Singha wrote:actually SM6 has a amraam derived 2nd stage , has twice the range of Barak8 (bigger missile) and 2nd stage is agile and active enough to go after fighter and cruise missiles at extended range. I am not sure its in production yet.
the SM2 is the old warhorse more fit for high level long range work , hence backed up by ESSM for medium range agile targets and RAM for ciws. one TBMD derivative has been evolved. SM2 can take on high mach targets at high level. I am not sure how good against sea skimmers - maybe ESSM does it.
SM6 is in production and operationally deployed. You are correct, the rationale was to have the SM2 concentrate on supersonic or subsonic missiles in the 'cruise phase' and keep the ESSM in the sub-50 km phase of flight to cover all possible threats. Its much easier to shoot down a supersonic missile that is 200 km out and at medium or high altitudes provided you have the targeting resources to go out and do so.
China made some missile that has speed of 10 M ? How to counter such missile? Unkil is browning pants and it is a real dhoti shivering moment.
All ballistic missiles have very high terminal mach speeds. SM6 can shoot down ballistic missiles in their terminal phase although the SM3 is the go to since you ideally want to knock them out in the exo-atmospheric phase.
The current preparation is for a future perhaps 10-15 years out where cruise missiles are going to have speeds of around mach 5 - mach 10. The US is already investing a very large amount of money in the Mach 5 to Mach 6 category both in the cruise missile domain (HSSW) and in the boost glide missile (ballistic) category. While the latter can be intercepted using existing missiles provided the targeting and tracking is improved (due to shorter reaction times) the former require improved interceptors. This means upgrading both terminal interceptors in the PAC-3 MSE and the THAAD, in addition to the the SM6 and SM3 capabilities going forward. THAAD-ER received funding in this years budget (for next year) and will be developed over the next 5-6 years or so.
With faster speeds on the horizon, they want to make sure that the unique capabilities of the THAAD (it can shoot down missiles both in the endoatmosphere and the exoatmosphere) is kept up with the threat as it develops.
Kanson wrote:
Long back Israel evaluated SM2(aka SM 6) for their need(It was on offer). Then went on to develop Barak-8. Info from them is Barak-8 provides much more capability than what could SM6 offer.
Sure take away is that Barak-8 performance in engaging low level targets ( aka Brahmos type) exceeds that of SM6.
SM6 can engage high mach targets at high altitudes, but not so clear on brahmos type at low level.
While Barak-8 is silent on anti-ballistic role, SM6 can do that.
SM6 is longer ranged missile (aprox. 200nm range according to JANES), with performance at those ranges. Its a part of a 2 layered protection for high speed cruise missiles. It is networked enabled and recently shot down a supersonic cruise missile (most likely a Coyote at Mach 2.5 which it has also shot down multiple times in the past) beyond the horizon under NIFC-CA. Thats the raison d'être for the SM6 since the USN wanted to shoot down targets (air breathing or rocket) farther out and wanted a layered capability that covers exoatmospheric intercepts, long range intercept of aircrafts, terminal stage ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles in addition to the terminal defense capability of sea-skimming cruise missiles using the ESSM. Ideally due to the sea skimming phase of very fast missiles you want to shoot them down in the cruise phase when you have a better chance to react given the distances involved. The SM2 and now the SM6 do exactly that while the SM3 family takes care of the space kills, and ESSM short ranged (still a 40-50 km missile). Although the SM6 can be launched at a short range as well there is the ESSM blk. I & II (in EMD phase) available for that task and it has also shot down supersonic sea skimming missiles.
SM6 would have looked a lot different had the ESSM not been there, or had the ESSM_Active (Blk. II) not been in the works. Its to balance out the cost equation, a single launcher will carry 4 ESSM-II's that costs less than 1/4 of the SM6. You do not need to shoot an SM6 at ranges where you have the ESSM perform the intercept unless there is an emergency and you are out of options. You pay the 'top dollar' for the SM6 to get the capability to use an off board sensor and kill a missile from afar or shoot down cruise missiles over land as it has demonstrated.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... w-emd.html
Navy Network Helps SM-6 Find, Kill Supersonic Target It Can’t See
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/supe ... -key-test/
SM6 can engage high mach targets at high altitudes, but not so clear on brahmos type at low level.
At the ranges the SM6 is designed to achieve its kill supersonic anti-ship missiles are not going to be in the sea-skimming phase of flight. If ship launched, the ships need to get much closer to go on an all-out sea skimming profile. The Brahmos is not a threat to AEGIS ships or the US CVN, the Chinese cruise missiles very much are what they are looking at, and what the layered defense is meant to defeat. One also has to figure out soft-kill techniques and recent developments when judging a particular capability.
ramana wrote:ramana wrote:TusharM, How does Barak 8 compare to Standard SM-2 or PAC III or MEADS?
SM-2 is a class by itself. So true comparison should be B-8, PAC III and MEADS.
PAC3 and MEADS are systems that are different from one another in some significant ways yet both systems now share the same missile in the MSE.
Think of the MSE as the SM6 for land platforms (although lockheed has at times offered it for naval applications)..It has some terminal ballistic missile intercept capability and is most likely quite good within that envelope given that it was selected for the MEADS instead of upgrading other weapons. For land based Endo and Exo-atmospheric kills the THAAD is preffered given its much larger capability. THAAD is strictly an anti-missile defense system so for land it is used along with the Patriot to cover all bases.
All the radars are now talking to one another, so a TPY-2 track from Turkey can be handed off to an S band AEGIS radar in europe or in the ocean etc...
) are trying to project the signature of the carrier, have the ability to bring to bear space assets for targeting and C2C support in a degraded or denied environment (Space kills+Cyber) - has never been fired ( and you can't really get a working system until you test, test, test and test constantly) it still is the most significant challenge facing the USN when it comes to A2AD techniques of its most advanced threats. 
This is news?
