US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[FORBIN]

They need extend about 5 LA really feasible.

For SM-6 i see vs AA targets 240 km and vs ships 360+ how such a difference very strange in more in this case a trajectory more low and normaly the range is inferior or missiles modified get more fuel ?

 

[SamuraiBlue]

They need extend about 5 LA really feasible.

For SM-6 i see vs AA targets 240 km and vs ships 360+ how such a difference very strange in more in this case a trajectory more low and normaly the range is inferior or missiles modified get more fuel ?

Probably it's due to trajectory in which against a ship it flies a ballistic flight path and conserves fuel on the way down. Where as against aerial targets it's a one way flight up.

 

[FORBIN]

We can go on this topic better place now
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/naval-missiles-and-launchers.t7866/page-2#post-387778

 

[Jura The idiot]

I guess a classified distance just shattered a previous classified distance. You just have to take their word for it. Lol.

in my view it was a rather poor announcement (I of course don't blame navyreco or nothing); I like Michael Connelly novels, where they say:
Put up or shut up.

 

[Jura The idiot]

it seems there's actually no info available (video!), but since you quoted me

Not really surprising since long time USN have SM-1 and SM-2 which get this secondary capability and the SM-6 is their successor but first SM-6 right now can' t attack ships for few years.

with one missile (that's what for example

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

implies) I think there are three ways how a 4000 t displacing warship can be sent under:

1. pluck a rather big hole below the waterline (for example an Otomat AShM goes for it)
2. set on the fire (hitting the superstructure, for example an Exocet goes for it) to cause secondary explosions
3. demolition men visit first

you may tell me what's happened to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jura The idiot]

Sep 26, 2015

...

SeaRam has been extensively tested...but I am unware of it being tested on a Burke yet.

...

... it took some time but:
Navy Successfully Completes First Live Fire Test Of SeaRAM From Destroyer

The Navy successfully launched the Raytheon SeaRAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System from an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer for the first time ever on March 4, a final step in rapidly fielding a self-defense capability on the Mediterranean-based USS Porter (DDG-78) through an unconventional acquisition process.

Porter last week went through structural test firings to ensure a shield would properly protect the ship from the SeaRAM blast, followed by tracking exercises to verify the accuracy of the detect-to-engage sequence. Finally, on Friday the Navy had its first-ever live fire test of a SeaRAM from a DDG, which took place on a Spanish Navy test range in the Mediterranean.

USNI News understands the qualification test was successful and Porter will soon be able to use SeaRAM operationally, according to a source familiar with the test event. Additionally, the SeaRAM system has recently been tested successfully in another location against supersonic targets, expanding the utility of the system meant to address close-in threats such as helicopters and cruise missiles.

The SeaRAM, which replaces the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System’s 20mm gun with a Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Block II launcher, is in production for use on the Littoral Combat Ship.

Last spring an emergent need arose in the Mediterranean – a new Russian threat, the details of which remain classified,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

as the ships focused on a ballistic missile defense target.

After looking at the threat and several possible options to address it, the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems, U.S. 6th Fleet, the Surface Warfare Directorate and other organizations

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Without discussing the nature of the new threat, Program Executive Officer for Integrated Warfare Systems Rear Adm. Jon Hill told USNI News on March 3 that SeaRAM was selected because “it allows them to have that additional layer – it’s a different missile system, it operates in a shorter range regime and it’s much more maneuverable, so it gives them a capability that complements the rest of the layers” of ship self-defense.

To engineer and field this solution as quickly as possible, Raytheon was able to pull SeaRAM systems coming off its production line for the DDGs, and the Navy got busy “making modifications and understanding how it worked with the Aegis Weapon System; the training, logistics, supportability, testing – all of it done in 12 months,” Capt. Michael Ladner, Surface Ship Weapons Office Program Manager at PEO IWS, said March 3 at the American Society of Naval Engineers’ annual ASNE Day.

“That is what we need to challenges ourselves with, challenge industry with, and our field activities and labs: how do we get to that capability, that kind of example, across the portfolio?” he said of the rapid prototyping and fielding effort.
“It’s not the way that we do business. How do we get to that? How do we get to this kind of flexibility to deliver capability faster?”

Speaking last month at WEST 2016, cohosted by the U.S. Naval Institute and AFCEA, Ladner said the Navy created its own luck in the case of SeaRAM on DDGs – all the pieces fell into place to act quickly, but Navy leadership acknowledged the severity of the new threat in the Mediterranean and focused on quickly implementing a solution.

Many destroyers have two Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS, pronounced Sea-Wiz) mounts. The idea, Ladner said, was to replace the aft mount with SeaRAM – which would normally take a couple years to engineer, taking into account the effect on the hull, the Aegis Combat System and the logistics and training pipelines. But the Navy didn’t have a couple years, so the service developed some self-imposed requirements: make no changes to the Aegis Combat System, make minimal changes to the ship hull, and find ways to concurrently test from the shore and the ship to speed up the timeline.

Porter will now be protected as it sails the Mediterranean, and the other three Spain-based ships – USS Donald Cook (DDG-75), USS Ross (DDG-71) and USS Carney (DDG-64) – will be outfitted with SeaRAM this calendar year.

Though the threat set – and the reason normal acquisition procedures were bypassed– is specific to these four ships, the surface warfare community may choose to put SeaRAM on other DDGs in the future. Between all the destroyer flights, all the Aegis Combat System baselines and other variances between ships in the class, not all destroyers have equal layered defense.

“We’re big believers in defense in depth. So there are programs of record that give us that layered defense, from (Standard Missile) SM-6 at long range, SM-2 medium range, and then the close-in weapons, either [Evolved SeaSparrow Missile] Block II, RAM or CIWS,” Ladner said last week.
“These Rota DDGs are an older baseline that don’t have ESSM Block II, because that capability doesn’t field until the mid-20s, so they pretty much have that standard missile defense and then CIWS. This gives them that RAM Block II layer, extra layer against those emergent threats.”

Cmdr. Michael Weeldreyer, weapons branch requirements officer at the surface warfare directorate (OPNAV N96), said at WEST 2016 that putting SeaRAM on additional DDGs with fewer layers in their self-defense capability “is something we continue to look at, and we continue to weigh within the cost-benefit analysis, along with the other Aegis baselines and weapons that the ships have for self-defense purposes.”

Weeldreyer told USNI News afterwards that in some cases an upgrade to a newer Aegis baseline would be the simpler way to address a threat but that N96 would make decisions based on operational need and the specific hull’s capabilities.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jeff Head]

Sep 26, 2015

... it took some time but:
Navy Successfully Completes First Live Fire Test Of SeaRAM From Destroyer

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Thank you my friend.

I believe my post was in September of last year. This USNI article was published on March 8, 2016, and it references the first structural test of a SeaRAM on a Burke as being February 28, 2016, followed by the first at sea live launch on March 4, 2016. .

So my post from last year was accurate at the time.

Thanks for keeping an eye out for when it actually was tested.

Nice pic with that article



USS Porter (DDG-78) conducts a structural test firing of SeaRAM in Spain on Feb. 28, 2016, as the first Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer with a SeaRAM installation. The Navy successfully launched the Raytheon SeaRAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System from an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer for the first time ever on March 4, 2016..

 

[Jeff Head]

After reading the full article (and it is an interesting article) from USNI about the SeaRAM on the Porter, and the quick turnaround in getting it tested anf fielded for a new threat in the Med. it is clear why.

The four Burke DDGs based in Rota, Spain, are:

USS Carney, DDG-64
USS Ross, DDG-71
USS Cook, DDG-75
USS Porter, DDG-78

All of them are either Block I or Block II Burkes. This means they do not have the helo hanger and usually are armed with two 20mm Phalanx CIWS.

They are going to replace one of those 20mm CIWs with the SeaRAM and thus add that extra layer of defense spoken of in the article.

Apparently they are not going to be upgraded to field the ESSM IIs until a few years from now and it was felt that they needed this additional layer of missile defense for a new threat (which I imagine ar enew Russian SSMs) in the Med now.

Interesting.

 

[Brumby]

After reading the full article (and it is an interesting article) from USNI about the SeaRAM on the Porter, and the quick turnaround in getting it tested anf fielded for a new threat in the Med. it is clear why.

The four Burke DDGs based in Rota, Spain, are:

USS Carney, DDG-64
USS Ross, DDG-71
USS Cook, DDG-75
USS Porter, DDG-78

All of them are either Block I or Block II Burkes. This means they do not have the helo hanger and usually are armed with two 20mm Phalanx CIWS.

They are going to replace one of those 20mm CIWs with the SeaRAM and thus add that extra layer of defense spoken of in the article.

Apparently they are not going to be upgraded to field the ESSM IIs until a few years from now and it was felt that they needed this additional layer of missile defense for a new threat (which I imagine ar enew Russian SSMs) in the Med now.

Interesting.

Actually I did a similar investigation because of that particular comment of a new threat to the four BMD destroyers. The main reason is that none of the four are baseline 9 and so once they are configured for BMD mode they cannot handle other air threats unlike baseline 9 which can automatically switch between the two modes. The SeaRAM will provide some type of air defence until they get upgraded to baseline 9 (maybe given the USN shrinking budget).

 

[Jeff Head]

...none of the four are baseline 9 and so once they are configured for BMD mode they cannot handle other air threats unlike baseline 9 which can automatically switch between the two modes. The SeaRAM will provide some type of air defence until they get upgraded to baseline 9 (maybe given the USN shrinking budget).

Yes...that is basically what I was saying.

Baeleline 9 was what I was talking about when I said, "upgraded to field the ESSM." That could have been worded better.

Until then, they will not have the capability in BMD mode, so the SeaRAM which is autonomous will proved the "coverage" in the mean time.