Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: Raytheon's Standard Missile-6 Program Begins Sea-Based Flight Testing
Source:
Defence Professionals
URL Source: http://www.defpro.com/news/details/14950/
Published: May 3, 2010
Author: defpro.news
Post Date: 2010-05-05 13:53:41 by reaganisright
Keywords: missiles, navy, defense
Views: 1198
Comments: 4
Raytheon Company's (NYSE: RTN) Standard Missile-6 begins sea-based flight testing this month, paving the way for initial operational capability (IOC) in 2011.
"With its over-the-horizon protection, SM-6 increases the surface Navy's battlespace against air and cruise missile threats and offers protection for coalition forces ashore," said Frank Wyatt, Raytheon's vice president of Air and Missile Defense Systems product line. "These sea-based flight tests clear the way for Raytheon to deliver a critical capability to the warfighter by 2011."
SM-6 takes full advantage of the legacy Standard Missile airframe and propulsion elements while incorporating advanced signal processing and guidance control capabilities of Raytheon's Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile. The merger of two proven technologies enables SM-6 to employ both active and semiactive modes.
"Since Raytheon began SM-6 development five years ago, the on-time and on-budget program has completed five successful land-based flight tests and moved to low rate initial production," said Wyatt. "With the hard work of Raytheon's employees, our dedicated suppliers and our U.S. Navy customer, we are on track to achieve the IOC milestone in 2011."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
I used to work for these guys. There was this hot blond who was real friendly to everyone, if you know what I mean. Only there was this one weird dude who wouldn't talk to her. He hid his coffee cup in some cupboard by my desk so he wouldn't have to talk to her or anything. She thought he was cute, but I think he was afraid of girls. Once in a meeting he put his hand on my leg under the table.
I spend more time on FB than anywhere else on the web these days .... badeye
#2. To: Abu el Banat (#1)
(laughing)
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
#3. To: Abu el Banat (#1)
Once in a meeting he put his hand on my leg under the table.
You immediately went down on him, didn't you Abdul? LOL!
Sneakypete, have you ever been married? Said things you later regretted?
#4. To: reaganisright (#0)
An interesting counterpoint from Fred Reed.
I wonder whether Americans realize that they have a Vienna-sausage military at filet-mignon prices. The sorry performance in recent wars is just one example of the ongoing rot, but the whole enterprise has become unbalanced, aimed at fighting the kinds of enemies we don’t have instead of the ones we have recently chosen to make.
The Navy is a fine example. The carrier battle group, the heart of the Navy, is a hugely expensive way to get relatively few combat aircraft to a remote place. It is a relic of World War II, for which it was well suited. Since it was then fighting similar battle groups, the strengths and weaknesses were more or less matched.
But the Navy has not fought a war for sixty years, certainly not one it needed to win, and it shows. Today’s battle groups, CVBGs as we say, are almost indistinguishable from those of 1945, except for the upgrading of weapons. Instead of five-inch-thirty-eights, we have Standard missiles. Instead of F4F Hellcats, the F-18 Hornet. Yet the carrier is still the Mother Ship, protected by screens of cruisers and destroyers, with interceptors flying CAP. The problem is that the enemy has changed.
Bear in mind that a great many countries fear attack by the United States, among them such trivial nations as Russia, China, and Iran. None of these has the money to build carrier groups to oppose those of the Navy.
All of these have thought about cheap ways to overcome the US behemoth. Four solutions soon came to hand:
1. Very fast sea-skimming cruise missiles, such as the Brahmos and Brahmos II (Mach 5+).
2. Supercavitating torpedoes, reaching speeds of over 200 miles an hour.
3. Very quiet submarines, diesel-electrics in the case of poor countries.
4. Anti-ship ballistic missiles, such as the one attributed to the Chinese.
Any military buff knows that the Navy cannot defend itself against these. It says it can. It has to say it can. In fleet exercises against submarines, the subs always win—easily. The Pentagon has been trying to invent defenses against ballistic missiles since the days of Reagan (remember Star Wars?) with miserable results. If you have close friends in the Navy, ask them over a few beers what scares the bejesus out of them. Easy: Swarms of fast, stealthy, sea-skimming cruise missiles with multi-mode terminal guidance.
More here.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]