HOKUM

Good Evening,

Every ship has a problem of detecting and locking on to low flying targets over the horizon, I know that AWACs negate this problem but what if your without it in the middle of the ocean on convoy duty or something? Most frigates only have short range sams and ciws so i presume they dont really expect to engage aircraft. But what about the aegis and diet aegis systems can they combat aircraft and missiles out past 10 miles (or whatever it is), flown at surface levels without AWACs giving them info?

rickusn

I know this doesnt exactly answer your question but is certainly related.

November 2004





Navy Pursues SM-6 as Defense Against Cruise Missile Threats

By PATRICIA KIME
Sea Power Correspondent

The global proliferation of cruise missiles, predicted widely after Operation Desert Storm, has yet to materialize. But the lack of an immediate threat is not stopping the U.S. Navy from updating measures to counter antiship missiles as well as land-attack cruise missiles.

The Missile Defense Agency estimates that in the next 10 years as many as 20 countries could possess cruise missiles. The Russians are working with India to develop a cruise missile that is not covered by the Missile Technology Control Regime, an informal and voluntary association of 34 countries that want to foster the nonproliferation of unmanned systems that can delivery weapons of mass destruction. Members include Russia and the United States. India, China, Iran and North Korea are not members.

These and other developments could lead to widespread purchases of the weapons among nations or the manufacturing of copycats. Should that proliferation occur — and along with it, an increase in the likelihood of a terrorist organization obtaining a cruise missile — the Navy needs to be ready, said Steven Zaloga, an analyst with the Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm in Fairfax, Va.

“The threat could pop up suddenly, overnight, and the problem with countermeasures is [that] you cannot field them overnight,” he said.

While much attention has been focused on ballistic-missile defense, the Navy has always been concerned with cruise missiles, which fly below radar, hugging the terrain or the ocean surface. The Navy faces a threat from land-attack cruise missiles as well as antiship missiles.

“That is why they are pursuing a weapon that can handle both,” Zaloga said.

That weapon is the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) extended-range active missile, or ERAM.

For use as an anti-air warfare and area air-defense missile, the SM-6 is expected to provide extended-range anti-air warfare capability against a multitude of targets, including aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and land-attack and antiship cruise missiles in flight, either over sea or land.

With its active radar system, the SM-6 also is expected to engage over-the-horizon targets using a future networked fire-control data system for targeting.

The SM-6 is designed to replace the Navy’s Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IV surface-to-air missile, which was not purchased in large quantities because it was to be replaced by the SM-2 Block IVA that was to have anti-air warfare and theater ballistic-missile defense capability.

But the Block IVA, along with the Navy’s entire area missile-defense program, was canceled by the Defense Department in December 2001 because of poor contract performance and cost overruns. Acquisition and average procurement unit costs had exceeded original goals by more than 50 percent, and the project was more than two years behind schedule when it was scrapped.

The Navy does not expect to have the same financial problems with the SM-6. The service awarded a $440 million sole-source contract to Raytheon in September for development, production, testing and delivery of the weapon.

“Raytheon was the only source that can satisfy the extended-range and active-seeker requirements associated with a ship-launched extended-range active missile within the required time frame,” a Navy official from the Integrated Warfare Systems Program Executive Office said in a written statement.

Development of the SM-6 will rely heavily on technology already produced by Raytheon, including using the airframe of the SM-2 Block IV missile and the advanced seeker technology of the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM.

“By employing our combat-proven [AMRAAM] technology on our widely deployed and ship-certified Standard Missile-2 airframe, we have created a highly effective and affordable extended-range anti-air warfare solution with minimum risk for our Navy customer,” said Edward Miyshiro, Raytheon’s Naval Weapons Systems vice president.

The SM-6 will have two guidance modes — active and semi-active — which will allow it to engage standard targets now and give more flexibility in the future, the Navy said.

The SM-6 will carry a blast-fragmentation warhead and be deployable from AEGIS cruisers and destroyers. It also will be compatible with systems on future surface combatants, including the DD(X), the Navy official said.

According to the service, each missile is expected to cost $2 million. The Navy adds that it needs this capability because without it, the service must rely on a weapon that can only be deployed when the enemy is within radar range of a ship.

The Navy currently has the SM-2 Block IV in its inventory but relies heavily on its stock of SM-2 Block IIIBs. The Block IIIB uses a dual-mode infrared/radio frequency guidance system but doesn’t have active seeker capability.

The SM-2 Block IIIB is a reliable and favored surface-to-air defense weapon, having been tested from a variety of launch platforms and demonstrating extended area air defense capability. And the Navy sees it as a state-of-the-art weapon that can handle current threats.

But service officials believe the SM-6 will create a complementary capability for the SM-2 Block IIIB and give the service a fleet air defense capability that will last through the mid-21st century.

“As a semi-active missile, the SM-2 Block IIIB is limited to operations within the radar horizon of the firing unit,” the Navy wrote in its statement. “With a future Integrated Fire Control, SM-6 will provide the surface Navy with an increased battle space against over-the-horizon [anti-air warfare] threats, taking full advantage of the kinematics available to the Standard Missile.”

The SM-6 is expected to be initially deployed in fiscal 2010. Critical design review is targeted for fiscal 2006 with flight testing in fiscal 2008. Its capabilities, speed and maximum range are classified.

Much of the missile’s testing and production will take place at Raytheon Missile Systems facility in Tucson, Ariz., with some work conducted at Raytheon facilities in Arkansas and Massachusetts.

The Navy maintains the weapon is key to supporting the vision of Sea Shield, the service’s effort to provide sea-based theater and strategic defense vice unit and task force defense.

“It will change the paradigm for operations at sea and will take full advantage of the Navy’s approach to sensor netting to achieve true network centric warfare,” the Integrated Warfare Systems Program Executive Office official said.

For now, the threat of a cruise-missile strike against a Navy ship or other U.S. target, including a U.S. city, is low. According to Zaloga, the governments most interested in acquiring cruise missile capability — namely Iraq and Libya — have been removed from the market. Iran and North Korea have expressed interest, but their attempts to acquire them have been erratic.

Eventually, a non-governmental agency, such as a terrorist organization, could attempt to acquire a cruise missile. And if that happens, the issue would become a matter of homeland security, Zaloga said.

“I can’t point to a group that would be capable of doing it right now, but there’s a good chance in the next decade that a group could get their hands on one. And it’s not inconceivable that they could be launched from a small ship,” he said.

That’s where the Navy’s SM-6 would come into play.

“The weapon can cover a broader range of problems [than what the Navy has now],” Zaloga said.

Franco Lolan

AMRAAM style raytheon. will it be radar only then? or will it have IR sensors as well? only on AEGIS + destroyers? dont they need an AAW to replace Phalanx?

rickusn

ESSM is to replace Phalanx on CG/DDG. New Burke DDGs are not being built with Phalanx. RAM on other ships or in addition to Phalanx. There doesnt appear to be a new gun CIWS in the works.

AS you can see from this photo of the USS MUSTIN the Phalanx is glaringly missing:

http://www.mustin.navy.mil/

HOKUM

Thanks for the info rickusn, it seems that until the sm6 is deployed, even the aegis armed destroyers have severe limitations against sea skimming targets (when not working in conjunction with awacs) and I think most attacks will come from this angle.

rickusn

Its always been a problem. But the USN also makes the claim that is is difficult for any potential adversary to target the fleet effectively. The USN has also taken the view of take out the platform before it can fire. Thats why submarines and Orion aircraft attempt to sanitise the operating areas the fleet is moving to and through. Of course in conjunction with any and all other assets at their disposal. Including ECM and other countermeasures.


However as Littoral Ops predominate this all becomes more difficult to do. As India and China modernize they along with a potential rejuvenated Russian Navy would be the most probable and credible threats but as of now we are more or less at peace with these three nations.

Possible terrorists obtaining these weapons is also a concern but its unlikely to happen but so was 9/11 and the Cole incident. So all avenues of force protection are being explored in the form of intelligence, surveillance, vigilance, ECM & other countermeasures, soft-kill and hard-kill weapons. The key is to either know where the threat is or find it before it finds you and then eliminate it by whatever means necessary and/or available.

Am I worried? Im always worried. Murphys Law(I paraphrase: Whatever can go wrong will at the worst possible moment.)predominates in my life so to mitigate its effects I try to prepare for any and all possibilities. Its tough but not impossible and beats being faced with nasty surprises on someone elses terms.

Franco Lolan

RickUSN, you seem to know what you're talking about. Are you in the Navy? rank? ship/job? etc.

"The USN has also taken the view of take out the platform before it can fire."

"Of course in conjunction with any and all other assets at their disposal."

you mentioned in another topic that no "long range soviet bomber threat", taking into account littoral warfare. threat of su30s seems very scary if f18s cant engage.
(su27 or 30s take out f18s + awacs w/ 172's, then proceed to engage fleet w/ sunburns.

what range will sm-6's have?

rickusn

Was in the Navy many years ago.

Have studied and kept informed for about 25 years the last 15 or more in some detail.

The USN doesnt seem overly concerned.

Dont know squat about the SM-6 actually except the little Ive shared.

ajaybhutani

Well are the SU 30 actually capable of taking off a Awac platform( and that too an american one ) defended by F18. I sincerely doubt . To make such a attack a success we will need say against 6F18 with Awac at least 7 su30's .assuming that each F18 will go against a Su30 and will engage it and thus we need an extra one to hit the awac. Then accompany with it the fact that awac will give the F18 a considerable radar tracking ability and ability to detect SU30without the Su 30 noticing it . So if the missiles are of range taht we can fire them without su30 moticing F18 then i guess we are in for a kill. surely the first missile wont be able to anything except for making the su30 buzy and then a another shot from a comparatively nearer distance should do the job .So the point is will su 30's beablt to survive the onslought . Also a lot of electronic countermeasures will be applied by the awac to make the SU30 tracking and radar rangegreatly reduced But again if something like 12 su30's are feilded then there might be a good chance to get a hit on the awac. adn thus posing a lot of danger.

The whole point is how do the americans want to feild their Carriers . Surely large counteracttack can amek even a F35 or a F22 run away but the point is wehter the enemy can feild it . Frankly americans cannnot think of attacking say china/india /russia with say a carrier as then they will have to run for their lives. But again looking at the american military power we can safely say taht for such an attack they can feild a lot of fighters .Clearly in todays scenarios american carriers can only threaten somesmall incapable countries without any AF help.

The cope india exercise makes SU30 look scary but again that waas without any awacs adn thus wont be anywhere near the actual war scenarios. I guess the numerican superiority can do the job for americans at this stage for they neither have money nor the time to go for better solutions .( we have already seen hwo difficult it has become for Us to induct F22 in the actualy proposed numbers.

Franco Lolan

ya man. but i still wouldnt consider the f18 to be that good. US needs a long range missile. AMRAAM doesnt make the cut. and numerical superiority, esp in a conflict v. PLA wont be enough b/c USAF fighters will have limited capability in that conflict, + b/c f18s suck, im concerned.

Praxus

The new AIM-120D is going to have a range twice that of the current AMRAAM.

Franco Lolan

what range will that be? when will it enter service?

sw55

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...tions/sm-6.htm

This sounds like the original article on the SM-6

I would suspect that the intorduction of unmanned recon vehicles, particularly high alttude ones, into naval applications (probably on all sides as well) would also contribute to the OTH capability of the Aegis ships,,,

Anon

"what range will that be? when will it enter service?"

Who knows...it's just another weapons program.

Maybe 5 yrs, maybe never.

Franco Lolan

ESSM

Enchanced Capability Sea Sparrow on CG/DDG's. Is that the AA semi-active sparrow missile? If so, unless the 'enchanced' is truly highly enchanced, that does not bode well for defence until sm-6 comes.