SM-6 Cleared for Export

colay1

Member
The missile's versatility makes it attractive to the allied navies mentioned. I'm trying to figure out a scenario where the US would deny the full capability to an ally, specially when maximizing interoperability in joint operations would seem to be the direction going forward.


https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/sm...tralia-japan-korea-early-customers#more-23191

Raytheon’s Standard Missile 6 has been cleared by the Pentagon for international sales and a trio of potential Pacific nations are likely the first customers.

SM-6 — currently in limited initial production – is a key weapon in the both the Navy’s emerging distributed lethality concept and the service’s Naval Integrated Fire Control Counter-Air (NIFC-CA) for its ability to strike air, surface and limited ballistic missile targets.

Of the five international Aegis combat system operators, three are in the process to have the upgraded combat system to field the SM-6 – Australia, Japan and South Korea...

While the three countries all could field the SM-6 its unclear if each country will be allowed to use all three modes of the missile – anti-air warfare, anti-surface and a limited ballistic missile defense capability.

While the missiles will all have the inherent capability for all three missions, the U.S. government will determine which of those features will be activated for international sales, Smith said.

Over the last several years, Japan, Australia and South Korea have made defense buys that could conceivably share targeting information and other data easily with U.S. forces that could create a much more linked network of allies in the Western Pacific.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
While the three countries all could field the SM-6 its unclear if each country will be allowed to use all three modes of the missile – anti-air warfare, anti-surface and a limited ballistic missile defense capability.

While the missiles will all have the inherent capability for all three missions, the U.S. government will determine which of those features will be activated for international sales, Smith said.
.
I imagine the ballistic missile capability might be politically sensitive for some countries.

Perhaps its a reasonable precaution given the state of allies like Turkey as a broad and general rule. But why would you buy a limited missile in that case?
 

tonnyc

Well-Known Member
Umm, that's ballistic missile defense capability, not ballistic missile capability. Your point questioning why is acknowledged, although defense purchases are not just about getting the goods, but also about making a political statement. But the calculation about which country will get ballistic missiles and which country will get ballistic missile defense is different. I don't see the US selling ballistic missiles to Turkey at this point in time, but selling ballistic missile defense may still be on the table.
 

colay1

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Where did Turkey come from? My question concerned Japan, South Korea and Australia, 3 staunch allies, the first two who are in a rough neighborhood that justifies a BMD capability.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Um, SM 6 is primarily an anti air weapon, effectively an updated and ER SM 2. The major ABM weapon is SM-3. While SM-6 (dual) has some anti surface capability and has been tested at the very terminal stage of a ballistic missile reentry in a limited way, that's not what it's designed for and relying on it as your first line defence against a ballistic missile would be fraught. If Korea, or Aust wanted a seaborne BMD they would go for SM-3; and I suspect the US might well agree to provide it to either if asked as they have already to Japan; although in Australia's case at least it hasn't yet become an issue. Given the state of play with North Korea, the South Koreans may well have it on their acquisition horizon. That doesn't mean, however, that they might not buy SM-6, but it would be primarily for its AAW capability as there are some real advantages over SM-2.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
SM6 is able to intercept ABM as well.
Yes; and I realised I had been a bit simplistic in the first version of the post that's why I amended it. However, the point remains; at this stage of its development a customer would buy SM-6 as an AA weapon which has some limited other uses. That might change in the future as the weapon, and the software to control it, are further developed; but it's the current situation, and anyway it's still an attractive buy for that purpose. And, of course, the US still get to decide what parts of the software they release or with hold, even if they do provide the missile! I'm certainly not clear from what's appeared in the press what is to be available.
 

colay1

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Give them time but the wheels are moving. Japanese and South Korean AEGIS fleets are upgrading to full AAW/BMD capabilities with Baseline 9.0 of the combat system.

Japan and South Korea Beef Up Anti-Missile Defenses

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin has signed a $490 million dollar contract to provide upgrades to Japanese and South Korean naval destroyers. Once completed, the ships will be capable of shooting down North Korean ballistic missiles.

Under the contract, Lockheed Martin will provide upgrades to two Japanese and three South Korean destroyers. Currently, the destroyers are equipped with older versions of the Aegis radar system that only allow the ships to engage aerial targets.

Aegis was originally developed in the 1970s to defend carrier battle groups from massed Soviet anti-ship missile attacks. The system, which originally consisted of the SPY-1 radar and a software package, has been continually improved over the decades to meet evolving threats. The update will bring all five up to the so-called "Baseline 9" standard, giving them the capability to shoot down ballistic missiles.

The most current version, Baseline 9, can intercept low-flying cruise missiles, aircraft, anti-ship missiles, high-flying aircraft, and even ballistic missiles and satellites in low Earth orbit. A special version of the Standard missile, the SM-3, was developed just for this purpose. Baseline 9 can even allow ships to attack other ships with the SM-6 air defense missile.

more...
 

r3mu511

New Member
^from the Popular Mechanics article (emphasis mine):

Japan has six ships equipped with the Aegis combat system. The four destroyers of the Kongo class were heavily inspired by the U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and as such, are equipped with Aegis and are fully capable of engaging ballistic missiles. The two destroyers of the Atago class, however, are not. Japan's Baseline 9 upgrades will make the two Atago ships as capable as the rest of Japan's Aegis ships.
aegis baseline 9 will actually make the Atagos much more capable than the Kongos as the version of aegis bmd used in the Kongos is based on a variant of BMD v3.6.x/4.x which is not capable of performing aaw functions while they are in bmd mode...

baseline 9 otoh, will have BMD 5.0-CU which includes the MMSP (aegis multi-mission signal processor) and IAMD mode (integrated air and missile defense mode) which will allow the ships to perform aaw and bmd simultaneously...

(ref: see Congressional Research Service report RL33745 "Navy Aegis BMD Program" dated 10/25/2016; also the aegis bmd archived update pdfs on mostlymissiledefense.com)
 

colay1

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
The plan seems to acquire a fleet of 4 Atagos. Also, the wheels are in motion for Japan to acquire Aegis Ashore.
 

r3mu511

New Member
And now with updated software can be used as an AShM
the anti-ship capable block-1A variant actually also has additional hardware for the gps receiver...

https://news.usni.org/2016/02/04/secdef-carter-confirms-navy-developing-supersonic-anti-ship-missile-for-cruisers-destroyers

While the news is out, the question remains as to what modifications the missile will need to be effective against the Raytheon officials told USNI News last month during the Surface Navy Association that work underway on the Block IA program.

“The big difference we can talk about is that it adds a GPS capability,” Raytheon said.
 

colay1

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
It's worth noting that the SM-6 retains the SARH seeker from the SM-2 Blk IVa that complements the AMRAAM-derived Active Seeker. I'm guessing the former is employed in the SBT BMD mission relying on Aegis ship's illuminators. The latter would seem to support the OTH AAW and SuW attack capabilities.
 

r3mu511

New Member
^I think you mean "sm-2 block 4" and not "block-4a"... because the "-4a" was the cancelled sbt-bmd interceptor which was to have a side-mounted terminal infrared seeker for it's bmd role:

https://mostlymissiledefense.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/sbt1.jpg?w=600

---

(back to topic) the version of sm-6 each country procures (or is allowed to procure) will also determine which capabilities they can use:

sm-6 block 1 - aaw
sm-6 block 1A - aaw, asuw
sm-6 dual 1, 2 - aaw, sbt-bmd
 

colay1

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
^I think you mean "sm-2 block 4" and not "block-4a"... because the "-4a" was the cancelled sbt-bmd interceptor which was to have a side-mounted terminal infrared seeker for it's bmd role:

https://mostlymissiledefense.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/sbt1.jpg?w=600

---

(back to topic) the version of sm-6 each country procures (or is allowed to procure) will also determine which capabilities they can use:

sm-6 block 1 - aaw
sm-6 block 1A - aaw, asuw
sm-6 dual 1, 2 - aaw, sbt-bmd
Very little is known about Dual I and even less about Dual II. Why wouldn't they be capable of ASuW ?
 
Last edited:

r3mu511

New Member
Very kittke is known about Dual I and even less about Dual II. Why wouldn't they be capable of ASuW ?
it's a possibility that they are indeed also gps equipped and have the software for asuw mode... but fwiw, the open source information so far is only about the aaw and sbt-bmd use for the dual-1,2 variants...

one could say:

sm-6 dual-1,2 - aaw, sbt-bmd, (asuw unknown)
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Very kittke is known about Dual I and even less about Dual II. Why wouldn't they be capable of ASuW ?
Could be different mechanical's, warheads or even come down that it is too complex to try and fit all the coding to allow it to do everything into the one missile.
 

colay1

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
I think the benefits of standardizing on a single missile variant are compelling from acquisition and sustainment perspectives. AFAIK if you have the GPS h/w configured it's primarily having the 3 attack modes programmed into the missile. The blast fragmengation warhead would be effective against all types of targets.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Very little is known about Dual I and even less about Dual II. Why wouldn't they be capable of ASuW ?
it gets down to the logic boards... and if they are modular etc....

eg think of Mk48 ADCAP CBASS as an example, or Kerkanya.

(free plug for DT if you do the right search :) )

design and engineering principles are the same
 
Top