US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
I'd take what we currently know about the SM-6 with a grain of salt as the missile that hit the Reuben James was an AS variant rather then the AA variant. We have no idea on any of the details other then it is based on the SM-6, And I dealt we will know any true details for quite some time considering how effective it has been shown to be and the US may like to keep the true capabilities to them selves.
I am curious if Australia may choose to acquire this new variant down the track (if the US allows), Though very very early appears to be a very promising asset to have.
I am curious if Australia may choose to acquire this new variant down the track (if the US allows), Though very very early appears to be a very promising asset to have.
SM-2 has had anti-ship for a long time (SM-1 as well?). It just hits a ship instead of an aircraft, well it will hit what ever has been illuminated.
Not really SM-6 following on it would seem to operate the same way (ie same missile, just make it hit a ship). Sm-6 being active though it a bit different guidance wise.
Sm-6/SM-2 while capable of hitting ships, probably wouldn't be your first or only choice in a conflict against another Navy ship.
Not really SM-6 following on it would seem to operate the same way (ie same missile, just make it hit a ship). Sm-6 being active though it a bit different guidance wise.
Sm-6/SM-2 while capable of hitting ships, probably wouldn't be your first or only choice in a conflict against another Navy ship.
LRASM conducts first VLS sea trail
I agree, the USN said this is being accomplished with software alone
In other news the LRASM had its first live sea trial launching from a VLS. Two previous land based VLS tests were also successful
Good news moving toward sea based deployment. Will be another major step toward offensive sea power
https://news.usni.org/2016/07/20/lrasm-scores-ship-launch-test
I agree, the USN said this is being accomplished with software alone
In other news the LRASM had its first live sea trial launching from a VLS. Two previous land based VLS tests were also successful
Good news moving toward sea based deployment. Will be another major step toward offensive sea power
https://news.usni.org/2016/07/20/lrasm-scores-ship-launch-test
^is the sm-6 modification for asuw really just a software mod?
in this USNI article: http://news.usni.org/2016/02/04/sec...nic-anti-ship-missile-for-cruisers-destroyers, a Raytheon source said gps guidance was added for the sm-6 asuw modification, so I assume a gps receiver unit had to be added to the guidance section of the sm-6...
in this USNI article: http://news.usni.org/2016/02/04/sec...nic-anti-ship-missile-for-cruisers-destroyers, a Raytheon source said gps guidance was added for the sm-6 asuw modification, so I assume a gps receiver unit had to be added to the guidance section of the sm-6...
GPS guidance wouldn't be effective for moving targets I don't think, so I'd take any assertions about SM-6's guidance package with a grain of salt. I've heard all kinds of things, that it's based on AMRAAM guidance software, etc etc.
As an interesting side note there was a dedicated strike variant of Standard that was developed for some time before being cancelled, or at least not continued. It was a RIM-66 variant called Land Attack Standard Missile, if anyone feels like having a read about it. Guidance was GPS/INS, I believe.
Not necessarily though. SM-3 has GPS guidance unit. And as SM-6 is active radar homing it'd be merely a case of lobbing it onto a set of GPS coordinates and letting the missile home onto a target in that vicinity - and it's fast enough that any target it'd be worth attacking would be unlikely to get beyond it's reach in terminal guidance
oldsig
Ahh yes, good point. Don't know why I was thinking of a solely GPS-based guidance system, excuse the brain fart.
yup, @oldsig explained it well: gps-assisted guidance is used for the midcourse phase, and arh guidance is used for the terminal phase -- in effect guidance quite similar to the harpoon block 2 method...
and yup, it was the sm-4 which was to be the LASM and it did indeed use gps-assisted ins guidance (basically a sm-2 with the rf seeker removed and a gps-aided ins system used similar to that used in the early LEAP and sm-3 flight tests; a good discussion of the sm-4 LASM can be found in the JHU APL tech digest vol.22 no.3, 2001: pdf can be found in the back issues section at Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest)...
and yup, it was the sm-4 which was to be the LASM and it did indeed use gps-assisted ins guidance (basically a sm-2 with the rf seeker removed and a gps-aided ins system used similar to that used in the early LEAP and sm-3 flight tests; a good discussion of the sm-4 LASM can be found in the JHU APL tech digest vol.22 no.3, 2001: pdf can be found in the back issues section at Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest)...
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Like colay, I'm still confused. I would have thought a faster missile could equally just punch a neat hole through the target given the velocity involved..?
I get how a single Mk48 could be that destructive given its ability to essentially snap a vessel in two but a supersonic missile striking above the waterline with a relatively small warhead? Genuinely perplexed.
Think about potential and kinetic energy. A good example is the days of sail and the solid iron shot used in naval cannon. HMS Victory is a 100 gun ship of the line and it's largest guns are 32lb cannon. A 32lb round cannon ball has a tremendous amount of kinetic energy when shot out of a cannon with slow burning gun powder. At Trafalgar when Nelson went through the French line his guns fired 32lb solid shot that went through the length of French ships literally destroying all before them.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I suppose a lot may hinge on the ability to impart the missile's considerable kinetic energy into the target vessel. The typical difference in terminal effects between NATO 5.56 x 45mm vs Soviet 7.62 x 39mm comes to mind (a clumsy analogy due to the vast differences in scale, but you get my drift). It would be interesting to see footage of an SM6 in the AShM role...
Perhaps it also depends on the target vessel's contents - is it SOP for all sinkex targets to be stripped completely bare, precluding the possibility of secondary explosions? If the SM6 managed to hit something that also goes bang then that might be a different story.
Last edited:
It's also possible that we don't know the parameters of the exercise - how the target was prepared, what the test was intended to demonstrate, etc etc. There could be a host of parameters we're not seeing. Personally I too find it hard to believe a single Standard would sink an empty hull - but if they were testing Standard's effects on a not-so-empty hull? That might be a different question.
EDIT: What you said Boagrius
r3mu511, thank you for the link! Never taken a look at that resource, looks fantastic
EDIT: What you said Boagrius
r3mu511, thank you for the link! Never taken a look at that resource, looks fantastic
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Haha, no worries. I get a bit edit-happy sometimes anywayWhat you said Boagrius
hehe yup, anyone with a tech interest in the work of merle tuve's section "T" and all that it spawned will absolutely love that jhuapl archive...r3mu511, thank you for the link! Never taken a look at that resource, looks fantastic
Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP) technology could represent a paradigm shift in how the Navy copes with the threat of massed missile salvoes. Instead of relying primarily on a limited magazine of costly missile interceptors, multiple HVPs fired from standard Mk 45 5-in deck guns on DDGs and CGs could engage incoming threats up to 30 miles distant at a bargain cost of US$25K-$50K.
When rail guns make their operational debut, it will fire the same HVP over vastly longer distances.
https://news.usni.org/2016/07/18/pe...uns-change-paradigm-missile-defense-navy-army
When rail guns make their operational debut, it will fire the same HVP over vastly longer distances.
https://news.usni.org/2016/07/18/pe...uns-change-paradigm-missile-defense-navy-army
Yes, I was reading about that last week. It was an idea that has come out of the SCO in the Pentagon. There is a video of a seminar where its boss is speaking with a Q & A session. Quite informative.