Five SM-3s delivered to USN

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-06 04:05pm

Linka

Raytheon Delivers Five STANDARD Missile-3 Rounds For Aegis
Tucson AZ (SPX) Jan 04, 2005

Raytheon has delivered five STANDARD Missile-3 rounds to the Missile Defense Agency for deployment as a key element of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.

The rounds are available for deployment on Aegis cruisers and destroyers to defend against short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile threats in the midcourse phase of flight or for flight testing.

Raytheon marked the first SM-3 delivery with a ceremony in Tucson on Oct. 22.

"Raytheon's deliveries of these STANDARD Missile-3s will help provide the United States with the first sea-based line of defense against a limited ballistic missile attack," said Ed Miyashiro, Raytheon's vice president for Naval Weapon Systems. "Our team is very proud of developing and delivering this needed capability."

As the prime contractor, Raytheon is responsible for the development and integration of the SM-3 "all up round," including the SM-3 kinetic warhead. Other SM-3 team members include Aerojet, Alliant Techsystems and The Boeing Company.

Since January 2002, the Aegis BMD system has successfully intercepted targets in space four times with SM-3. In all the flight tests, the SM-3 was launched from a U.S. Navy cruiser under very realistic, operational conditions.

There is already international interest in Aegis BMD and SM-3. Japan made the decision earlier this year to procure Aegis BMD and SM-3 missiles for its Kongo-class Aegis destroyers.

Raytheon is also responsible for the manufacture and deployment of the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program and is the interceptor lead for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program.

Raytheon is also providing the Sea-Based X-band radar and Upgraded Early Warning Radar for the GMD segment, the Space Tracking and Surveillance System payload, the Ballistic Missile Defense System radar, and THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) radar and battle management software.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2005-01-06 04:31pm

Excellent: Aegis just became that much more uber...

.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2005-01-06 05:19pm

Are SM-3's specifically designed for ABM defense, or do they SAM capabilities as well?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-01-06 06:51pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Are SM-3's specifically designed for ABM defense, or do they SAM capabilities as well?

It's a pure ABM weapon. Some versions of the SM-2 missile however, do have a dual role ABM and anti aircraft-cruise missile capability though.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-01-06 06:52pm

Another ABM component deployed.. Did they remember to test this one and make sure it works before shipping it off, or are we still supposed to be too afraid to notice that?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-06 06:57pm

SirNitram wrote:Another ABM component deployed.. Did they remember to test this one and make sure it works before shipping it off, or are we still supposed to be too afraid to notice that?

Do you lack reading comprehension?

Since January 2002, the Aegis BMD system has successfully intercepted targets in space four times with SM-3. In all the flight tests, the SM-3 was launched from a U.S. Navy cruiser under very realistic, operational conditions.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-01-06 07:00pm

MKSheppard wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Another ABM component deployed.. Did they remember to test this one and make sure it works before shipping it off, or are we still supposed to be too afraid to notice that?
Do you lack reading comprehension?

I lack trust in the ABM project, due to it's track record since the Wonder Monkey started it. Do the scholars of these things have anything more detailed about that? I've heard similar language to describe the Patriot, before it was revealed it only launched three our of four times or something equally stupid.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-06 07:01pm

Anti-ABM idiots tend to cling to their pet peeve rabidly. The scientists may have concluded that midcourse direct-hit-to-kill interception was ineffective against solid-fuel and late-generation liquid-fuel ICBMs, but that's all they said.

Terminal and boost phase intercept are other, viable concepts. The current debate is whether ABM is economical and worthwhile for its stated goals. Critiques of the NMD system to not make all ABM futile or impossible.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-06 07:03pm

SirNitram wrote:I lack trust in the ABM project, due to it's track record since the Wonder Monkey started it. Do the scholars of these things have anything more detailed about that? I've heard similar language to describe the Patriot, before it was revealed it only launched three our of four times or something equally stupid.

PAC-2 is not PAC-3. Although it is cute to use the infamous rag-on-the-Patriot arguments hashed from fourteen years ago.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-01-06 07:05pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I lack trust in the ABM project, due to it's track record since the Wonder Monkey started it. Do the scholars of these things have anything more detailed about that? I've heard similar language to describe the Patriot, before it was revealed it only launched three our of four times or something equally stupid.
PAC-2 is not PAC-3. Although it is cute to use the infamous rag-on-the-Patriot arguments hashed from fourteen years ago.

Is it simply beyond the capabilities of the ABM Fanboys to state 'No, we don't have more information on this system' or 'Here's the info, piss off'?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-06 07:07pm

SirNitram wrote:I lack trust in the ABM project, due to it's track record since the Wonder Monkey started it. Do the scholars of these things have anything more detailed about that? I've heard similar language to describe the Patriot, before it was revealed it only launched three our of four times or something equally stupid.

PAC-2 was never intended to be used as an ABM but it was the only thing we had available for Desert Storm*. They could often score intercepts but their puny warhead combined with shoddy SCUD construction meant that they couldn't quite do the job. PAC-3, the ABM version of Patriot, performed quite well in OIF.

As for NMD, the current project began under Clinton and not Bush. The latter made the decision to deploy (the former held off after a test failure) but we've been working on it for quite awhile.

I am pretty confident in SM-3 -- the Navy has an excellent track record on SAM development and it ain't that hard to shoot down an SRBM/MRBM. If we can hit supersonic and/or maneuvering ASMs we can deal with a ballistic missile's parabolic trajectory.

* Ironically, the missile that Patriot replaced, Hercules, would have taken down those SCUDs without problem. Of course, they were a little bit too large to be mobile ...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-01-06 07:11pm

SirNitram wrote:
I lack trust in the ABM project, due to it's track record since the Wonder Monkey started it. Do the scholars of these things have anything more detailed about that?

Would you like a list of all the advanced technology driven US military projects, which critics have derided as overpriced poorly tested pieces of junk in the last twenty five years, and which have proven incredibly effective in combat? It might be kind of long though, since basically everything would be on it.

I've heard similar language to describe the Patriot, before it was revealed it only launched three our of four times or something equally stupid.

What are you going on about? Your not trying to bring back the old Gulf War 'Patriot is horribul becayse PAC-1 missiles failed to shoot down targets they where never designed to be shot at' crap are you?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-01-06 07:11pm

phongn wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I lack trust in the ABM project, due to it's track record since the Wonder Monkey started it. Do the scholars of these things have anything more detailed about that? I've heard similar language to describe the Patriot, before it was revealed it only launched three our of four times or something equally stupid.
PAC-2 was never intended to be used as an ABM but it was the only thing we had available for Desert Storm*. They could often score intercepts but their puny warhead combined with shoddy SCUD construction meant that they couldn't quite do the job. PAC-3, the ABM version of Patriot, performed quite well in OIF.

I'm quite aware of the Patriot's growing pains; I used it only as an example of the way weapon accuracy can get mighty jumbled between actual field testing and being reported.

As for NMD, the current project began under Clinton and not Bush. The latter made the decision to deploy (the former held off after a test failure) but we've been working on it for quite awhile.

Given what I've seen about other components, I can see why it was delayed. So little seems to work reliably.

I am pretty confident in SM-3 -- the Navy has an excellent track record on SAM development and it ain't that hard to shoot down an SRBM/MRBM. If we can hit supersonic and/or maneuvering ASMs we can deal with a ballistic missile's parabolic trajectory.

You have a good point there.

* Ironically, the missile that Patriot replaced, Hercules, would have taken down those SCUDs without problem. Of course, they were a little bit too large to be mobile ...

Why not just contract the HAB? I'm sure they can build a large enough flatbed platform..

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2005-01-06 07:12pm

SirNitram wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Another ABM component deployed.. Did they remember to test this one and make sure it works before shipping it off, or are we still supposed to be too afraid to notice that?
Do you lack reading comprehension?
I lack trust in the ABM project, due to it's track record since the Wonder Monkey started it. Do the scholars of these things have anything more detailed about that? I've heard similar language to describe the Patriot, before it was revealed it only launched three our of four times or something equally stupid.

There are, to the best of my recollection, multiple ABM projects. PAC-3, SM-3, something that the Air Force is doing (I don't remember the name), and an airplane-based laser that is being developed in cooperation with the Israelis. SM-3 appears to be the best of the bunch so far.

The Patriot, moreover, was designed to shoot down airplanes, not ballistic missiles. It was the only thing available, however, and wasn't needed for SAM defense in Gulf War I.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-01-06 07:12pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
I lack trust in the ABM project, due to it's track record since the Wonder Monkey started it. Do the scholars of these things have anything more detailed about that?
Would you like a list of all the advanced technology driven US military projects, which critics have derided as overpriced poorly tested pieces of junk in the last twenty five years, and which have proven incredibly effective in combat? It might be kind of long though, since basically everything would be on it.

No. I'd like exactly what I asked for which is anything more detailed on the SM-3. Is there a widespread failure of English language comprehension in this thread?

I've heard similar language to describe the Patriot, before it was revealed it only launched three our of four times or something equally stupid.
What are you going on about? Your not trying to bring back the old Gulf War 'Patriot is horribul becayse PAC-1 missiles failed to shoot down targets they where never designed to be shot at' crap are you?

No, but given that no one in this thread seems to be able to read English, I can see how you might leap to that conclusion.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-06 07:14pm

SirNitram wrote:Is it simply beyond the capabilities of the ABM Fanboys to state 'No, we don't have more information on this system' or 'Here's the info, piss off'?

Blow me, Martin. I personally have linked you to globalsecurity.org at least a dozen times within a week. I don't really feel like getting off my ass when you frame some "shit you might've heard" as an argument.

But I'll do your homework so you'll stop bitching:

Standard Missile-3

PAC-3

PAC-2

And this isn't ABM fanboyism, as much as you enjoy theatrics. Its just reality and the facts. If you bothered not to lump your opponents into pretty, simplistic groups for convienence and to overshadow personal ignorance, you'd know I oppose current midcourse interception systems.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-01-06 07:15pm

The really funny thing about Patriot in the Gulf War is that it's a demonstration that ABM can be worthwhile and effective even if it can't shoot down a single warhead. The two batteries deployed to Israel essentially kept the nation out of the war and thus totally defeated the purpose of the SCUD attacks on Israel, which was to bring it into the war and collapse the collation.

SirNitram wrote: Why not just contract the HAB? I'm sure they can build a large enough flatbed platform..

That's not an option I'm afraid as HAB classifies Nike Hercules as a MMANPADS, Multi Man Portable Air Defence System

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-01-06 07:17pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Is it simply beyond the capabilities of the ABM Fanboys to state 'No, we don't have more information on this system' or 'Here's the info, piss off'?
Blow me, Martin. I personally have linked you to globalsecurity.org at least a dozen times within a week. I don't really feel like getting off my ass when you frame some "shit you might've heard" as an argument.

Yes, yes, bleat, lurch, moan, grumble, bitch, complain. Same old song and dance you always do.

But I'll do your homework so you'll stop bitching:

Wow! What I asked for at the beginning of the thread! Thank you. See? It doesn't require your theatrics all the time.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-06 07:19pm

Anymore than the Evil ABM Fanboy SWARM? You didn't think the source of the links in response to just about every military question you've asked in the last week might have it? You're just lazy.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-01-06 07:19pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:The really funny thing about Patriot in the Gulf War is that it's a demonstration that ABM can be worthwhile and effective even if it can't shoot down a single warhead. The two batteries deployed to Israel essentially kept the nation out of the war and thus totally defeated the purpose of the SCUD attacks on Israel, which was to bring it into the war and collapse the collation.

That I didn't know. Neat.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-01-06 07:21pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Anymore than the Evil ABM Fanboy SWARM? You didn't think the source of the links in response to just about every military question you've asked in the last week might have it? You're just lazy.

No, just equipped with a nonfunctioning memory, as has been repeated to you more than a few times directly(The irony meter hits a new high). You be sure and rant about that too, I'm sure it'll make you feel big.

In any case, I had checked there, under Navy and Munitions, found nothing, and thus decided to ask. Because there are people who know more than me about subjects. Unfortunately, as you demonstrate, getting anything out of you is like pulling hen's teeth.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-06 07:23pm

You couldn't find it on this page?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-06 07:26pm

SirNitram wrote:Given what I've seen about other components, I can see why it was delayed. So little seems to work reliably.

Well, some of the early test failures were simple mistakes -- in one case, they forgot to close the valve for the sensor coolant. I doubt that'll happen again. Also, there were a couple of booster-related failures, but we're not using those boosters for the production ABM. Remember, when testing you don't neccessarily care if you get a hit. They usually test out specific components, and if it works the test is a success. Sea Skimmer once gave the example about how the vast majority of TOW tests never hit the target, yet it is one of the most succesful ATGMs ever.

One does not test by expecting it to work perfectly on the first attempt. Heck, the first time they made an intercept, BMDO cautioned everyone not to read too much into it.

I am pretty confident in SM-3 -- the Navy has an excellent track record on SAM development and it ain't that hard to shoot down an SRBM/MRBM. If we can hit supersonic and/or maneuvering ASMs we can deal with a ballistic missile's parabolic trajectory.
You have a good point there.

This is really one of my pet peeves -- if you can take down an airplane or missile that is maneuvering like mad then why is it so hard to take down an SRBM or MRBM? Those suckers don't maneuver at all.

Why not just contract the HAB? I'm sure they can build a large enough flatbed platform..

The radars and computer systems were quite large for Nike.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-01-06 07:26pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You couldn't find it on this page?

No, I did not notice it. Hence, I asked. Are you quite done?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-01-06 07:27pm

SirNitram wrote:
In any case, I had checked there, under Navy and Munitions, found nothing, and thus decided to ask. Because there are people who know more than me about subjects. Unfortunately, as you demonstrate, getting anything out of you is like pulling hen's teeth.

Most ABM stuff on globalsecurity is under the WMD section. But SM-3 is listed under Munitions-Missile and is quite near the top of that page. Target Air: Ship Launched, to be more specific.