What's new

Networked Defense: Aegis ships share data to destroy cruise missiles.

AMDR

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
16
Country
United States
Location
United States
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/...y-aegis-ships-with-sm-6-kill-target-together/

By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on October 24, 2014 at 3:15 PM
navy-sm-6-missile-test-95730015.jpg


Imagine you’re a sniper. Imagine the bad guys are coming — but you can’t see them yet. Imagine your spotter can see them — but only because he’s miles away from where you are, with a better view. Now imagine that when you put your eye to your gunsights, you see the view through his. You fire. You hit the target. It goes down.

Replace the sniper and spotter in this scenario with a pair of 9,000-ton warships, replace the bad guys with incoming anti-ship cruise missiles, and replace your sniper rifle with a Raytheon SM-6 Standard Missile: Now you’ve got what actually happened in a recent Navy test whose results were announced today. For the first time, one Navy ship shot down a simulated cruise missile — two of them in a row, actually — that its own radars couldn’t see, relying entirely on data relayed from another vessel. (In this case, the shooter was the Aegis cruiser Chancellorsville, the spotter was the Aegis destroyer Sampson).

That “cooperative engagement capability” is crucial to the Navy’s vision of a future fleet that acts as a single network, each part sharing the data gathered by the whole. This is a concept that then-thinktanker Robert Work — later Deputy Secretary of the Navy and now Deputy Secretary of Defense — promulgated in 2008 as the Total Force Battle Network. It’s the bedrock of the program called NIFC-CA (Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air), which will link Navy ships, fighters, and E-2D Hawkeye radar planes into a single network. Instead of each ship or plane only being able to fire on threats it can see with its own sensors — which may be at the last minute or even too late, given how low and fast some cruise missiles move — the fleet as a whole can engage incoming enemies as soon as anyone sees them. That lets you stop the threat as far away as possible and gives you the best chance of surviving against a Chinese-style “anti-access/area denial” system.

SM-6-USS-John-Paul-Jones-June-2014-2-200x300.jpg

The USS John Paul Jones test-fires an SM-6 in June

“If you’ve got a number of ships that are now networked and communicating across a wide range of water,” said Raytheon’s program director for the Standard Missile-6, Mike Campisi, “and several of them have SM-6s, they can now communicate… and say ok, who has the best firing solution here? Who’s going to fire? How are we going to do that?”

One caveat: In this test, the mock cruise missile did show on the shooter ship’s radar at the very end of its flight, Campisi explained to me this afternoon. But the entire engagement, from launch to kill, relied entirely on data from the spotter ship, Sampson. “At the end when the shooting ship [Chancellorsville] could actually see the target, it wasn’t providing any data to the missile at that point,” Campisi told me. “The [SM-6] missile was on its own,” he said, making its final approach in a fully active self-guiding mode. The target flashed on theChancellorsville‘s screen for a fraction of a second: “We’re talking hundredths of a millisecond,” he said. “‘I see it — oh it’s gone.’”

Raytheon SM-6 missiles have done such “engage on remote” test firings before, includingone last year using the Army’s JLENS radar blimp. But in the previous tests, the spotter was always airborne, rather than a surface ship as was the case for the first time in this test. A flying spotter enjoys a much wider field of view than a spotter down on the surface, a major tactical advantage, but converting data from an airborne radar to a shipboard one is a technical challenge.

Because this test involved two Aegis radar/fire control systems talking to each other, Campisi said, it was actually easier than previous ones involving two different systems. “We’re always worried,” he told me, “[but] after looking at all of the data, it ended up being far more mundane than we thought.”
 
.
The ability to share targeting and tracking info was one of the best things about the Aegis system, now in its Baseline 9.0 configuration (improvements come in increments of .1 and started with Baseline 1.0). Add new air frames, and long range, over-the-horizon air defense becomes a reality. We can launch a missile, without targeting info loaded, and have our air assets vector that missile towards a target of opportunity 100s of miles away. An unprecedented level of defense is being added. We can take out threats hundreds of miles before they even appear on the radar of our ships, using missiles launched from the ships themselves.

The publicly stated range of the RIM-174 ERAM, or SM-6 as its also known, is 130nm. But as seen with all nations and military arms what is made public is never the true capability of the system. The SM-6 is now operational with the USN and JMSDF and has been tested against both supersonic and subsonic targets such as the GQM-163 (mach 4 at 35-40000 feet, mach 2.5 at 13-15 feet) and BQM-74 (.86 mach speed) as well as against ballistic missile targets.
 
Last edited:
. .
So in essence it would act like a ship-based PAC-3?

Except that the SM-6 retains its effectiveness against aircraft and drones, while adding improved anti-missile abilities. PAC-3 has diminished effectiveness against aircraft, but improved abilities versus theater missiles. But yes, the SM-6 will be used as an augment to the SM-2, which will continue to be the primary anti-air missile, while the SM-6 is used for missile defense
 
.
Except that the SM-6 retains its effectiveness against aircraft and drones, while adding improved anti-missile abilities. PAC-3 has diminished effectiveness against aircraft, but improved abilities versus theater missiles. But yes, the SM-6 will be used as an augment to the SM-2, which will continue to be the primary anti-air missile, while the SM-6 is used for missile defense
Man, talk about a multi-role interceptor. Anti-cruise missile, anti-ballistic missile, anti-aircraft, but do you think the SM-6 will retain its anti-ship feature like the SM-2?
 
.
Man, talk about a multi-role interceptor. Anti-cruise missile, anti-ballistic missile, anti-aircraft, but do you think the SM-6 will retain its anti-ship feature like the SM-2?

It would be an interesting capability to retain, but as seen with OP Preying Mantis the SM series lacks the punch to defeat a ship (6 SM-2s were fired, damaging but not destroying several ships, paveways did the real damage). The SM-6 uses an enlarged AIM-120c seeker head and thus is optimized for anti-air duties. At present and with other assets available, I don't see the SM-6 retaining its anti-ship capabilities. However, the SM-2 is being retained as a complement to the SM-6 so it can fulfill that role if needed.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom