W80 warhead aboard the SM-3?

[Quiller]

DARPA is supposedly developing two missile variants of the SM-3 for what has been called the PGS, or Prompt Global Strike. The idea is to deliver conventional explosive warheads 2,300 miles from launch point (seaborne probably) at tactically identified targets using hypersonic glider delivery vehicles.

That said... I have heard mention of SM-3-N which would carry a W80 100kt nuclear warhead pretty specifically with America's defense pivot to Asia in mind. Within a day or so ago there were rumblings in the US Congress to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons to bolster America's defensive (offensive?) position in Asia. South Korea has balked, for now, at the idea of reintroducing Tac Nukes in their country -- probably B61 or B83 munitions aboard aircraft. So there is a lot of activity in the nuclear munition department right now.

The mention of SM-3-N's I have heard refer to China's expansion in the South China Sea vis-a-vis Vietnam, the Phillipines, Japan, and of course Taiwan. And yes even versus the US Navy as it might influence any conflict involving the mentioned nation states. Sizewise W-80's are extremely compact warheads (aka the "physics package") which could concievably be fitted onto an SM-3 modified for ground-to-ground deployment which DARPA is working on now.

The warhead weight is, of course, greater than the lightweight kinetic warhead intended to take out missiles in its ground-to-air design envelope... but within the range of a conventional ground-to-ground strike version DARPA seeks to develop, say 250 - 300 pound warhead. And an SM-3-N aboard a sub designed to launch Tomahawks (which can be configured to fire the SM-3) wouldn't need the 2300 mile range either.

Any thoughts?

 

[PCShogun]

Why deploy a Ballistic missile interceptor against a land target? Nuclear warheads on an interceptor missile is not a unique idea, but not against a surface target. Plenty of other weapons systems to do that with. A 100kt weapon is not exactly tactical.

TLAM-A (Tomahawk) has a range of 1500km - 2000km uses the same warhead, the W80. Trident II (D5) carrys the W-76 which has the same yield, or the heavier yield W88. The D5 is accurate enough for first strike, and if you are going to lob a nuke at someone like China, I guarentee you are going to want to throw more than one warhead. If you get to the point that nukes are flying, you are gonna go all in with your big earth movers.

 

[Quiller]

Why deploy a Ballistic missile interceptor against a land target? Nuclear warheads on an interceptor missile is not a unique idea, but not against a surface target. Plenty of other weapons systems to do that with. A 100kt weapon is not exactly tactical.

TLAM-A (Tomahawk) has a range of 1500km - 2000km uses the same warhead, the W80. Trident II (D5) carrys the W-76 which has the same yield, or the heavier yield W88. The D5 is accurate enough for first strike, and if you are going to lob a nuke at someone like China, I guarentee you are going to want to throw more than one warhead. If you get to the point that nukes are flying, you are gonna go all in with your big earth movers.

Tomahawk cruise missiles are slow, easy to take out targets with modern anti-aircraft weapons. The W80 is actually a variable-yield weapon that can be set in advance from 5 to 150kt so it can range from tactical to more strategic uses.

Besides I didn't say I was in favor of such a weapon... And besides like it or not DARPA is working on using parts of this SM-3 platform for ground to ground hits on high value, short-time-to-act targets. The SM-3 platform is already working and already has compatible launch systems on Aegis ships, for instance. The SM-3 platform, if successfully adopted, would likely outperform US cruise missiles now in the inventory, expecially the Tomahawk.

The US should develop modern supersonic cruise missiles like the Bramos -- we just don't want to spend the money. With China looking to expand its blue-water Navy reach, such high speed missiles aboard US ships and aircraft have much more relevant uses than they did, say, ten years ago.

 

[Quiller]

Why deploy a Ballistic missile interceptor against a land target? Nuclear warheads on an interceptor missile is not a unique idea, but not against a surface target. Plenty of other weapons systems to do that with. A 100kt weapon is not exactly tactical.

TLAM-A (Tomahawk) has a range of 1500km - 2000km uses the same warhead, the W80. Trident II (D5) carrys the W-76 which has the same yield, or the heavier yield W88. The D5 is accurate enough for first strike, and if you are going to lob a nuke at someone like China, I guarentee you are going to want to throw more than one warhead. If you get to the point that nukes are flying, you are gonna go all in with your big earth movers.

Incidentally, the range of the proposed SN-3 booster stack/glide conventional-weapon warhead configuration DARPA is working on has an expected range of 2,300 miles. You read that correctly, it is miles, not kilometers. This would operate more like a ballistic missile than a cruise missile.

 

[My2Cents]

Incidentally, the range of the proposed SN-3 booster stack/glide conventional-weapon warhead configuration DARPA is working on has an expected range of 2,300 miles. You read that correctly, it is miles, not kilometers. This would operate more like a ballistic missile than a cruise missile.

Is that the 'SM-3' or the 'SN-3'?

Using the SM-3 just doesn’t make sense. The 4th stage of the SM-3, the KKV, weights less than 10kg, the W80 weights 130kg, so it doesn’t seem possible to swap them and get it to work. Even if they are just using the first 2 stages and replacing the rest, there is not enough energy available there for the performance. It has to be based on some other missile.

Or maybe they meant that is resembles the SM-3 with its strap-on boosters?

Wish you could post links so we could check the source document. Please drop back and do so when you hit the magic number of posts.

 

[Quiller]

Is that the 'SM-3' or the 'SN-3'?

Using the SM-3 just doesn’t make sense. The 4th stage of the SM-3, the KKV, weights less than 10kg, the W80 weights 130kg, so it doesn’t seem possible to swap them and get it to work. Even if they are just using the first 2 stages and replacing the rest, there is not enough energy available there for the performance. It has to be based on some other missile.

Or maybe they meant that is resembles the SM-3 with its strap-on boosters?

Wish you could post links so we could check the source document. Please drop back and do so when you hit the magic number of posts.

Good point... when able will post links to source docs. As a policy defense analyst with a strategic think tank, however, some of this stuff is word of mouth around a conference table. Yes I know that's not good sourcing per se... which is why I specifically asked IF ANYONE ELSE HEARD ABOUT IT. Don't mean to shout, but I too am looking for independent corroboration of the ideas.

 

[Quiller]

Is that the 'SM-3' or the 'SN-3'?

Using the SM-3 just doesn’t make sense. The 4th stage of the SM-3, the KKV, weights less than 10kg, the W80 weights 130kg, so it doesn’t seem possible to swap them and get it to work. Even if they are just using the first 2 stages and replacing the rest, there is not enough energy available there for the performance. It has to be based on some other missile.

Or maybe they meant that is resembles the SM-3 with its strap-on boosters?

Wish you could post links so we could check the source document. Please drop back and do so when you hit the magic number of posts.

BTW, the DARPA conventional explosive payload is tagged at 90 kg. So, I agree with you that falls short of the 130 kg you say the W80 warhead physics package weighs, but at the same time is significantly more than the 10kg booster you refer to. Where does the discrepancy come from?

 

[My2Cents]

BTW, the DARPA conventional explosive payload is tagged at 90 kg. So, I agree with you that falls short of the 130 kg you say the W80 warhead physics package weighs, but at the same time is significantly more than the 10kg booster you refer to. Where does the discrepancy come from?

Somehow we are talking apples and oranges here.

The SM-3 (RIM-161 Standard Missile 3) is a ship-based missile system used by the US Navy to intercept short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles as a part of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. The 4th stage on the SM-3 is a kinetic kill vehicle (KKV) called the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP), there is no conventional explosive payload. Not sure what the equivalent explosive yield is for a head-on impact with a ballistic missile is, but could be what you are referring to?

Or could you be referring to a version of the SM-2?

Honestly, both the SM-3 and the SM-2 are way too small for the proposed range and payload capabilities. A system based on something like the MGM-31C Pershing II, which is 5x larger, might be possible.

 

[Quiller]

Somehow we are talking apples and oranges here.

The SM-3 (RIM-161 Standard Missile 3) is a ship-based missile system used by the US Navy to intercept short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles as a part of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. The 4th stage on the SM-3 is a kinetic kill vehicle (KKV) called the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP), there is no conventional explosive payload. Not sure what the equivalent explosive yield is for a head-on impact with a ballistic missile is, but could be what you are referring to?

Or could you be referring to a version of the SM-2?

Honestly, both the SM-3 and the SM-2 are way too small for the proposed range and payload capabilities. A system based on something like the MGM-31C Pershing II, which is 5x larger, might be possible.

Let me explain. DARPA (the prime Pentagon weapons and technology research organization) has been actively working on adapting the SM-3 missile for what used to be called Prompt Global Strike. The program was/is called ARCLIGHT. The point was to ADAPT the SM-3 Block II booster stack system to be able to deliver an explosive warhead anywhere in the world on extremely short notice for high value but time critical moving targets. It is envisioned as a pinpoint munition to take out, say, an Osama bin Laden type figure... or maybe hit a rolling missile and TEL spotted by an unarmed drone in the desert that can't shoot at it itself. The final stage is envisioned as a hypersonic glide warhead with a 100 - 200 pound explosive payload.

The reason DARPA is seeking to adapt the SM-3 is precisely because it is already fitted shipboard and the launch systems (the boxes) and launch stack have proven reliable. And they don't have to re-invent the wheel on building a completely new missile or completely new launch pod setup. That way they save tons of money which isn't available right now anyway. They want to spend a little research money and save the costs of building boosters and launchers on the back end.

One mention of this can be found at (I reread the forum rules and have decided to self edit out my attempt to sneak a link in here, because I think it may violate the rule of linking to an outside forum or blog.) Therefore, if you check DARPA's official website and search for "Arclight or Arc Light" you should get a hit.

I'm saying I had heard loose talk about adapting it to put a lightweight nuke on the global-strike version. There are LOTS of reasons why that may not be a good idea, because the system would operate like a ballistic missile.... and every time we launched one against a terrorist... the Russians might assume it was a nuclear-tipped bird and respond to that threat. I was just wondering if anyone else had heard about the nuclear part.

A missile the size of the Pershing 1 or 2 wouldn't be needed because, as a shipboard weapon, it can be positioned within 1500 - 2000 miles of just about anywhere and not specifically be in a warzone when it does so.

 

[kato]

ArcLight isn't so much a SM-3 adaption as development of a little brother to the HTV-2 suborbital glider which would be mounted on the SM-3. The SM-3 merely serves to boost it out of the atmosphere at the necessary speed to drop back into a controlled glide towards its target; any other missile capable of boosting such a payload into exoatmospheric heights would do.

The concept is deeply flawed in that it's pushing technological limits too far. HTV-2, the proper, big version launched on Minotaur IV (i.e. Peacekeeper) has been a solid failure so far on both launches. ArcLight itself is purely theoretical, and intends to push technological limits even further by requiring a scramjet implementation in an even smaller, more vulnerable reentry glider.

 

[Quiller]

ArcLight isn't so much a SM-3 adaption as development of a little brother to the HTV-2 suborbital glider which would be mounted on the SM-3. The SM-3 merely serves to boost it out of the atmosphere at the necessary speed to drop back into a controlled glide towards its target; any other missile capable of boosting such a payload into exoatmospheric heights would do.

The concept is deeply flawed in that it's pushing technological limits too far. HTV-2, the proper, big version launched on Minotaur IV (i.e. Peacekeeper) has been a solid failure so far on both launches. ArcLight itself is purely theoretical, and intends to push technological limits even further by requiring a scramjet implementation in an even smaller, more vulnerable reentry glider.

Yes but I think "any other missile" would offer exhorbitant costs to put it on a ship at this particular time. Anyway, perhaps no one else has heard about this because the idea may be too premature and fraught with the problems you suggest.

As I think I mentioned in a earlier reply in this thread -- what the US probably needs is a faster more technologically developed cruise missile, a la the Brahmos jointly developed by Russia and India.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As I think I mentioned in a earlier reply in this thread -- what the US probably needs is a faster more technologically developed cruise missile, a la the Brahmos jointly developed by Russia and India.

why would they bother with Brahmos? The developments over the last 5 years have been about hypersonic strike - up to 8 times faster than Brahmos (depending on which test bed you look at)

The reason why the US, Japan, various NATO countries, even Poland, have been testing hypersonics in australia and red dirt USA is because hypersonics are the successor to other cruise missile systems

very very few countries can track, let alone track and engage a hypersonic solution

people get excited about Brahmos, but you need to look at the accompanying system issues that come with it- Its good for Russia, less effective but still good for India, not so good for anyone else as no one else has the requisite C2 structure to fire, target, track, terminate

weapons systems are about systems - they're not about platforms. Brahmos as a platform and/or system is far from the same as Yakhont as an integrated system (Russia). At the end of the day why bother with supersonics or cruise strike developments when you know that its the hypersonics that your enemies are not even remotely capable of threat managing?

 

[Quiller]

why would they bother with Brahmos? The developments over the last 5 years have been about hypersonic strike - up to 8 times faster than Brahmos (depending on which test bed you look at)

The reason why the US, Japan, various NATO countries, even Poland, have been testing hypersonics in australia and red dirt USA is because hypersonics are the successor to other cruise missile systems

very very few countries can track, let alone track and engage a hypersonic solution

people get excited about Brahmos, but you need to look at the accompanying system issues that come with it- Its good for Russia, less effective but still good for India, not so good for anyone else as no one else has the requisite C2 structure to fire, target, track, terminate

weapons systems are about systems - they're not about platforms. Brahmos as a platform and/or system is far from the same as Yakhont as an integrated system (Russia). At the end of the day why bother with supersonics or cruise strike developments when you know that its the hypersonics that your enemies are not even remotely capable of threat managing?

Maybe because nobody seems to have demonstrated a successful hypersonic test bed yet? Or have I missed something. Same with Lasers and Plasma weapons. Yes, lots of R&D and testing and such... but fielding? A potential shooting war with, say, China could erupt in the next five years. All the hypersonic delivery vehicles aren't going to matter if they don't exist in deployed fashion. Sometimes its is worthwhile to capitalize on existing technology. Granted, the F-22 Raptor is now experiencing some significant issues... that being said, shutting down the assembly line because 20 or 30 years from now... probably AFTER the next big regional war.... UAV's will be the thing... doesn't always make sense. I am all aboard all advanced tech... but if it isn't ready when the next event breaks out, it doesn't matter, does it?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Maybe because nobody seems to have demonstrated a successful hypersonic test bed yet? Or have I missed something. Same with Lasers and Plasma weapons. Yes, lots of R&D and testing and such... but fielding? A potential shooting war with, say, China could erupt in the next five years. All the hypersonic delivery vehicles aren't going to matter if they don't exist in deployed fashion. Sometimes its is worthwhile to capitalize on existing technology. Granted, the F-22 Raptor is now experiencing some significant issues... that being said, shutting down the assembly line because 20 or 30 years from now... probably AFTER the next big regional war.... UAV's will be the thing... doesn't always make sense. I am all aboard all advanced tech... but if it isn't ready when the next event breaks out, it doesn't matter, does it?

and there is no compelling reason for anyone outside of India to look at Brahmos.

its about the system - not the platform

as India discovered itself when it partnered with Russia on Brahmos. - a technology set that the US surpassed in the 60's - and with a complete target, track and terminate chain.

 

[Quiller]

and there is no compelling reason for anyone outside of India to look at Brahmos.

its about the system - not the platform

as India discovered itself when it partnered with Russia on Brahmos. - a technology set that the US surpassed in the 60's - and with a complete target, track and terminate chain.

With what weapon? We are still using the Tomahawk... wheezer system. What cruise missile has the US deployed since the '60's still in service that matches the Brahmos performance? Or the Yakhonts? Just because we "should be able to do it with advanced technology" is meaningless without actually developing and deploying the weapon system. What am I missing here? Everyone replying to this thread says these other systems are flawed or outdated. But no one has actually identified a current state-of-the-art ship-to-ship or ship-to-ground missile deployed by western navies. If the "other guy" has enough "old" tech to sink my ships... it's over in the combat zone.

Please name the western state-of-the-art cruise missile now aboard US ships that matches these foreign missiles, old tech nor not. Everyone keeps wanting to differentiate between the "system" and the "platform." The BEST C3 system in the world or space or on ships or ashore is worth diddly-squat if there isn't a suitable platform to execute the kill order. All that means is the system can locate, identify, track.... whoops... no platform to terminate. Oh heck.

 

[gf0012-aust]

With what weapon? We are still using the Tomahawk... wheezer system. What cruise missile has the US deployed since the '60's still in service that matches the Brahmos performance? Or the Yakhonts? Just because we "should be able to do it with advanced technology" is meaningless without actually developing and deploying the weapon system. What am I missing here? Everyone replying to this thread says these other systems are flawed or outdated. But no one has actually identified a current state-of-the-art ship-to-ship or ship-to-ground missile deployed by western navies. If the "other guy" has enough "old" tech to sink my ships... it's over in the combat zone.

Please name the western state-of-the-art cruise missile now aboard US ships that matches these foreign missiles, old tech nor not. Everyone keeps wanting to differentiate between the "system" and the "platform." The BEST C3 system in the world or space or on ships or ashore is worth diddly-squat if there isn't a suitable platform to execute the kill order. All that means is the system can locate, identify, track.... whoops... no platform to terminate. Oh heck.

nice speech - brahmos is a threat to who? what? where?

supersonic cruise missiles or cruise missiles are not a boogey threat.

and extant systems can terminate "that" threat - despite the hysteria generated by some.

every year in multiple exercises and trials "we" train against and/or for it.

vigorously gnashing the teeth doesn't alter how we deal with it, how we deal with future force constructs etc....

its not a platform debate of "like for like". that's APA logic

please note the thread title - if you want to continue to go of topic then start another thread.

 

[My2Cents]

With what weapon? We are still using the Tomahawk... wheezer system. What cruise missile has the US deployed since the '60's still in service that matches the Brahmos performance? Or the Yakhonts? Just because we "should be able to do it with advanced technology" is meaningless without actually developing and deploying the weapon system. What am I missing here? Everyone replying to this thread says these other systems are flawed or outdated. But no one has actually identified a current state-of-the-art ship-to-ship or ship-to-ground missile deployed by western navies. If the "other guy" has enough "old" tech to sink my ships... it's over in the combat zone.

Please name the western state-of-the-art cruise missile now aboard US ships that matches these foreign missiles, old tech nor not. Everyone keeps wanting to differentiate between the "system" and the "platform." The BEST C3 system in the world or space or on ships or ashore is worth diddly-squat if there isn't a suitable platform to execute the kill order. All that means is the system can locate, identify, track.... whoops... no platform to terminate. Oh heck.

Well let’s see …

• The Tomahawk has 6x the range of the Brahmos, a 50% larger warhead, and is half the size, but only 1/3 the speed. The extra speed is not worth much if you are dead before you get in range.
• Tomahawks use the standard VLS launch system and can be swapped with SM-2, SM-3, and ESSM quad packs as needed. Brahmos requires a dedicated launch system which eats up a lot of scarce deck space. Typically a ship with Tomahawk missiles will have 3x to 5x as many as one equipped with Brahmos missiles, making it much more likely to saturate the target’s defenses.
• Brahmos had a larger radar signature than Tomahawk, and a huge thermal signature, much easier to spot. The US Navy has been practicing shooting down missiles like the Brahmos for 30 years, they don’t seem very worried. Something like 1000 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been launched in anger, how many have been shot down?

Having the speed of the Brahmos is nice in the anti-ship role, but it is hardly a panacea. In the land attack role, except over extremely flat terrain, high speed and low altitude don’t mix well, forcing the Brahmos to fly higher than the Tomahawk and therefore more vulnerable to detection and engagement. Combined with their much longer range allowing the approach to take place from unanticipated directions. Tomahawks have frequently been able to take advantage of blind spots to sneak into very close range of the target before being spotted, Brahmos cannot do this.

Doesn’t mean that the Tomahawk is always better, or will always be good enough. The US is working on both stealthier subsonic and hypersonic systems when they are needed. Odds are that these systems will be the same size as the Tomahawk, but with less range or smaller warheads. Switching to something the size of Brahmos would require redesigning most of the ships in fleet.

 

[AegisFC]

With what weapon? We are still using the Tomahawk... wheezer system.

Let me guess, you actually think the version in current service is the same one that was introduced in 1983?

Name another cruise missile that has the range, is such a compact package that also offers a decent size warhead and has the mission planning capabilities of the current generation of Tomahawk missiles?

 

[kato]

TacTom? There's a general suspicion that KEPD350 and SCALP have a similar (classified) actual range/payload envelope.

And both TacTom and its Euro counterparts aren't really "compact". If you want compact look at ASMP-A.

 

[My2Cents]

TacTom? There's a general suspicion that KEPD350 and SCALP have a similar (classified) actual range/payload envelope.

And both TacTom and its Euro counterparts aren't really "compact". If you want compact look at ASMP-A.

All 3 of those are air launch only, not ground or ship launched. Not sure if it is fair to compair them to Tomahawk and Brahmos.