that “Japanese version” is actually the same KKV the SM-3 has always used. Japan makes the new nose cone, the KKV. . .well you know how the mainstream media is. 🙂

I’m surprised to hear that the Japanese version of the KW is the same one that is in the current SM-3 Block 1A. It seems to me that it is much longer, has less thrust, and does not use pulse-mode like the LEAP did and current SM-3 KW does. They look completely different to me.

Current KW in SM-3 Block 1 missiles:

Japanese version:

Thanks for all of those acronyms though, I’ll keep a lookout for them.

And yes, I know that not all use solid propellant. The EKV on the GBI uses a monomethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide liquid propellant, and has gigantic divert thrusters as well 😀

BTW. The F-18HARV thrust vector control can hardly be called as a good one. Its goal has been High Alpha Research(therefore HARV), so they used simple, totaly amateur and half way solution with three vanes. Immense thrust loses during vectoring(also seen on your photo), thus low vectoring efficiency, literally unusable on a real combat aircraft.

M

Agreed. It’s main purpose was not for use on operational aircraft though, it was to validate computer codes and wind tunnel results for use on other TVC aircraft (like the ones I’m about to show).

What about the thrust vectoring on these aircraft?

Also, a video of the MATV engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdeZiBITFfA

Interesting point about the THAAD, I didn’t realize they didn’t bleed off energy from the Nike Zeus when they tested them at white sands.

I think the main point here about ranges (and specifications in general) from the US military is that they cannot be trusted. It seems like the US military low-balls all of the specifications on their systems. It’s not that they lie about it, just that they put arbitrary things out like (>100nm) when its true range could be something like 190nm.

Examples of this can be seen everywhere with US equipment. For example, I’ll start with the F-22:
Official documents state that the F-119 engines have 35,000 lbs of thrust each, even though it is known now that the real figure is closer to 39,000lbs thrust each. Same thing with the F-135 engines on the F-35…. official documents stated 40,000lbs, but it is known to actually be over 43,000lbs now. Max supercruise is stated at M1.5 on the F-22… but it is known to be around or over M1.72 … same thing with max speed (stated to be ~1.8-2.0M, but is known to be over M2.4). Same thing here with the SM-3 and THAAD. Same thing can be said about stated radar range in pretty much every american radar system too. Everywhere you look at you can find evidence of low-balling or down-playing of specifications of american systems.

Do the russians do the same thing as the americans (understating the capabilities of their systems and weapons), or do they overstate the capability of their systems and weapons in an effort to undermine the american military through politics by budget cutters in the USA?

The SM-3 was successfully tested again this past friday in FTM-12. It was the first ballistic missile shootdown from an AEGIS Destroyer (all previous tests were from AEGIS Cruisers). The firing ship was the USS Decatur (DDG 73). This now marks the 9th successful intercept of a ballistic missile by the SM-3, and the 3rd intercept of a warhead that had already seperated from the booster rocket.

BTW sferrin… are you sure it has a max altitude of 100miles (~160km). I have read reports and seen videos that stated the target missile reaches altitudes of over 315km. Most of the target missiles reach this altitude in all of the tests. It doesn’t state where exactly the SM-3 intercepted it in its flight path, but the SPY-1 radar data and the 3d simulation of the intercept show that it was intercepted not too far from peak target altitude.

Further info here on FTM-12:
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/07news0037.pdf
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/06/ap_hawaiimissiletest_070623/