In case you missed it, here’s a brief update on ESSM Blk 2
missile deliveries. According to
DOT&E[1], ESSM production missiles began delivery to the Navy in July
2022. Raytheon has just delivered the
500th missile to the Navy.[2]
That’s 500 missiles in a bit over three years. That also tells us what the entire current,
maximum Blk 2 inventory for the Navy is.
Those who envision ships teeming with quad-packed ESSM missiles should
note that a single Burke, with 96 VLS cells, would consume almost the entire
inventory of ESSM Blk 2 missiles!
 |
| ESSM Blk 2 |
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/10/rtxs-raytheon-delivers-500th-essm-block-2-to-u-s-navy/
2023 max capacity was 300 per year and should now be at 540 per year. So far as I know ours is the only production line so it also serves the entire consortium. https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1791803542572777625?lang=ar
ReplyDeleteI've been told by an acquaintance serving on a Tico that while you *can* quadpack ESSM into a Mk41 cell, there are certain modifications that have to be made to accomodate that, and it's a dockyard job.
ReplyDeleteHe hinted that an average range of ESSM-modified VLS cells would be 8 to 16 cells, because all the cells in a 8-cell bank would need to have the modifications. Which is still some 32 to 64 defensive missiles, to be sure.
I would really like to see the navy develop a twin-arm launcher for the ESSM, basically a scaled down MK26.
DeleteThe twin-arm launcher has the advantage that it can be trained at the incoming missile to eliminate the tip-over time associated with a vertical launch.
And scaled down to ESSM size, the launcher system would penetrate down into the hull spaces significantly less than VLS does, with only the magazine and mechanicals beneath the deck.
This would free up VLS cells for more mission essential weapons like Standards and Tomahawks, with only a very few VLS quad-packed as a backup in case of launcher malfunction or battle damage.
Lutefisk
Flight 1 and 2 Arleigh Burke destroyers cannot employ the ESSM unless they have been upgraded. Newer Burkes have the capability.
Delete"certain modifications that have to be made"
DeleteI've not heard that before. What are the modifications?
Its probably software adds to the combat system. That might entail some hardware. Modify one 8 cell launcher fore and aft getting the most bang for the buck and redundancy without paying for more than will likely be used.
DeleteThis is a general comment about war-fighting ability in the West. I know we've been through the Rare Earth issue before on this blog, but it appears there has been little or no progress. If it is actually true that China still controls 90% of Rare Earth Minerals Refining Capacity, that leaves a huge hole that desperate needs to be plugged. And if this article and the video analysis is correct, we better start doing something about it fast. My understanding is that so far not much constructive has been achieved, and if that is true there isn't going to be much war-fighting of any kind. Except rocks and sticks after the first week!
Deletehttps://youtu.be/vqxkwAxdw4E?si=S1hmrrdvHONVHZqh
And here is the article from Fortune that the video is based on.
https://fortune.com/2025/10/13/china-rare-earth-supply-crisis-jeremy-siegel-strategic-reserve-stockpile/
I have not done a serious fact check on this comment, but it seems about right.
Delete"There are 17 RE elements in the Periodic Table. They are divided into light RE and heavy RE. China controls 70% of the refining capacity in the light RE and over 90% in the heavy RE. China can refine RE to 6 Nine purity, 99.9999%. Refining RE to high purity is very complex and can require up to 80 processes.
Heavy RE are used in radar, laser, high temperature magnets, semiconductor wafers, etc.
China started developing RE refining technology 40 years ago. Today there are 38 universities in China offering programs in RE processing, refining and metallurgy. The U.S. has just a handful.
It will take the U. S at least 10 years to develop its RE refining technology."
If anyone has some better numbers I would be fascinated to hear them!
Every year Chinese universities graduate thousands of chemical engineers and other highly qualified and specialized technicians that enable and facilitate their monopoly on processing these elements.
DeleteIt would take us a decade or more to get to where the Chinese are, and by then they’ll be streets ahead of us again.
There’s no way out of this.
Hypothetically, let's say China does a cold start Taiwan invasion this afternoon.....what would be the "America of WW2" approach to producing weapons and ordinance? And by that I mean what would be the contractual relationship between the government and the industry producers? What contractual regime would we have to institute to recapitulate the success of WW2 powerhouse industrial capacity?
ReplyDeleteFor example in WW2 Chance Vought produced the F4U corsair as well as Goodyear. We can find other examples of this. But can another contracter also produce the SM2 ? Perhaps the Navy should consider having the losing contractor produce the winning contractors design as well ! But how this is done is another matter due to legalities. But can the navy intiate this step & work out the legalities ? If so this could increase production capacity.
DeleteMeant to say ESSM but this couls hold true for other procurement programs.
DeleteI just watched a video on ww2 synthetic rubber production. The US gov essentially told the 4 major chemical companies commit to cooperating and sharing data with one another or be nationalized. They chose the former and the US syn rubber industry grew to an amazing size at an amazing pace.
Delete"consider having the losing contractor produce the winning contractors design as well"
DeleteThat's fine in theory but the reality is that there just isn't generally enough product for two contractors to profitably split. For example, we only produce around 100-200 missile of any given type per year. Splitting that between multiple contractors wouldn't provide a sufficient profit for any of them.
"hold true for other procurement programs"
DeleteYou're missing a key aspect and that is the technology level required for today's production. In WWII, any manufacturer could, with fairly minimal adaptations, produce some other type of product. The car manufacturers, for example, were able to produce tanks and aircraft because tanks and aircraft were, essentially, just cars with thicker skins or wings welded on. The production techniques of shaping metal and welding were basically the same. Today, products are so complex and specialized that manufacturers can't readily switch between different product types.
Lately RTX signed a contratct with Avio for the production of Mk104 rocket engines, as I understand it this would guarantee a second source for this component
Deletehttps://www.avio.com/press-release/avio-usa-and-rtxs-raytheon-expand-collaboration-accelerate-mk-104-rocket-motor
It seems initially the production will be in Italy while Avio builds up a US factory.
Another commenter mentioned a 500+ per year capacity. Hopefully that ramps up further. Also, hopefully someone has the foresight to have a list handy of everything it'd take to rapidly set up additional production lines, and have the infrastructure ready to do so in a wartime environment where to some extent, the cost doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we have to pay for additional production lines that are dormant until needed - which means that has to be carried clear down the supply chain so that it would really work in a very timely way when asked to start up.
Delete"a list handy of everything it'd take to rapidly set up additional production lines"
DeleteBear in mind that it's not just the production line, itself, that is required, but the entire upstream raw material, processing, components, subassemblies, etc. that are required to support and supply a production line. In WWII, that just meant some extra iron (to grossly simplify!). Today, that means obtaining significantly more rare earths and other critical raw materials that are in short supply and huge demand and increasing production of basic components like computer chips which, again, are already in short supply. Unfortunately, we can't just quickly set up new factories. For example, it takes years to commission a new chip manufacturing facility or decades to commission a new rare earth mining/processing facility.
It's not just the production line, it's the entire supply chain.
It doesn't say production rate, but a second assembly line will be opening in Japan. https://thedefensepost.com/2025/06/26/melco-raytheon-essm-block2-japan/#:~:text=MELCO%20to%20Produce%20Raytheon%20Evolved,alliance%20between%20Tokyo%20and%20Washington.
DeleteSure... and I wonder if the production numbers reflect a weak link in the supply chain, the actual capacity of the assembly line, or perhaps that's all the money the Navy wishes to spend on them per year. (????)
Delete