Meet the Standard Missile successor.https://aviationweek.com/defense/missile-defense-weapons/us-navy-reveals-details-standard-missile-replacement-planA standardized missile (pun not intended) with different boosters for different ranges and multipacking in Mk41 and APM cells.
>>65383305NMM = New Modular MissileTSI = Terminal Stage InterceptorLR = long rangeER = extended rangeMR = medium rangeS = seven packDP =dual PackQP = quad pack
This timeline sucks. Missile spam was supposed to come with giant robots.
>>65383387Sixpackbros... Our response?
>>653834657th missile is always a flyer anyways
>>65383305What cells do these go in? Is that LMVLS for the seven pack? That would mean it's a TLAM-sized missile. The others must be GVLS?
Why are VLS cells squares and not hexagons
>>65383513>>65383305>multipacking in Mk41 and APM cellsOh, I missed this. I guess what's going on here is that the sizes aren't to scale and LR is ER-S with a booster? Why is there no LR seven pack, then?
>>65383537All 4 variations use different boosters.LR appears to use the big 21" one that we see with the latest SM-6 and SM-3.The 7 pack and dual pack are bosth listed as ER but their boosters are visibly different, which nakes sense given APM uses cold launched missiles.
>>65383530easier to ship squares. stacking hexagons for shipping requires specialized floors or for the containers to lock to eachother somehow.
>>65383553LR uses a second stage booster, the others are single stage only. ER is the size of a TLAM, so LR is either the same diameter as ER or it's for GVLS and not Mk.41.
>>65383530Because missiles are square or triangular due to their fins. If they wanted to maximize the packing they'd use triangles and missiles with three fins.
>>65383387>S = seven packI think S = Submersible or Strike.It isn't the S-ER (seven pack-extended range) it's the ER-S (extended range-submersible (or strike)). Since the submarine version is almost certainly going to be focused on long range anti-ship and land-attack roles (like they currently use Tomahawks).
>>65383305https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/20c6c7ffde6e4c14b6391f31411aef4f/view>About the Naval Modular Missile (NMM) Program: The NMM program is a next-generation initiative designed to revolutionize surface naval capabilities through:>Multi-Mission Flexibility: A long-range hypersonic variant and scalable configurations to replace and enhance existing short-, medium-, and extended-range weapons.The long range version is supposed to be hypersonic, it's definitely intended for GVLS. The dual and quad pack versions may be intended to multipack in GVLS and single pack in Mk.41.
>>65383689No, your read on the GVLS is correct, but the dual and quad packed versions are 100% meant for the Mk41 VLS.NMM makes zero sense if 90% of the missiles are only usable on 3 destroyers (zumwalt) until the trump class (or DDGX) get built.
>>65383305>Standarder Missile>Even More Standard MissileHuh, the dual pack reminds me of wanting to stick PAC-3s into ship VLSes but seven pack? Jesus
>>65383837The dual and quad pack versions would be able to single pack in Mk.41 cells. Also PVLS isn't as large as GVLS so they wouldn't be able to fit the full number in Zumwalt's cells, eithr.
>>65384182Zumwalts are having the AGS replaced with APMs that can fit C-HGB, and presumably, G-VLS missiles.
>>65384194The LMVLS tubes in the APM are the ones that NMM ER-S 7-packs into.
>>65384333...yes that's my point, we also know they can fit 3x C-HGB.
>>65384356They can literally fit a Trident II SLBM if you wanted to load one up. Of course they can fit all of these missiles. The point I'm making is about how the missiles are packed.
>>65383305How soon until missiles are like multicam and ARs?
>>65384262So the 7 pack is sub launched, that's quite something.https://www.twz.com/sea/u-s-navy-is-seeking-a-submarine-launched-anti-air-missile
>>65384262Okay, I've got it. It is Mk.41 like the picture says, the art isn't to scale. LR is SM-3 sized, ER-S is TLAM sized, DP-ER is SM-2 sized, and QP-MR is ESSM sized.
>>65384590Whoa. That is genuinely neat.
>>65384610And they all use the same 10" diameter missile.
>>65383465Brigadiers half-dozen
>>65384582I think we will live to see the western missile singularity
>>65383305I don't suppose the TSI is large enough that it could be replaced with an ASW torp for a next-gen Sea Lance...
>>65383305Seems reasonable, the dual pack is an interesting new option, I don't think any current Navy missiles can do that. I seems to vaguely remember some people speculating about dual pack for navalized patriot, but I don't know what became of that.
>>65383305it's Aster all over again>>65383387>>65384262thanks>>65384910Man of education
>>65385069Aster isn't the same missile with different sized boosters depending on how many you want in a cell or modular components like the seeker.
>>65385051>the dual pack is an interesting new option, I don't think any current Navy missiles can do thatWasn't there a proposal to dual-pack harpoons or sea sparrows or something?
>>65385440I vaguely recall concepts of a dual pack Sea Sparrow
>>65385051The only multipack missile in US inventory (possibly in the world? The bongs might have one, I don't recall) is the ESSM.>>65385440Harpoons have never been VLS compatible. You might be thinking of the Mk.56 launcher with its pairs of ESSM canisters, but those are only single packed.
>>65385436>Aster isn't the same missile with different sized boostersthat's literally the difference between Aster 15 and Aster 30>>65385502>The bongs might have one, I don't recallnot reallyCAMM has been test-fired triple-packed into a Mk41, and I think dual-packing into Sylver is theoretically possible (but not test-fired), but none are operational (yet)probably because of budget, and also because it might be cheaper to use dedicated launchers instead of Mk41s
>>65385502MBDA has talked about quadpacked CAMM in a Mk41 but I don't think anyone has done it
>>65385537>that's literally the difference between Aster 15 and Aster 30Why did you cut off half of the post you responded to in order to change what was said?
>>65385553why did you object to a highly-narrowly-defined scope of analysis instead of identifying and acknowledging the common thread unique to these two missiles and no other missile except these two missiles?
are they better than sina's myssiles?
>>65385566Changing the booster size for more range (or to be used in shorter VLS cells) is a feature shared by missiles like the Aster and the Standard Missile. Taking a multipack missile and trading fewer missiles for a bigger booster is a feature shared by missiles like the PAC-3 and CAMM.This missile is the latter.
>>65385664>Changing the booster size for more range (or to be used in shorter VLS cells) is a feature shared by missiles like the Aster and the Standard Missileno it's not; the SM-2s, SM-3 and SM-6 all carry the name "Standard" but their seekers and even warheads are very differentAster 15 and Aster 30 were identical save for the boosters until this year>Taking a multipack missile and trading fewer missiles for a bigger booster is a feature shared by missiles like the PAC-3 and CAMMno it's not; PAC-3 MSE is so different from PAC-2 that it's virtually a different missile, and CAMM is not multipack
>>65385664This is both, it has both longer and larger diameter bodies and an optional second stage booster.
>>65385735>no it's not; the SM-2s, SM-3 and SM-6 all carry the name "Standard" but their seekers and even warheads are very differentSM-3 is very different, but SM-6 is just SM-2ER with an AMRAAM seeker and SM-2 Block IIIC is SM-6 without the first stage booster.
>>65383530Too difficult for the AI to interact with, they had to make them squares so it could calculate the optimal launch cell fast enough
>>65385735>no it's not; the SM-2s, SM-3 and SM-6 all carry the name "Standard" but their seekers and even warheads are very differentUp until SM-6 was introduced, which is an SM-2 ER with an active seeker, Standard Missiles used the same missile.
>>65385790The booster diameter is tied to the quantity of missiles in a cell.
>>65385735>PAC-3 MSE is so different from PAC-2 that it's virtually a different missileYou are correct PAC-2 is a different missile, did you notice I never mention it either? Did you not know there are two (now three) different versions of PAC-3?>and CAMM is not multipacIt is in Mk41 cells.
>>65385911really?what's the difference between an SM-1 and an SM-2?>>65385800>they're the same except for these exceptionsyesthere were no such exceptions for Aster 15/30 until this very yearNONEZEROZILCHcan you understand this? because I feel you are all having difficulty understanding this, so I'll say it againthere was no difference between Aster 15 and Aster 30 except for the boosterNONEZEROZILCHZIPNADAwarhead: SAMEsensor: SAMEfins: SAMESAMESAMEcan you get the picture now? must I repeat this again for the slower members of the class?>>65385943>Did you not know there are two (now three) different versions of PAC-3?very well, in that case thank you for making my point for meand that is without bringing up PAC-1>It is in Mk41 cellsName the warship on which CAMM has been deployed in Mk41 VLS cells
>>65384590Makes sense, ASW planes are the biggest threat to subs so being able to take one out as soon as it starts dropping buoys near you buys you a few hours to run before the next one turns up.
>>65387717>must I repeat this again for the slower members of the class?Please do tell us the difference between an SM-2MR and an SM-2ER.
>>65387726There is also the potential for collaborative engagements, think of when an F-35 guides an SM-6.
>>65387717>very well, in that case thank you for making my point for meThat you didn't know what the difference between a PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE was?
>>65388293why should I, when the point I was making is that SM-1, SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 are all vastly different despite all being named "Standard" >>65388298the difference is irrelevant since my point is that likewise, PAC-1, PAC-2 and PAC-3 are all different despite all being named "Patriot"
>>65388376It's fascinating that you are fixating on the name and not the missiles after multiple anons pointed out the mistake you were making.
>>65388397It's fascinating that you still refuse to acknowledge that >>65385436 was dead wrong, >>65385664 even more so, and that is all that there is to this discussion
>>65388408No anon I get it, you want Aster to be special. It's a good missile but your inability to comprehend the difference between missiles that have different boosters for different ranges and a missile that has different boosters in order to be able to pack different quantities in a cell is very evident.
>>65388447the discussion goalposts have shifted from>Standard missiles are all the same except for the boosters MMKAY!!to>ackshually you're wrong because SM-2ER and SM-2MR are the same except for the boosters, ignore SMs 1, 2, 3 and 6!!the argument about the PAC-3 is even more mystifying to me, given that it's changed to>ackshually you should have pointed out the difference between PAC-3 CRI and PAC-3 MSE, instead of pointing out the difference between PACs 1, 2 and 3, NYEHH!!be as condescending as you like, I'm still correct: Aster 15/30 shared the same interceptor, just like the TSI, and this is unique when compared against the Patriot and Standard families>you want Aster to be special. It's a good missile butI was merely pointing out a feature, it was not an assessment of capabilityI understand though that you projected a putdown into the statement and this rustled your jimmies so badly
The talk of Aster 15 and Aster 30 using the same missile is kind of funny given that Aster 30 has largely supplanted Aster 15. There is no reason to procure Aster 15 unless you are using the short Sylver VLS.
>>65388455You are flailing after realizing that SM-2, which was the only SM in service for decades (and when Aster entered service) uses the same missile.>b-b-but SM-6 and SM-3!!!I guess Aster doesn't use the same missile then either because of the newer Aster 30.
>>65388536as a matter of fact, SM-2s do NOT all use the same missiles, because you forgot about the block differences>I guess Aster doesn't use the same missile then either because of the newer Aster 30the newer block which just entered service literally this year? yes, I had already noted thateven then, the difference is only parallel to the difference between the SM-2 sub-blocks, and >was the only SM in service for decades (and when Aster entered service)wrong againkeep racking them up>>65388523>There is no reason to procure Aster 15 unless you are using the short Sylver VLSindeedCharles de Gaulle and Cavour do not carry the long Sylver VLS, they physically cannot launch Aster 30
>>65388577>because you forgot about the block differencesThe fact that Aster 15 remains unchanged after 30 years is not the argument you think it is.
>>65388586>this new TSI missile is the same in concept as Aster was for 30 years>no it isn't the same>yes it is the same>no it isn't the same>yes it is the same>ALRIGHT YES IT IS THE SAME BUT THAT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT YOU THINK IT IShaving accepted your concession on that matter at long last, I'm perplexed; what argument did you think it was?
>>65388589>Aster concepta 'short' and a 'tall' booster>NMM concepta quadpack missile that can trade missiles per cell for larger boostersThe fact that you think these are the same says a lot.
>>65388605>these are the sameas I already said to you, TWICE, no other missile has the same concept of a common interceptor modified only by swapping boosters and having different tracking software. that was all the similarity that I was pointing out, which is unique to these two missiles.you thought wrongly that other missiles were designed the same way, and I corrected each one of your misconceptions.incidentally, there are other structural differences in the NMM besides booster length and width. you only identified width.
