What's new

The US Navy Can Now Use the SM-6 as an Offensive Weapon Against Surface Ship Targets

F-22Raptor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
16,980
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
The Navy's Standard Missile 6 exploded, destroyed and sank a surface ship target in a test several months ago off the coast of Hawaii, providing additional strategic relevance for an new offensive use of a missile previous oriented toward air and ballistic missile defense, Raytheon and Navy officials said.

"The anti-surface warfare test proved that SM-6 could attack a surface ship. It destroyed a Perry-class fast Frigate. The big deal for us is that the SM-6 proved its capability with sea targets," Mike Campisi, SM-6 Senior Director, Raytheon, told Scout Warrior in an interview.

The test, which took place at Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii, involved the rare event of an actual destruction and sinking of a decommissioned or retired Navy ship.

The firing of the SM-6 was designed to analyze new software configurations on the missile, giving it an ability to track and destroy targets on the surface of the water - as opposed to its typical use of hitting or intercepting incoming enemy fire from the air above a ship or near the earth's atmosphere as a ballistic missile defense weapon.

Using the SM-6 as an offensive weapon against surface targets is a new application for the Navy, bringing another kind of surface fire-power to the fleet. The SM-6 is larger than the SM-3 interceptor and is designed to destroy closer-in air targets. However, this test launches the ability for the SM-6 function in an additional capacity as an offensive weapon against a wide range of surface targets.

"The entire system was tested at this time. It performed exactly as we expected and the result more than met our expectations. We added to the sea- based terminal capabiity (ballistic missile defense) and anti-air defense," Campisi added. "In effect,m this will allow the fleet to attack ships with offensive capability and prove out the flip side of area defense -- which is distributed lethality."

The software adjustments to the missile allow a single SM-6 to perform all of its different functions, he explained.

"The system will identify a target and send a signal to the target. Based on the signal, it chooses the software path and the activities it is going to perform in engaging its mission," Campisi said.

The SM-6 weapon has been operational since 2013; the Navy has at least 250 of the missiles in its arsenal. The service recently awarded Raytheon a $270 million deal for 2016 SM-6 production.

SM-6 Technology

The USS John Paul Jones, an Arleigh Burke Class destroyer, fired the SM-6 using on board fire-control technology and Aegis Radar systems equipped with the latest technology called Baseline 9. The missile’s final assembly takes place at Raytheon’s state-of-the-art SM-6 and SM-3 all-up-round production facility at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Ala.

The SM-6 is unique in several respects; the weapon uses what is called an "active" seeker, meaning it can send a signal or electromagnetic ping forward in addition to receiving them. This gives the missile to better attack maneuvering or moving targets at sea, because it does not need to rely upon a ship-based illuminator to bounce a signal off a target for a merely "passive" seeker to receive. This technology also allows a ship commander to fire several SM-6 missiles in more rapid succession or closer to one another in the event that a target needs to be attacked with more than one missile.

An emerging Navy technology called Naval Integrated Fire Control - Counter Air, or NIFC-CA, also relies upon the SM-6 to help identify, track and destroy approaching anti-ship cruise missiles from distances beyond the horizon. The NIFC-CA system, which was first deployed last year, also relies upon an airborne sensor to relay a signal from an approaching enemy target.

The SM-6 is configured to fire from Navy Cruisers and Destroyers out of a Vertical Launch System tube; although there is not yet a ship deck-mounted launcher for the missile, it appears conceivable that the Navy could explore an option along these lines. This would enable the weapon to fire from a wider range of ships such as the Littoral Combat Ship, Frigates, Amphibious Assault Ships or even Aircraft Carriers.

The development of this weapon, along with other missiles and emerging offensive and defensive technologies, is entirely consistent with the Navy's "distributed lethality" strategy; this ongoing effort aims to better arm ships with next-generation communications technology and cutting-edge, longer-range offensive and defensive weapons. This is informed by a series of key concepts such as efforts to better enable surface ships to conduct open or "blue" water combat against a near-peer adversary, sustain the Navy's global technological edge, hold enemies at risk from farther distances and allow surface ships to both "aggregate" and "distribute" or disperse as needed as a way to reduce the prospect of a successful enemy attack.

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1679499-navy-sm-6-can-now-attack-surface-ships
 
On the up side, Standard SM-6 has long range (240–460 km) which it can fully utilize in anti service mode when working together with E2 Hawkeye aircraft, as this extends radar coverage also against sea targets.

naval-communications-december-1950-radio-television-news-8.jpg


On the down side, the missile has a blast-fragmentation (as opposed to semi-ap penetrating) warhead of 'only' 64 kg. For larger ship targets, the use of multiple missiles is in order and these could possibly be more likely to achieve a mission-kill (e.g. knock out bridge and radars) rather than to sink a ship. Still, that would open a window to close-in and use other missiles e.g. Harpoon or NSM (which will be made Mk41 compatible) or airlaunched stand off weapons.
 
how was it able to actually sink a 4,200 tonne frigate??? it's warhead is half the size of the penguin missile :o:

I doubt the warhead can pierce deep inside and blow up so this just seems unreal to me

but Chinese corvettes and missile boats now seem like they will be easy pickings.
 
how was it able to actually sink a 4,200 tonne frigate??? it's warhead is half the size of the penguin missile :o:

I doubt the warhead can pierce deep inside and blow up so this just seems unreal to me

but Chinese corvettes and missile boats now seem like they will be easy pickings.
time.png


Its a 1500 kg missile traveling at Mach 3.5. Thats even faster than supa-dupa BrahMos/Yakhont. China shall now start printing articles on how they will counter SM-6.
 
View attachment 312796

Its a 1500 kg missile traveling at Mach 3.5. Thats even faster than supa-dupa BrahMos/Yakhont. China shall now start printing articles on how they will counter SM-6.


it's a heavy missile and it's fast but you have to take into account how far the missile has to travel in the first place


if it's further away that means it'll probably be coasting when it hits not traveling at mach 3.5 and it will have less fuel to go along with the warhead when it explodes.


now an interesting scenario I see where this thing can probably even destroy a cruiser is flight attitude at 30KM for about 100KM to 200KM and then it dives down and hit the target from the top at hitting mach 3+


that's a lot of kinetic energy
 
it's a heavy missile and it's fast but you have to take into account how far the missile has to travel in the first place


if it's further away that means it'll probably be coasting when it hits not traveling at mach 3.5 and it will have less fuel to go along with the warhead when it explodes.


now an interesting scenario I see where this thing can probably even destroy a cruiser is flight attitude at 30KM for about 100KM to 200KM and then it dives down and hit the target from the top at hitting mach 3+


that's a lot of kinetic energy
Obviously it loses fuel like all other missiles. Never the less its still supersonic and should cut through the smaller Chin-
boats which they pump out by the hundreds. I bet they didn't think of that.

Fired in salvos of 4 or 8 as it probably would and it should take out even the Type 055 destroyer.

The problem is it doesn't have sea skimming capability so Chin-radar will paint it from a long distance and give a good response time. I see this as more effective dealing with the Iranians against their dinghy swarm attacks.
 
Obviously it loses fuel like all other missiles. Never the less its still supersonic and should cut through the smaller Chin-
boats which they pump out by the hundreds. I bet they didn't think of that.

Fired in salvos of 4 or 8 as it probably would and it should take out even the Type 055 destroyer.

The problem is it doesn't have sea skimming capability so Chin-radar will paint it from a long distance and give a good response time. I see this as more effective dealing with the Iranians against their dinghy swarm attacks.

ehh you are right, but these SM-6 aren't cheap though. think around $3 to $5 million each, that's like 3 times more than a Harpoon missile.


I like the dual use and in a pinch these would supplement regular anti ship missiles.
 
ehh you are right, but these SM-6 aren't cheap though. think around $3 to $5 million each, that's like 3 times more than a Harpoon missile.
I like the dual use and in a pinch these would supplement regular anti ship missiles.
I'm not the one (that proposes) using it instead of Harpoon, am I now ;-)

Any way, if that pricetag offsets being outranged, it may be worth the investment (to save your expensive Burke)
 
I'm not the one (that proposes) using it instead of Harpoon, am I now ;-)

Any way, if that pricetag offsets being outranged, it may be worth the investment (to save your expensive Burke)


was I talking to you o_O
 
how was it able to actually sink a 4,200 tonne frigate??? it's warhead is half the size of the penguin missile :o:

I doubt the warhead can pierce deep inside and blow up so this just seems unreal to me

but Chinese corvettes and missile boats now seem like they will be easy pickings.
While the SM-6’s warhead was designed to kill aircraft—and as such is relatively tiny—the fact that it also has ballistic missile defense capability suggests it also has a hit-to-kill capability. The kinetic energy from a very fast missile could do enormous damage by itself—as the recent test against USS Reuben James (FFG 57) apparently demonstrated.

Then again, while the former frigate USS Reuben James (FFG-57) was sunk in January during a test of the Navy’s new anti-surface warfare (ASuW) variant of the Raytheon Standard Missile 6 (SM-6), that doesn't necessarily mean she was sunk by that missile (perhaps she just got a pounding and was then finished off with e.g. a torpedo, or 5" gun fire). It is reported by USNI and Raytheon that the missile sunk the frigate, but we've not seen actual images of that.
 
ehh you are right, but these SM-6 aren't cheap though. think around $3 to $5 million each, that's like 3 times more than a Harpoon missile.


I like the dual use and in a pinch these would supplement regular anti ship missiles.
True and then there are some 100 destroyers/cruisers needing SM-6 protection. I believe the primary ASW weapon especially in the SCS theater would be cruise missiles launched from F-18/F-35's anyway but its nice to have a backup.
 
Back
Top Bottom