By Marty Kauchak
This July 28-31 the US Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) fired three of Raytheon’s new Standard Missile variant, the SM-6 Dual I, in a series of tests that further revolutionized maritime warfare. The Dual I upgrade adds a new, more powerful processor that runs more sophisticated targeting software. That software now lets the SM-6 identify, track, and destroy a target descending from the upper atmosphere at extreme speed – specifically, a ballistic missile warhead – in addition to cruise missiles. As SM-6 is integrated into the US Missile Defense Agency’s layered ballistic missile defense strategy, the legacy-era Raytheon SM-3 will continue to be fielded to hit incoming ballistic missiles earlier in their trajectory, at greater distances and higher altitudes, even in space — what’s called mid-course defense.
Raytheon’s SM-6 is an agile, long-range weapon that uses the same seeker as the AMRAAM air-to-air missile to engage enemy cruise missiles and aircraft. Whereas Raytheon’s legacy-era SM-2 missile is semi-active – guided by the onboard Lockheed Martin Aegis combat system to intercept – the SM-6 is a semi-active and active missile. Mike Campisi, Raytheon’s senior program director for the Standard Missile-6 program, added at an August 5 media availability attended by SDArabia , that for SM-6, while the Aegis system “guides, the missile then takes over and ‘does its own thing.’”
The company optimizes components from other Standard Missile family weapons to build SM-6. Beyond the AMRAAM front end, the SM-6 is also constructed with an SM-2 airframe for optimal maneuverability, and an SM-3 rocket motor and booster on the aft part. “We put it together that way to minimize development costs for the US Navy and complete a number of mission sets. What we have done is provide an extended-range active missile,” Campisi said.
The Raytheon executive further emphasized this July’s tests, which included the 50th flight of SM-6, were also the first time the Navy-industry team flew the sea-based terminal (phase) code set for SM-6. Indeed, Campisi reflected after the recent test regimen “SM-6 and the whole [Aegis] system were far more capable than we had previously experienced.” Earlier SM-6 “engagements” against ballistic missiles were confined to simulation-based scenarios.
When the SM-6 Dual 1 is shipped to its Navy customer in 2016, combatant and ship-board commanders will have new and valuable tactical options. Campisi explained, “You are putting one missile which has a multi-mission set. This is not a ‘boutique missile’ – either a sea-based terminal or anti-air warfare SM-6 – it is one missile that can do both missions and just needs to be told: here’s the mission you are going on.”
The company’s final SM-6 acquisition production milestones it plans to complete through early 2016 include: an unspecified number of Navy Integrated Fire Control test shots this fall; and final operational test and evaluation and full operational capability (FOC) missile launches in spring 2016. The successful FOC results will define the final configuration that will be delivered to every Navy SM-6-capable ship.
At press time, Raytheon reported production of 205SM-6s since the beginning of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). Campisi further noted “we have ramped up [production] since the LRIP. Our production rate is 8-to-10 depending on the month. We have also been asked to look at increasing our rate to almost double on a monthly basis.”
The SM-6 consortium includes Raytheon for the missile and Lockheed Martin for the Aegis system. “While there are other players in the game, other interested parties, those are two main companies,” Campisi said, not providing the names or responsibilities of other industry team members.
There is international interest in SM-6 procurement. A number of unspecified nations, primarily from Europe, have made preliminary acquisition inquires about prices, availability and similar topics to the US State Department.
Editor’s note: Marty Kauchak is SDArabia’s US correspondent.
Leave a Reply