Read the forum code of contact
By: - 12th August 2014 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The project seemed to have been shelved about five years ago - I have no idea why, but at least one similar concept suffered the same fate around the same time.
By: - 12th August 2014 at 17:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
5- it cost more
By: - 12th August 2014 at 17:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
5- it cost more
but to be fair it alot more effective than jsow , jassm ,nsm in SEAD , CAS or even anti ship and cost less than these things
By: - 12th August 2014 at 17:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The project seemed to have been shelved about five years ago - I have no idea why, but at least one similar concept suffered the same fate around the same time.
i kind of wonder if they will revise it in the future , given the fact that MBDA is developing something similar ( SPEAR III)
By: - 12th August 2014 at 18:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The missiles it was to carry were also cancelled.
By: - 12th August 2014 at 18:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Two different mission sets.
SMACM was designed to attack vehicles with EFPs (Explosively Formed Projectiles) while SDB was designed for larger, hardened targets.
By: - 12th August 2014 at 18:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i kind of wonder if they will revise it in the future , given the fact that MBDA is developing something similar ( SPEAR III)
Even more reason not to bring it back. When you have a perfectly capable product in the SPEAR III produced by your allies it makes absolutely no sense in the current fiscal environment to duplicate investment. If you have an unlimited or a largely increasing R&D budget, sure. Not when every dollar spent in S&T is under threat in the current budgetary environment.
By: - 12th August 2014 at 19:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Two different mission sets.SMACM was designed to attack vehicles with EFPs (Explosively Formed Projectiles) while SDB was designed for larger, hardened targets.
but how about SDB II wasn't it designed to do CAS and SEAD , then EFPs would be idea , not to mention , 4 smaller missiles per SMACM can easy overwhelm enemy
By: - 12th August 2014 at 19:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Even more reason not to bring it back. When you have a perfectly capable product in the SPEAR III produced by your allies it makes absolutely no sense in the current fiscal environment to duplicate investment. If you have an unlimited or a largely increasing R&D budget, sure. Not when every dollar spent in S&T is under threat in the current budgetary environment.
why dont the MBDA team dont use SMACM design for SPEAR ? , it more capable and it already there
By: - 12th August 2014 at 19:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SMACM would be HORRIBLE at CAS. It would basically fire 4 big bullets at the target. No other shrapnel, not blast effect.
Same goes for SEAD. Not only is the seeker choice wrong for SEAD, but you again only have 4 big bullets in which to do damage.
As OB had stated, it’s also a LOT more expensive. The seeker is the most expensive part of a weapon and SMACM had 5 Tri-mode seekers!
SMACM was designed to disable massed armored formations and that threat no longer exists.
By: - 12th August 2014 at 20:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SMACM would be HORRIBLE at CAS. It would basically fire 4 big bullets at the target. No other shrapnel, not blast effect.Same goes for SEAD. Not only is the seeker choice wrong for SEAD, but you again only have 4 big bullets in which to do damage.
As OB had stated, it�s also a LOT more expensive. The seeker is the most expensive part of a weapon and SMACM had 5 Tri-mode seekers!
SMACM was designed to disable massed armored formations and that threat no longer exists.
i dont know why the seeker is wrong for SEAD , SDB II , JAGM , JDAM , laser guider bomb even hell fire can all be use for SEAD they dont use Agm-88 all the time
and actually LOCAAS's warhead isnot just bullet , they can have blast effect as well
multimode EFP (Explosively Formed Projectile), which can be detonated in several ways (multiple fragments, a penetrator rod, or an aero-stable slug)
yes i understand that SMACM could be really expensive , however Tor-M1 , 9K22 Tunguska , Pantsir-S1 , CIWS , RAM , S-300/400 , PAC-2/3 all capable of shot down missiles , bombs especially subsonic one , the only way to destroy them is using number to overwhelm them , and i think 1 SMACM with 4 LOCAAS is still cheaper than using 4-6 SDB II , JSOW or HARM
By: - 12th August 2014 at 21:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Upon further review… the defense update article that you are basing your assumptions (and entire cost & effectiveness argument) on is just plain WRONG.
It states that the SMACM is SDB-sized yet includes 4 LOCAAS sub-munitions. However, each LOCAAS weighs 100 lbs. A standard CBU casing can hold 4, but not something the size of an SDB.
As you can see, a LOCAAS is HUGE and is actually wider than an SDB itself.
Try this link: http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/1099
It says that SMACM has a single, 18-lb warhead.
Another Link: http://missilethreat.com/missiles/smacm/
The only mention of LOCAAS in either article is that it borrows tech from the LOCAAS program.
You may have confused SMACM with LCMCM (the much bigger SMACM followon) that weighs 1000+ pounds and has 3-5 50lb submunitions.
http://missilethreat.com/missiles/lcmcm/
By: - 12th August 2014 at 21:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you're aiming at removing a star missile installation complete with radars and command vehicles then it most certainly makes sense for DEAD. SDB is a stealth glide bomb designed to enter into lethal range before a SPAAG system can neutralize it. There isn't one magic bullet for all targets, but it is a nice niche.
By: - 12th August 2014 at 22:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Madrat, you must have missed the clarification.
The SMACM as he described it does not (and cannot) exist.
By: - 12th August 2014 at 22:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Upon further review… the defense update article that you are basing your assumptions (and entire cost & effectiveness argument) on is just plain WRONG.It states that the SMACM is SDB-sized yet includes 4 LOCAAS sub-munitions. However, each LOCAAS weighs 100 lbs. A standard CBU casing can hold 4, but not something the size of an SDB.
As you can see, a LOCAAS is HUGE and is actually wider than an SDB itself.
Try this link: http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/1099
It says that SMACM has a single, 18-lb warhead.Another Link: http://missilethreat.com/missiles/smacm/
The only mention of LOCAAS in either article is that it borrows tech from the LOCAAS program.You may have confused SMACM with LCMCM (the much bigger SMACM followon) that weighs 1000+ pounds and has 3-5 50lb submunitions.
http://missilethreat.com/missiles/lcmcm/
oh yeah , just look at it again , it seem ilogical that a SMACM can carry 4 LOCAAS , now it doesn't look like a super weapon anymore :highly_amused:
, still without that ability , there still one aspect that SMACM is superior to SPEAR III , that is it's range much bigger 370 km vs 100 km
By: - 12th August 2014 at 23:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The reason that it has greater range is that SPEAR has a 50lb warhead and SMACM had a 18lb warhead.
By: - 13th August 2014 at 00:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Madrat, you must have missed the clarification.The SMACM as he described it does not (and cannot) exist.
I saw that, but with all shelved programs if it works they can always pursue it again.
By: - 13th August 2014 at 03:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The reason that it has greater range is that SPEAR has a 50lb warhead and SMACM had a 18lb warhead.
oh i didn't notice that still prefer range over warhead size , 370 km range will greatly benefit 4 gen fighter or bomber with high load like b-1
By: - 13th August 2014 at 10:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I saw that, but with all shelved programs if it works they can always pursue it again.
If it works . . . so why was it cancelled? Maybe it didn't work.
By: - 13th August 2014 at 11:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If it works . . . so why was it cancelled? Maybe it didn't work.
could also be lack of funding
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 12th August 2014 at 13:23
what is the status of SMACM , is it still in development or it have been canceled due to the development of SDB II ?
why do you think USA produce SDB I and SDB II instead of SMACM ? it seem that SMACM is alot more superior :
1- it have more range 370 km compared to 100 km ( Spear , SDB I ) and 70 km ( SDB I )
2- it fit into same space as normal SDB but the the missiles it self carry 4 smaller missiles ( LOCAAS ) thus allow it to attack 4 targets with each SMACM or overwhelm a single target air defense ( like a ship ) thus make it even superior to SPEAR III under development
3- it have engine allow it to fly at much faster speed , probably mach 0.8 compared to very slow speed of SDB I , II , also an engine also mean the missile can be launched from low altitude allow Nap of the earth tactic
4- choice of two seekers Tri-Mode seeker combining milimeter wave RF radar, an Imaging Infrared (IIR) and semi-active laser (SAL) , Tri-Star Seeker" is a combination of MMW, active LADAR , Thus much harder to jam
http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/smacm.htm