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

[21 Dec 2012]

HPJ12 CIWS has tested against Mach 4 missile successful interceptions( For your info)

Thank you for the info. Congratulations on the test.
Now kindly provide a valid evidence.

 

[Beast]

Thank you for the info. Congratulations on the test.
Now kindly provide a valid evidence.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...rs-hpj-14-type-1130-new-generation-ciws-.html

 

[Penguin]

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.

Not all Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderoga ships will be ABM capable, using SM-3. To date, more than 240 interceptors have been delivered to U.S. and Japanese navies.

However, all Burkes and Ticonderogas as well as their foreign equivalents (South Korean, Japanese, Australian navies) will be SM-6 capable, which is a Standard SM2 with AIM-120 based active radar homing head, designed to deal with long range engagement of sub- and supersonic anti-ship missiles, as well as terminal phased ABM. This adds to the fleet's missile defense capabilities by allowing the fleet to intercept ballistic missiles that could not be hit by SM-3 missiles, which targets missiles in the midcourse phase.

There will be a difference shooters and sensors. (as the term 'launch on remote' suggests. Think CEC - cooperative engagement capability). "Few" AEGIS ships will be ABM equipped, "many" / "all" will have SM-6. First deployed in 2013, Raytheon has delivered more than 250 missiles to date, with many years of production on the horizon.

 

[21 Dec 2012]

Not all Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderoga ships will be ABM capable, using SM-3.

However, all Burkes and Ticonderogas as well as their foreign equivalents (South Korean, Japanese, Australian navies) will be SM-6 capable, which is a Standard SM2 with AIM-120 based active radar homing head, designed to deal with long range engagement of sub- and supersonic anti-ship missiles, as well as terminal phased ABM. This adds to the fleet's missile defense capabilities by allowing the fleet to intercept ballistic missiles that could not be hit by SM-3 missiles, which targets missiles in the midcourse phase.

There will be a difference shooters and sensors. (as the term 'launch on remote' suggests. Think CEC - cooperative engagement capability). "Few"ships will be ABM equipped, "many" / "all" will have SM-6.

Its a sleek addition though I wouldn't be counting on it. SM-6 doesn't seem to have any of the attributes of the purpose built ABM's

SM-6:
Flight ceiling: 33,000m
Range: 240km
Speed: Mach 3.5



THAAD:
Flight ceiling: 150km
Range: 200+km
Speed: Mach 9.4 (2.8km/s)

Pretty much every decent ABM system clocks Mach 9.
It might be effective against the SRBM's but DF-31 AsBM armed with ultra-manouverable Wu-14 HGV loaded with 4 megaton nuclear warhead...................ah the sweet joy of trolling.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...rs-hpj-14-type-1130-new-generation-ciws-.html

Thats it? A western propaganda source quoting an unnamed, unseen Chinese TV report? No official source?

 

[Penguin]

SM-2 variants have successfully intercepted targets and are lethal against subsonic, supersonic, low- and high- altitude, high-maneuvering, diving, sea-skimming, anti-ship cruise missiles fighters, bombers and helicopters in an advanced electronic countermeasures environment. A Standard Missile-2 Block IV also destroyed a short-range ballistic missile target.Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) is a fleet-area air defense weapon, providing anti-air warfare and limited anti-surface warfare capability against today’s advanced anti-ship missiles and aircraft out to 90 nautical miles and an altitude of 65,000 feet.

The 130–250 nautical miles capable SM-6 (formerly RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile) delivers a proven over-the-horizon defensive and offensive capability by leveraging the time-tested advantages of the legacy Standard Missile airframe and propulsion. In addition to anti-surface warfare, it adds sea-based terminal ballistic missile defense.

Thats it? A western propaganda source quoting an unnamed, unseen Chinese TV report? No official source?

Sure, professional defence journals are propaganda sources. So, that invalidated anything reported by them and others on Chinese equipment at international exhibitions as well

Its a sleek addition though I wouldn't be counting on it. SM-6 doesn't seem to have any of the attributes of the purpose built ABM's

That's because it isn't a purpose built ABM with a kinetic energy interceptor, intended for mid-flight intercept. However, that doesn't mean it can't deal BMs in with terminal phase.

Anyway , it's capability has been proven in tests.

Plus, we were discussing antiship capability here, not ABM capability per se.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Not all Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderoga ships will be ABM capable, using SM-3. To date, more than 240 interceptors have been delivered to U.S. and Japanese navies.

However, all Burkes and Ticonderogas as well as their foreign equivalents (South Korean, Japanese, Australian navies) will be SM-6 capable, which is a Standard SM2 with AIM-120 based active radar homing head, designed to deal with long range engagement of sub- and supersonic anti-ship missiles, as well as terminal phased ABM. This adds to the fleet's missile defense capabilities by allowing the fleet to intercept ballistic missiles that could not be hit by SM-3 missiles, which targets missiles in the midcourse phase.

There will be a difference shooters and sensors. (as the term 'launch on remote' suggests. Think CEC - cooperative engagement capability). "Few" AEGIS ships will be ABM equipped, "many" / "all" will have SM-6. First deployed in 2013, Raytheon has delivered more than 250 missiles to date, with many years of production on the horizon.

Two questions here,

Does GMD intercept an ICBM during mid-course phase or in the terminal phase?

If it does intercept ICBMs in midcourse phase, does that mean it neutralizes MARV or MIRV threats?

 

[21 Dec 2012]

sarcasm
ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m/
noun
noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms

1. the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
   "she didn't like the note of sarcasm in his voice"
   
   synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, satire, irony, scorn, sneering, scoffing, gibing, taunting;
   trenchancy, mordancy, acerbity;
   rarecausticity, mordacity
   "his voice was heavy with sarcasm"​

Origin

mid 16th century: from French sarcasme, or via late Latin from late Greek sarkasmos, from Greeksarkazein ‘tear flesh’, in late Greek ‘gnash the teeth, speak bitterly’ (from sarx, sark- ‘flesh’).

That's because it isn't a purpose built ABM with a kinetic energy interceptor, intended for mid-flight intercept. However, that doesn't mean it can't deal BMs in with terminal phase.

Anyway , it's capability has been proven in tests.

Plus, we were discussing antiship capability here, not ABM capability per se.

Not all Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderoga ships will be ABM capable, using SM-3. To date, more than 240 interceptors have been delivered to U.S. and Japanese navies.

However, all Burkes and Ticonderogas as well as their foreign equivalents (South Korean, Japanese, Australian navies) will be SM-6 capable, which is a Standard SM2 with AIM-120 based active radar homing head, designed to deal with long range engagement of sub- and supersonic anti-ship missiles, as well as terminal phased ABM. This adds to the fleet's missile defense capabilities by allowing the fleet to intercept ballistic missiles that could not be hit by SM-3 missiles, which targets missiles in the midcourse phase.

There will be a difference shooters and sensors. (as the term 'launch on remote' suggests. Think CEC - cooperative engagement capability). "Few" AEGIS ships will be ABM equipped, "many" / "all" will have SM-6. First deployed in 2013, Raytheon has delivered more than 250 missiles to date, with many years of production on the horizon.

This thread has seemingly knocked you off your bearings, mate. Please take a breather

That's because it isn't a purpose built ABM with a kinetic energy interceptor, intended for mid-flight intercept. However, that doesn't mean it can't deal BMs in with terminal phase.

Anyway , it's capability has been proven in tests.

THAAD is also intended for terminal intercept. The name should have cleared that up. Arrow 2 has a flight ceiling of only 50-60 km. Same speed.
I'm not trying to throw shade on the SM-6. Its GREAT for what it is. So no need to go all defensive on me.

Tested against what is the question. At the moment SM-3 is the choice weapon.

http://www.defensetech.org/2015/01/20/navy-expands-use-of-sm-6-missile/

In total, the Navy has authorized use of the SM-6 to expand from five ships to more than 35 ships.

“This effort is steeped in fleet requirements, focusing on delivering capability to support urgent operational needs in targeted areas of responsibility,” a Navy official told Military.com

Previously, the SM-6 was only configured to fire from the most recent Aegis radar combat weapons system on Navy ships, a system called Aegis baseline nine. The Navy’s new authorization allows the SM-6 to integrate with the software and electronics used in Aegis Combat Weapon System baselines 5.3 and 3.A.0.

 

[Penguin]

Two questions here,

Does GMD intercept an ICBM during mid-course phase or in the terminal phase?

If it does intercept ICBMs in midcourse phase, does that mean it neutralizes MARV or MIRV threats?

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) - previously known as National Missile Defense (NMD) - is the United States' anti-ballistic missile system for intercepting incoming warheads in space, during the midcourse phase of ballistic trajectory flight. In 2002, NMD was changed to GMD, to differentiate it from other missile defense programs, such as space-based, sea-based, and defense targeting the boost phase and the reentry phase

The Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) is the anti-ballistic missile component of the United States' Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. This interceptor is made up of a boost vehicle, constructed by Orbital Sciences Corporation, and an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, built by Raytheon.

If one looks at the various intercept tests conducted, the system can distinguish warheads and decoys. Both EKV seeker's (Boeing v Raytheon) have the ability to collect target phenomenological data, and to evaluate target modeling and discrimination algorithms for a cluster of 10 objects, but that of Raytheon was selected.

The Ground based interceptors (GBIs) used can be augmented by mid-course SM-3 interceptors fired from Navy ships. The goal of the program is to have 21 ships upgraded for this by the end of 2010; 24 in 2012; and 27 around 2013.

All ships equipped with the Aegis combat system possess the SM-2 surface-to-air missile which, through recent upgrades, has terminal stage ballistic missile defense capabilities (i.e. SM-6)

As indicated SM-3 mid-course and SM-6 terminal phase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_missile_defense#Current_NMD_program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Interceptor

Answer = mid-course + yes, I believe so.

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

The only reason ABM capability was mentioned is because some sources suggest that as a possible explanation for the ability of SM-6 missile to sink an OHP frigate, it's small warhead notwithstanding.

This thread has seemingly knocked you off your bearings, mate. Please take a breather

Some here suggested the high missile cost (of SM-6) and limited number of AEGIS ships to be upgraded for ABM as a drawback for using the missile in antiship role.

I've pointed out that while only a portion of AEGIS ships will get an ABM upgrade, all will have SM-6 and can use that in antishipping role as well as the 'normal' extended range anti air role.

Don't blame me for your failure to understand this.

Tested against what is the question. At the moment SM-3 is the choice weapon.

This is irrelevant in relation to the anti-ship capability of SM-6

In total, the Navy has authorized use of the SM-6 to expand from five ships to more than 35 ships.

“This effort is steeped in fleet requirements, focusing on delivering capability to support urgent operational needs in targeted areas of responsibility,” a Navy official told Military.com

Previously, the SM-6 was only configured to fire from the most recent Aegis radar combat weapons system on Navy ships, a system called Aegis baseline nine. The Navy’s new authorization allows the SM-6 to integrate with the software and electronics used in Aegis Combat Weapon System baselines 5.3 and 3.A.0.

Yes, well, some thing take a little time before it is available to all ships.
However, do notice
a) it says MORE THAN 35 ships and
b) this is already more than the number of ships slated for with ABM opgrade.

 

[21 Dec 2012]

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

The only reason ABM capability was mentioned is because some sources suggest that as a possible explanation for the ability of SM-6 missile to sink an OHP frigate, it's small warhead notwithstanding.

Yup. You've lost it.

Some here suggested the high missile cost (of SM-6) and limited number of AEGIS ships to be upgraded for ABM as a drawback for using the missile in antiship role.

I've pointed out that while only a portion of AEGIS ships will get an ABM upgrade, all will have SM-6 and can use that in antishipping role as well as the 'normal' extended range anti air role.

Don't blame me for your failure to understand this.

Loco

This is irrelevant in relation to the anti-ship capability of SM-6

As was your entire post about its ABM deployment which I had the misfortune of replying to.
Whatever. I'm out of here.

 

[21 Dec 2012]

Yes, well, some thing take a little time before it is available to all ships.
However, do notice
a) it says MORE THAN 35 ships and
b) this is already more than the number of ships slated for with ABM opgrade.

And just so people don't think I've lost (because I care about the opinion of strangers on the webz, sue me)

33 ships at the moment have BMD capability (basically SM-3) against 5 for SM-6. 49 ships will be BMD capable by 2021 according to
https://docs.google.com/viewer?docex=1&url=https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf

Although
https://news.usni.org/2015/09/01/md...-ship-totals-down-from-fy-2016-budget-request
Never the less, talking apple to apple i.e in terms of capable ships vs capable ships, SM-3 remains the weapon of choice for now as postulated before

NOW I'm out of here.

 

[Penguin]

And just so people don't think I've lost (because I care about the opinion of strangers on the webz, sue me)

33 ships at the moment have BMD capability (basically SM-3) against 5 for SM-6. 49 ships will be BMD capable by 2021 according to
https://docs.google.com/viewer?docex=1&url=https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf

Although
https://news.usni.org/2015/09/01/md...-ship-totals-down-from-fy-2016-budget-request
Never the less, talking apple to apple i.e in terms of capable ships vs capable ships, SM-3 remains the weapon of choice for now as postulated before

NOW I'm out of here.

Thanks for contradicting your own post #22 and link on SM-6

Too bad YOU see this as a contest (after all, it is YOU that talks about loosing above). But that says more about YOU than about me.

Yup. You've lost it.

Loco

As was your entire post about its ABM deployment which I had the misfortune of replying to.
Whatever. I'm out of here.

Total lack of substantive content in this reply.