question about SM-2's track model

big toothbrush

New Member
i've been being interesting in the aegis system these days. as we know, the SM-2 missile's track model is INS/orders track at begining and semi-active radar track at the end. AN/SPY-1 PAR could offer orders to SM-2 to correct the lane error. but it can't offer the final illuminating because it's a S wave band radar which doesn't have enough accuracy. the final illuminater are three AN/SPG-62 fire control radars. they have to illuminate for SM-2 while the missiles are in the end of their trip.

my question is how could aegis deal with targets which are under horizon. how could the AN/SPG-62 FCS illuminate the targets since they are in its dead angle. aegis could be supported by other sensor units such as AWACS through data links, but still, AN/SPG-62 must offer illuminating. unless AWACS can do this job for FCS, otherwise i'm confused.
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Aegis is but one part of a collaborative system. So BVR or BH shots are still picked up by other companion systems.

As part of a normal CSF there are aerial assets that act as cruise missile pickets. On the larger Aegis assets like the Tico II's, then they also provide supplementary air - which is also tasked for BVR painting.
 

big toothbrush

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
i know that. to operate the mid-flight guidinng is easy since SM-2 is an INS/orders tracked missile. both AN/SPY-1 radar on ship and APS-145 radar on E-2C can do orders revising. what i wonder is how to finish final track for a semi-active radar tracked missile such as SM-2 without using AN/SPG-62 illuminaters.
 

Wild Weasel

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Long and short of it is: The E-2C can complete the intercept, in addition to other off-board sensors via cooperative engagement system. This of course, requires either a carrier, and/or a grouping of vessels with CES capability to be a part of the equation.

Frankly- this is dark and well-protected subject matter, for good reason. Without trying to sound too paranoid, I'm not going to post on this further, and I suggest caution to those who do.
 

big toothbrush

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
you mean E-2C can illuminate instead of SPG-62? but data shows E-2C can offer orders but can't illuminate. or what else do you mean? guiding a semi-active tracked missile to attack over-horizon targets, you have to use air-based illuminator, other wise even CEC just doesn't work.
 

Wild Weasel

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I believe that Standard can complete an intercept through the use of a command datalink on the missile- regardless of whether or not the target is illuminated.

Case in point- the Phoenix AAM has successfully been passed from a launching Tomcat to an E-2C, and successfully impacted a target- without the use of the missile's own active radar set. The test was carried out in the 'eighties, to prove that the Hawkeye could do such a thing, without the target's RWR detecting the missile threat until after the Phoenix had struck.

Now, how do I know this? Good question- but I'm not telling.

I will say that I have discussed the Standard's CEC capabilities with a family member, who helped design the SM-2's guidance packages back in the early 'seventies- and he told me that the weapon is capable of destroying a target soley thriough the use of it's command datalink.

I'm only going by what I've heard.
 

big toothbrush

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
the SM-2 Block IIIB has a MHIP infrared seeker. once semi-active radar seeker is unavaiable, just use it to finish terminal track. of course standard can do this, but only can deal with one target per direction when intercept over-horizon targets coz it's passive tracked, all missiles just go to the target with stronggest infrared signal. if it could be tracked by E-2C, then why USN said it only has a limited ability on over-horizon interception, and still so hurry up on the developing of SM-6?
 

Wild Weasel

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
As you stated, the missile is SARH in the terminal phase, but has other modes which will allow an interception if the target cannot be illuminated. The SARH Standard SAM is the best AAW weapon system to ever arm a war ship. It's been combat proven, and is a world-beater system that has held the line for decades. But it could be improved.

It's better to move forward with a terminally-active radar-homing SAM, that has no need for target illumination at all. SM-6's AMRAAM-based active radar seeker, combined with the SM-2/BlkIIIB IIR secondary intercept mode enables the Aegis system, ForceNET, and CEC to maximise the effectiveness of the defense load, while decreasing the overall impact of the radar-illuminator-fire control computer process. Basically, SM-6 allows for more simultaneous missiles in the air, and a vast increase in combat-effectiveness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wild Weasel

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You are welcome. It's old news, actually, and really not relevent anymore because the AIM-54 is no longer in service. The active-homing AIM-120C is a much more flexible, and effective AAM.

What the information provides, is the realization that the Hawkeye, combined with CEC, and other technologies- is vastly more capable and important than most give it credit for.

A carrier battle group's best defence asset isn't merely hundreds of SAM's, or fighter-launched AAM's- it's the Hawkeye's ability to sense, and even actively participate in the destruction of what can be seen. In short- it see's all, and that which can be seen, can/will be destroyed.
 
Top