User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 11:04:37 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Remember that what the Hornet was pictured carrying in the OP's article is the SM6 without the booster. So, the big question is, what does the range and capability look like with that version of the missile launched at speed and at altitude? Certainly a very interesting idea that I wish I knew more about the capes of. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By xd341: An SM6 would provide that reach advantage for sure. Remember that what the Hornet was pictured carrying in the OP's article is the SM6 without the booster. So, the big question is, what does the range and capability look like with that version of the missile launched at speed and at altitude? Certainly a very interesting idea that I wish I knew more about the capes of. Kinematicly, it should be similar to an SM-2MR BlkIII since it is more or less the same missile with a new seeker. That missile has a public range figure of 166km when fired from a ship. When air launched, 250km against a bomber might not be out of the question, but the Rhino with its canted pylons is not exactly known for flying high and fast with big stores under the wings, so it is likely a better interceptor when armed with AMRAAM instead. I suspect this is meant for air to surface, not air to air. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 11:09:27 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AR18: They should had done the B-1R concept with that missile. Hell yes. My friend who flew the B-1B supports this idea. A Boner with a super long-range missile? Hells yes! |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 11:18:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: castlebravo84]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Matthew_Q: Hell yes. My friend who flew the B-1B supports this idea. A Boner with a super long-range missile? Hells yes! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Matthew_Q: Originally Posted By AR18: They should had done the B-1R concept with that missile. Hell yes. My friend who flew the B-1B supports this idea. A Boner with a super long-range missile? Hells yes! USN operating B-1R as maritime strike bomber would be awesome. Load it up with 20+ SM-6 and go dunk on any PLAN surface fleet out there. If some J-whatever fighters come out to play, the SM-6 will work for them too! Big raid going out against the CVN and your worried the Rhino's can't handle it? Scramble some B-1Rs to intercept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 11:25:19 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Kinematicly, it should be similar to an SM-2MR BlkIII since it is more or less the same missile with a new seeker. That missile has a public range figure of 166km when fired from a ship. When air launched, 250km against a bomber might not be out of the question It is launched off the ship as a SAM with an entirely separate booster section attached to it, so those range figures aren't accurate for the configuration which it is being flown on the Hornet. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 11:31:42 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Kinematicly, it should be similar to an SM-2MR BlkIII since it is more or less the same missile with a new seeker. That missile has a public range figure of 166km when fired from a ship. When air launched, 250km against a bomber might not be out of the question, but the Rhino with its canted pylons is not exactly known for flying high and fast with big stores under the wings, so it is likely a better interceptor when armed with AMRAAM instead. I suspect this is meant for air to surface, not air to air. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By xd341: An SM6 would provide that reach advantage for sure. Remember that what the Hornet was pictured carrying in the OP's article is the SM6 without the booster. So, the big question is, what does the range and capability look like with that version of the missile launched at speed and at altitude? Certainly a very interesting idea that I wish I knew more about the capes of. Kinematicly, it should be similar to an SM-2MR BlkIII since it is more or less the same missile with a new seeker. That missile has a public range figure of 166km when fired from a ship. When air launched, 250km against a bomber might not be out of the question, but the Rhino with its canted pylons is not exactly known for flying high and fast with big stores under the wings, so it is likely a better interceptor when armed with AMRAAM instead. I suspect this is meant for air to surface, not air to air. Make the AGM-78 great again. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 11:35:31 AM EDT
[#6]
Nice!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 11:41:05 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: They took the booster off but air launching should almost triple the range. Probably triple that of the AIM-54 if it’s fired from high and fast, maybe more. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Originally Posted By Sinister: Outranges the Navy's old Phoenix by 30-odd miles. Three launched in anger and never hit anything. They took the booster off but air launching should almost triple the range. Probably triple that of the AIM-54 if it’s fired from high and fast, maybe more. Wait a minute, a 400ish mile missile? 
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 11:48:27 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Sinister: Outranges the Navy's old Phoenix by 30-odd miles. Three launched in anger and never hit anything. 30mi??? Air launched it might have up to a 300mi range |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 11:54:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: castlebravo84]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: It is launched off the ship as a SAM with an entirely separate booster section attached to it, so those range figures aren't accurate for the configuration which it is being flown on the Hornet. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By castlebravo84: Kinematicly, it should be similar to an SM-2MR BlkIII since it is more or less the same missile with a new seeker. That missile has a public range figure of 166km when fired from a ship. When air launched, 250km against a bomber might not be out of the question It is launched off the ship as a SAM with an entirely separate booster section attached to it, so those range figures aren't accurate for the configuration which it is being flown on the Hornet. SM-2 ER and SM-6 are the ones with a booster. The 166km figure I gave was for SM-2MR which is kinda like a boosterless SM-6 with a semi active seeker. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 11:57:33 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft: 30mi??? Air launched it might have up to a 300mi range Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft: Originally Posted By Sinister: Outranges the Navy's old Phoenix by 30-odd miles. Three launched in anger and never hit anything. 30mi??? Air launched it might have up to a 300mi range Potentially more than that, and when the SM6IIB is available it would become the USN’s weapon to “out stick” most of the world’s other weapons. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 12:06:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Potentially more than that, and when the SM6IIB is available it would become the USN’s weapon to “out stick” most of the world’s other weapons. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft: Originally Posted By Sinister: Outranges the Navy's old Phoenix by 30-odd miles. Three launched in anger and never hit anything. 30mi??? Air launched it might have up to a 300mi range Potentially more than that, and when the SM6IIB is available it would become the USN’s weapon to “out stick” most of the world’s other weapons. That beast is probably gonna cost something like $20M each though if the $30M price tag of the SM-3 IIA it's based on is any indication. Arming a Flight III Burke might cost more than building it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 12:11:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: They took the booster off but air launching should almost triple the range. Probably triple that of the AIM-54 if it’s fired from high and fast, maybe more. How long does the power last in those missiles? Depending on the intensity of the sensory equipment inside the tiny tube I could see battery life running out before thrust. |
|
|
|
BC, CAN
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 2:37:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: A happy place to launch an AAM is supersonic and in/above 30K, which gives you the type of range and capability against a maneuvering target to be competitive against the AA-12/PL-12. Neither of those vehicles is going to be able to do that. Could a Super Hornet achieve supersonic speed hauling one of those big beasts though? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 3:28:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Oh it has a booster, it just burns JP-8 err..5? Does the navy still blend their own? You'd know better than I, speed and altitude at time of launch must add to the range pretty significantly, but I take your point. Must take a lot of solid fuel to get a surface launched sm6 flying vertically. A guy who does this stuff for a living suggested a rule of thumb that surface launching a missile gives it 1/3 the range of air launching. So fighting gravity to get up takes 2/3 the energy the missile has, roughly speaking. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 3:29:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Kinematicly, it should be similar to an SM-2MR BlkIII since it is more or less the same missile with a new seeker. That missile has a public range figure of 166km when fired from a ship. When air launched, 250km against a bomber might not be out of the question, but the Rhino with its canted pylons is not exactly known for flying high and fast with big stores under the wings, so it is likely a better interceptor when armed with AMRAAM instead. I suspect this is meant for air to surface, not air to air. I doubt the ability of an F/A-18 to get inside 250km of a bomber and survive consistently, if the Chinese can deploy their aircraft effectively in strike packages. |
|
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 3:34:37 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 7empest: Why are we trying to escalate with China? the globalists sure want ww3 to keep Trump out. According to democrats who vote, it's Trump that will bringb us to WWIII silly. The adults are in charge. Just look how cool joe looks in aviator sunglasses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 3:35:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: That beast is probably gonna cost something like $20M each though if the $30M price tag of the SM-3 IIA it's based on is any indication. Arming a Flight III Burke might cost more than building it. The price fell substantially after they paid off the one time costs. Raytheon has a contract for new variants of SM2 and 6 that use a common guidance section so the costs are going to converge. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 3:36:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FunnyStar: According to democrats who vote, it's Trump that will bringb us to WWIII silly. The adults are in charge. Just look how cool joe looks in aviator sunglasses. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FunnyStar: Originally Posted By 7empest: Why are we trying to escalate with China? the globalists sure want ww3 to keep Trump out. According to democrats who vote, it's Trump that will bringb us to WWIII silly. The adults are in charge. Just look how cool joe looks in aviator sunglasses. Chinese culture basically requires the stronger power to assert dominance. If your dick is bigger they kneel and bow. Dangerous when you let them think theirs is bigger. |
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 3:39:06 PM EDT
[#19]
I bet a P-8 with two under each wing would be a dandy way to patrol the S China Sea.
|
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 3:40:52 PM EDT
[#20]
A bit off topic, but.... the article (linked in the OP) was written by a current high school senior. Some of you guys know a lot more about the subject matter, so it's possible the article is full of mistakes... but it seems to be pretty well written.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:06:12 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JellyBelly: How long does the power last in those missiles? Depending on the intensity of the sensory equipment inside the tiny tube I could see battery life running out before thrust. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JellyBelly: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: They took the booster off but air launching should almost triple the range. Probably triple that of the AIM-54 if it’s fired from high and fast, maybe more. How long does the power last in those missiles? Depending on the intensity of the sensory equipment inside the tiny tube I could see battery life running out before thrust. Battery life far exceeds the thrust. Motor burn out happens before the kill at normal long range. Battery/capacitor bleed off is a real world safety issue for a misfire/hangfire procedure from either ship/shore launch. Aircraft launch 'should' be able to safely jettison the store, or pylon. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:11:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: castlebravo84]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By feetpiece: I bet a P-8 with two under each wing would be a dandy way to patrol the S China Sea. Might want to keep a torpedo on there too, although I wouldn't put it past the Navy trying to adapt the SM-6 for ASW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:20:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MtnMusic: A bit off topic, but.... the article (linked in the OP) was written by a current high school senior. Some of you guys know a lot more about the subject matter, so it's possible the article is full of mistakes... but it seems to be pretty well written. OP's article is a copy/paste re-post of an article at The Drive. The three or four main writers at The Drive aren't terribly great tacticians, strategists, or combat airpower experts (although they certainly fancy themselves to be), but they do a pretty decent job of simply reporting things that occur in military aviation. Unfortunately, there's a lot of fanboy heavy-breathing that takes place in their articles that leads them to theorize on strategies and tactics that are beyond their training and experience. Super Hornet Armed With SM-6 Missile Spotted Over California |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:24:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: xd341]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: A guy who does this stuff for a living suggested a rule of thumb that surface launching a missile gives it 1/3 the range of air launching. So fighting gravity to get up takes 2/3 the energy the missile has, roughly speaking. ETA: Yeah, NASAMS. The 120 (not sure which version) is the short range missile in that system. 30 Km. |
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:25:10 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Might want to keep a torpedo on there too, although I wouldn't put it past the Navy trying to adapt the SM-6 for ASW. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Originally Posted By feetpiece: I bet a P-8 with two under each wing would be a dandy way to patrol the S China Sea. Might want to keep a torpedo on there too, although I wouldn't put it past the Navy trying to adapt the SM-6 for ASW. The P-8 has a prison wallet for torpedoes 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:25:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: SM-2 ER and SM-6 are the ones with a booster. The 166km figure I gave was for SM-2MR which is kinda like a boosterless SM-6 with a semi active seeker. Good point, I misread what you originally posted then. Certainly it is an interesting idea that could be a big advancement. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:29:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MudEagle]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Aught to be able to cross check that, don't they use the AIM-120 as a SAM in one of the short range systems? Or am I imagining that? There is a SLAMRAAM system, but I don't know that released range capabilities are actually going to reflect any kind of reality that can be used to cross-check. The rule of thumb that he posted is generally true, but not just for surface launching but also low altitude launches on aircraft compared to medium altitude launches. The difference in air density and Mach number compared to TAS are substantial. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:30:14 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: A guy who does this stuff for a living suggested a rule of thumb that surface launching a missile gives it 1/3 the range of air launching. So fighting gravity to get up takes 2/3 the energy the missile has, roughly speaking. I imagine it varies depending on how big the missile is. Air launching an ICBM for instance isn't going to give it the delta-v to hit the moon, but an air to air missile that would use up most of its energy just getting to the altitude and speed a fighter could launch it from might only get 1/10th the reach when fired from the ground, and might not even be able to hit a fighter flying high and fast directly overhead. I would guess that the 1500lb Mk72 booster can yeet an SM-6 higher and faster than a Super Hornet can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:32:09 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: There is a SLAMRAAM system, but I don't know that released range capabilities are actually going to reflect any kind of reality that can be used to cross-check. The rule of thumb that he posted is generally true, but not just for surface launching but also low altitude launches on aircraft compared to medium altitude launches. The difference in air density and Mach number compared to TAS are substantial. Is there a standard or baseline altitude and speed for measuring range or does it vary based on project requirement? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:34:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: I imagine it varies depending on how big the missile is. Air launching an ICBM for instance isn't going to give it the delta-v to hit the moon, but an air to air missile that would use up most of its energy just getting to the altitude and speed a fighter could launch it from might only get 1/10th the reach when fired from the ground, and might not even be able to hit a fighter flying high and fast directly overhead. I would guess that the 1500lb Mk72 booster can yeet an SM-6 higher and faster than a Super Hornet can. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:35:02 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: I imagine it varies depending on how big the missile is. Air launching an ICBM for instance isn't going to give it the delta-v to hit the moon, but an air to air missile that would use up most of its energy just getting to the altitude and speed a fighter could launch it from might only get 1/10th the reach when fired from the ground, and might not even be able to hit a fighter flying high and fast directly overhead. I would guess that the 1500lb Mk72 booster can yeet an SM-6 higher and faster than a Super Hornet can. Most AAMs are single-stage solid fuel engines that burn only for the first part of the time-of-flight, and use that burn to climb in altitude substantially rather than heading directly toward the target. Then the remainder of the time-of-flight is spent coasting downhill toward the target after burn-out. Thus, the more speed and altitude available at launch, the more time the missile spends in thinner air and at higher Mach numbers during that engine burn. Even shooting from a fighter flying a high Mach number at low altitude there is a substantial degradation in range due to those factors. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:36:40 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Is there a standard or baseline altitude and speed for measuring range or does it vary based on project requirement?  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:38:11 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Is there a standard or baseline altitude and speed for measuring range or does it vary based on project requirement? For publicly released numbers? I'm not sure. The classified manuals have charts that show min and max range launch envelopes across a range of altitudes, and most importantly, compared to standard target speed and aspect profiles. And, it is yardsticked against a Percentage of kill under those conditions (Pk). It is the closure speed and aspect of the target that really has the greatest bearing on effective range, and those variables are never addressed in public-released numbers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 4:38:52 PM EDT
[#34]
Cool.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 5:03:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: but it has to yeet it's own mass too from a dead stop. Air launched ideally you are at altitude, already super sonic and pointed in the right direction. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By castlebravo84: I imagine it varies depending on how big the missile is. Air launching an ICBM for instance isn't going to give it the delta-v to hit the moon, but an air to air missile that would use up most of its energy just getting to the altitude and speed a fighter could launch it from might only get 1/10th the reach when fired from the ground, and might not even be able to hit a fighter flying high and fast directly overhead. I would guess that the 1500lb Mk72 booster can yeet an SM-6 higher and faster than a Super Hornet can. That booster is 1500lbs and 45% of the weapon's total mass though. M39 ATACMS is 45% warhead, so even without accounting for guidance and control, that is at most 65% booster, and it hits Mach 3 with an Apogee something like 50mi downrange and an altitude several times that of a manned fighter. If the Mk72 can hit Mach 1.5 at 40kft, it will beat what a Super Hornet could reasonably do while carrying an SM-6 and not having a hundred mile run up with tankers at the start and end points. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 5:40:55 PM EDT
[#36]
It also has to carry the weight and drag of that booster through its cycle and at much denser air from a speed that’s about M1.2 less. So I don’t know what the answer is but it would take some math and defined variables to get to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 6:21:43 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By William_lxix: Battery life far exceeds the thrust. Motor burn out happens before the kill at normal long range. Battery/capacitor bleed off is a real world safety issue for a misfire/hangfire procedure from either ship/shore launch. Aircraft launch 'should' be able to safely jettison the store, or pylon. Thanks for teaching me cool stuff! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 7:03:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Houstons_Problem: Peace through strength is real. Not developing long range weapons when Russia and China are is an invitation for disaster. Having an under 300 ship US Navy is a disaster. Not having a large fleet of bombers able to deploy a large amount of naval mines which are stockpiled in adequate numbers or advanced antiship missiles is a disaster. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Houstons_Problem: Originally Posted By 7empest: Why are we trying to escalate with China? the globalists sure want ww3 to keep Trump out. Having an under 300 ship US Navy is a disaster. Not having a large fleet of bombers able to deploy a large amount of naval mines which are stockpiled in adequate numbers or advanced antiship missiles is a disaster. |
|
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 7:08:10 PM EDT
[#39]
So....do they work good on Dams? Asking for a friend.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 5:47:47 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirkericPitt: Can SM6's target missiles? Maybe this is an attempt to push the engagement envelope for incoming low altitude hypersonics beyond the fleet's engagement zone? Yup, depending on block they can target a pretty wide variety of aerial targets, including MRBMs and ICBMs with AEGIS BMD. Strategically they've been purposed for terminal phase intercepts, while SM3s are primarily purposed for mid-course intercepts. Japanese are in on the party too and I'm sure some other countries, but I was never involved in any of those tests. (All the above is very public information). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 7:32:19 PM EDT
[#41]
Didn't they shoot down a satellite with one?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 7:34:01 PM EDT
[#42]
Cool like a mule man!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 7:39:50 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bcw107: Didn't they shoot down a satellite with one? No, SM-6 couldn’t do that. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 8:22:33 PM EDT
[#44]
A fighter pilot on YT interview the other day said the thing the 22/35 have going for them is the stealth allows them to get in closer to fire, giving a greater probability of a hit.
Seems like these things would have a lower probability because of distance against a fighter. I dunno, I’m not a fighter pilot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 9:49:59 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Keekleberrys: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/12422/IMG_1785-3238773.jpg Reminds me of this lol. Hmm.....similar to the CMCA concept |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 10:56:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Pallas: A fighter pilot on YT interview the other day said the thing the 22/35 have going for them is the stealth allows them to get in closer to fire, giving a greater probability of a hit. Seems like these things would have a lower probability because of distance against a fighter. I dunno, I’m not a fighter pilot. Applying reasoning here: 1. It’s likely made to be used farther from the CSG than VLS loaded SM-6 could be rather than just airborne to get over the radar horizon. To reach anything like its max range it’ll be dependent on a link to a bigger radar than F/A-18 has and using an airborne radar they could shoot from a VLS cell. 2. AIM-260 also has more range than a 4th Gen fighter radar can use. Yet they want another option so it’s either because it’s faster, or longer ranged still, or they want a bigger warhead, or it’s for ships. 3. Pk against fighters at max range is going to be relatively low no matter what. My guess is: they either want to close the loop against ships from aircraft faster than LRASM or JSM, or they want the ability to shoot down Chinese bombers beyond the range at which they can strike the fleet. Hence the interest in maximum range and a larger warhead than an AIM-120/260. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 11:11:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: No, SM-6 couldn’t do that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Originally Posted By bcw107: Didn't they shoot down a satellite with one? No, SM-6 couldn’t do that. Ah. SM3. I was off by 3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 11:16:28 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: SM-2 ER and SM-6 are the ones with a booster. The 166km figure I gave was for SM-2MR which is kinda like a boosterless SM-6 with a semi active seeker. https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/RIM-66_DAT/RIM-66-Standard-Missile-005.jpg Sm2 can also be used anti ship.can it not? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2024 11:21:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harlikwin: Sm2 can also be used anti ship.can it not? Yeah. Little by little SM-2 and SM-6 are becoming the same missile. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 6:33:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: R0N]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Yeah. Little by little SM-2 and SM-6 are becoming the same missile. They are being converted to Block IIIC |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
