Next decade ，SM-3s will play a key role in U.S.Global BMD ．Among the SM-3s，SM-3 Block IIA/IIB will defend LRBMs and ICBMs ．As an interceptor for defending fast-burn solid-fuel ICBMs，IIB is bigeer and faster than IIA and not be fitted in to MK-41 VLS of DDG-47 or DDG-51 according to U.S. CBO report ．But it can be launched from MK-57，a VLS for DDG-1000．However，I remember that the DDG-1000 are not BMD Ships and do not launch SM-3s ．Replace the MK-41 of CG-47 or DDG-51 with MK-57？
New VLS for SM-3 Block IIB
- Thread starter SLIRBM
- Start date
Regarding that SM-3 "block classification", in the past I've seen blocks IA, IB, II, and IIA with gradual improvements. Now I've come across the IIB version, but articles that talk about that only mention IA, IB, IIA, and IIB.
So are those still the same four evolutions with a difrerent naming, or is there now a fifth evolution state?
I haven't found specs for the IIB, but in the older publishings starting with block II and then also IIA, the diameter is to increase to 21in (& 21' hight), wich just fits the Mk41 (strike length) VLS.
There's rumors that latest version might carry some kind of Multiple Kill Vehicle.
Maybe that needs an even wider warhead, or just a wider missiles for more fuel. Also, it is to engage ICBMs, apparently. I guess that would really mean a wider missiles body. However, as said, I haven't seen any specs for those supposed missiles.
Then these would need Mk57 VLS. I guess refitting those to Burkes and Ticos isn't exactly a simple move, and would mean reduced rounds available, if at all possible.
So, if the Navy is seriously thinking about that and making budget assesments with it in mind, does that reliably point to CG(X) as a new BMD platform in the near to mid future?
So are those still the same four evolutions with a difrerent naming, or is there now a fifth evolution state?
I haven't found specs for the IIB, but in the older publishings starting with block II and then also IIA, the diameter is to increase to 21in (& 21' hight), wich just fits the Mk41 (strike length) VLS.
There's rumors that latest version might carry some kind of Multiple Kill Vehicle.
Maybe that needs an even wider warhead, or just a wider missiles for more fuel. Also, it is to engage ICBMs, apparently. I guess that would really mean a wider missiles body. However, as said, I haven't seen any specs for those supposed missiles.
Then these would need Mk57 VLS. I guess refitting those to Burkes and Ticos isn't exactly a simple move, and would mean reduced rounds available, if at all possible.
So, if the Navy is seriously thinking about that and making budget assesments with it in mind, does that reliably point to CG(X) as a new BMD platform in the near to mid future?
Game over for CGX,I guess Yankee will build some upgraded DDG-51 Flight III for MK-51 that launch SM-3 Block IIB ICBM killer.
.
That CGX program was a pipe dream in my opinion. It was never going to happen. About 10 years the USN decided to upgrade the Arliegh Burkes and build more of them rather than build the CGX or DDG 1000..The DDG 1000 is now down to two ships. Now I wonder if the USN is still planning to re-fit the Tico's and upgrade them fully?
