Land Warrior’, which, while it eventually failed, only achieved a critical weight reduction, performance improvement, and cost reduction AFTER it was transferred from Hughes Aerospace to a Silicon Valley startup.
:coffee

From what I've read so far, the Block 2B's most prominent feature/requirement is "early intercept". I believe this is killing the ballistic missile during it's boost phase or before it goes into the exo-atmosphere.

This will surely mean a different interceptor -- perhaps something similar to a PAC3's or THAAD's.

But my understanding is that, this will still be essentially an SM-3... meaning, it will be guided by the same radars/sensors, and same rockets, etc.

Or are all these mere speculations on my part and it could be an entirely new missile which could do both early intercept and exo-atmospheric kill?

Have seen State do some bizarre things wrt IP - quite a few don't realise that the IP lies with USG and not the vendor when FMS kicks in.

Can countries buy any US military hardware outside an FMS?
Who owns the IP when you do licensed production?

 

[My2Cents]

From what I've read so far, the Block 2B's most prominent feature/requirement is "early intercept". I believe this is killing the ballistic missile during it's boost phase or before it goes into the exo-atmosphere.

“Early intercept” means that the SM-3 will intercept the target between the end of the boost phase and before missile warhead(s) separate from the body. It is a shorthand for “early mid-course interception”, and is definitely an exo-atmospheric kill. There is significant doubts as to whether or not this is practical due to the narrow interception window, which could be easily narrowed even more by separating the warheads as soon as possible. The ‘early intercept’ will also require a massive upgrade in observation capabilities to spot and confirm/reject missile launches, as opposed to the missiles themselves, to be an effective tactic.

See SM-3 Antimissile System Receives Key Backing at Pentagon | Global Security Newswire | NTI

Boost phase interception is a panacea concept that is only possible if you can put your interception capability in the country from which the target missiles will be launched (tail chase scenario, the interceptor is likely to be bigger than the target ballistic missile), very fast (laser), or in low orbit space directly above them (For IRBMs and ICBMs only, unless you have lasers. It could require over 100 of ‘battle stations’ to insure one is in position when needed).

This will surely mean a different interceptor -- perhaps something similar to a PAC3's or THAAD's.

PAC3 is a tactical BMD and THAAD is a theater BMD, both are endo-atmospheric system. i.e. are designed to work in the atmosphere. SM-3 and the GMD (Ground based Missile Defense) are long ranged systems designed for exo-atmospheric interception and use a KKV (designed by Raytheon). The GMD is the system that would have had an ‘early intercept’ capability. The real argument seems to be that the SM-3 Block 2B can take over the role of the GMD, which was to be deployed around 2020, if the funding for the GMD development is terminated and diverted to the SM-3 Block 2B instead.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can countries buy any US military hardware outside an FMS?
Who owns the IP when you do licensed production?

countries still have to get through various gates. they just can't buy US weapons because they want to. States role is to make sure that there are no violations of US law

 

[fretburner]

“Early intercept” means that the SM-3 will intercept the target between the end of the boost phase and before missile warhead(s) separate from the body. It is a shorthand for “early mid-course interception”, and is definitely an exo-atmospheric kill.

Roger that.
I guess the challenge is for better sensors/guidance, and have a much faster and longer ranged SM-3. Perhaps the USG really just want to see if the other players, such as Boeing with their experience in GMD, and LockMart can come up with a better missile than Raytheon. As you've pointed out, this is most likely going to have to work with, or replaced the GMD.

countries still have to get through various gates. they just can't buy US weapons because they want to. States role is to make sure that there are no violations of US law

So the company like Raytheon would still own the IP, but anyone has to buy it would have to go through the USG -- FMS or otherwise. And companies better make sure they involved the USG when they want to sell or market their products, or risk being raided and shut down.

Very similar to commercial thingies, except stricter

 

[colay]

Another milestone for the AEGIS/SM 3 combo. Some good news particularly in the light of North Korea's recent advances in rocketry and nuke warhead tech.

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology/rtn13_sm3_ftm20/q

Navy Uses Raytheon SM-3 and Space Sensor to Destroy Missile Target

In a first-of-its-kind test, a Raytheon Standard Missile-3 Block IA fired from the USS Lake Erie destroyed a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) target using a remote cue from a satellite sensor system.