Navy Pursues SM-6 as Defense Against Cruise Missile Threats

By PATRICIA KIME
Sea Power Correspondent

The global proliferation of cruise missiles, predicted widely after Operation Desert Storm, has yet to materialize. But the lack of an immediate threat is not stopping the U.S. Navy from updating measures to counter antiship missiles as well as land-attack cruise missiles.

The Missile Defense Agency estimates that in the next 10 years as many as 20 countries could possess cruise missiles. The Russians are working with India to develop a cruise missile that is not covered by the Missile Technology Control Regime, an informal and voluntary association of 34 countries that want to foster the nonproliferation of unmanned systems that can delivery weapons of mass destruction. Members include Russia and the United States. India, China, Iran and North Korea are not members.

These and other developments could lead to widespread purchases of the weapons among nations or the manufacturing of copycats. Should that proliferation occur — and along with it, an increase in the likelihood of a terrorist organization obtaining a cruise missile — the Navy needs to be ready, said Steven Zaloga, an analyst with the Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm in Fairfax, Va.

“The threat could pop up suddenly, overnight, and the problem with countermeasures is [that] you cannot field them overnight,” he said.

While much attention has been focused on ballistic-missile defense, the Navy has always been concerned with cruise missiles, which fly below radar, hugging the terrain or the ocean surface. The Navy faces a threat from land-attack cruise missiles as well as antiship missiles.

“That is why they are pursuing a weapon that can handle both,” Zaloga said.

That weapon is the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) extended-range active missile, or ERAM.

For use as an anti-air warfare and area air-defense missile, the SM-6 is expected to provide extended-range anti-air warfare capability against a multitude of targets, including aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and land-attack and antiship cruise missiles in flight, either over sea or land.

With its active radar system, the SM-6 also is expected to engage over-the-horizon targets using a future networked fire-control data system for targeting.

The SM-6 is designed to replace the Navy’s Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IV surface-to-air missile, which was not purchased in large quantities because it was to be replaced by the SM-2 Block IVA that was to have anti-air warfare and theater ballistic-missile defense capability.

But the Block IVA, along with the Navy’s entire area missile-defense program, was canceled by the Defense Department in December 2001 because of poor contract performance and cost overruns. Acquisition and average procurement unit costs had exceeded original goals by more than 50 percent, and the project was more than two years behind schedule when it was scrapped.

The Navy does not expect to have the same financial problems with the SM-6. The service awarded a $440 million sole-source contract to Raytheon in September for development, production, testing and delivery of the weapon.

“Raytheon was the only source that can satisfy the extended-range and active-seeker requirements associated with a ship-launched extended-range active missile within the required time frame,” a Navy official from the Integrated Warfare Systems Program Executive Office said in a written statement.

Development of the SM-6 will rely heavily on technology already produced by Raytheon, including using the airframe of the SM-2 Block IV missile and the advanced seeker technology of the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM.

“By employing our combat-proven [AMRAAM] technology on our widely deployed and ship-certified Standard Missile-2 airframe, we have created a highly effective and affordable extended-range anti-air warfare solution with minimum risk for our Navy customer,” said Edward Miyshiro, Raytheon’s Naval Weapons Systems vice president.

The SM-6 will have two guidance modes — active and semi-active — which will allow it to engage standard targets now and give more flexibility in the future, the Navy said.

The SM-6 will carry a blast-fragmentation warhead and be deployable from AEGIS cruisers and destroyers. It also will be compatible with systems on future surface combatants, including the DD(X), the Navy official said.

According to the service, each missile is expected to cost $2 million. The Navy adds that it needs this capability because without it, the service must rely on a weapon that can only be deployed when the enemy is within radar range of a ship.

The Navy currently has the SM-2 Block IV in its inventory but relies heavily on its stock of SM-2 Block IIIBs. The Block IIIB uses a dual-mode infrared/radio frequency guidance system but doesn’t have active seeker capability.

The SM-2 Block IIIB is a reliable and favored surface-to-air defense weapon, having been tested from a variety of launch platforms and demonstrating extended area air defense capability. And the Navy sees it as a state-of-the-art weapon that can handle current threats.

But service officials believe the SM-6 will create a complementary capability for the SM-2 Block IIIB and give the service a fleet air defense capability that will last through the mid-21st century.

“As a semi-active missile, the SM-2 Block IIIB is limited to operations within the radar horizon of the firing unit,” the Navy wrote in its statement. “With a future Integrated Fire Control, SM-6 will provide the surface Navy with an increased battle space against over-the-horizon [anti-air warfare] threats, taking full advantage of the kinematics available to the Standard Missile.”

The SM-6 is expected to be initially deployed in fiscal 2010. Critical design review is targeted for fiscal 2006 with flight testing in fiscal 2008. Its capabilities, speed and maximum range are classified.

Much of the missile’s testing and production will take place at Raytheon Missile Systems facility in Tucson, Ariz., with some work conducted at Raytheon facilities in Arkansas and Massachusetts.

The Navy maintains the weapon is key to supporting the vision of Sea Shield, the service’s effort to provide sea-based theater and strategic defense vice unit and task force defense.

“It will change the paradigm for operations at sea and will take full advantage of the Navy’s approach to sensor netting to achieve true network centric warfare,” the Integrated Warfare Systems Program Executive Office official said.

For now, the threat of a cruise-missile strike against a Navy ship or other U.S. target, including a U.S. city, is low. According to Zaloga, the governments most interested in acquiring cruise missile capability — namely Iraq and Libya — have been removed from the market. Iran and North Korea have expressed interest, but their attempts to acquire them have been erratic.

Eventually, a non-governmental agency, such as a terrorist organization, could attempt to acquire a cruise missile. And if that happens, the issue would become a matter of homeland security, Zaloga said.

“I can’t point to a group that would be capable of doing it right now, but there’s a good chance in the next decade that a group could get their hands on one. And it’s not inconceivable that they could be launched from a small ship,” he said.

That’s where the Navy’s SM-6 would come into play.

“The weapon can cover a broader range of problems [than what the Navy has now],” Zaloga said.