Boeing Awarded Contract For Next-Generation Harpoon Block III Missile

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in news:BkVqTUEmtFpHFwc0
@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk:

In message
,
writes
See:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boei...r_Next_Generat
ion_Harpoon_Block_III_Missile_999.html

How much longer will the Navy keep upgrading Harpoon before
switching to a newer, possibly supersonic, weapon?

For as long as Harpoon keeps doing the job. You hit tradeoff territory
on missile speed: flying faster means you can't come in so low,
increases your radar and thermal signature, and gets you some other
drawbacks.

My experience was that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers were
the main drivers for Harpoon developments.

scott s.
..

"scott s." wrote:

:"Paul J. Adam" wrote in news:BkVqTUEmtFpHFwc0
:
:
: In message
: ,
: writes
:See:
:
:http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boei...r_Next_Generat
:ion_Harpoon_Block_III_Missile_999.html
:
:How much longer will the Navy keep upgrading Harpoon before
:switching to a newer, possibly supersonic, weapon?
:
: For as long as Harpoon keeps doing the job. You hit tradeoff territory
: on missile speed: flying faster means you can't come in so low,
: increases your radar and thermal signature, and gets you some other
: drawbacks.
:
:My experience was that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers were
:the main drivers for Harpoon developments.
:

Really? I don't suppose you could demonstrate this by telling us
which FMS customers drove which developments?


--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

"scott s." wrote:

:
:My experience was that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers were
:the main drivers for Harpoon developments.
:

Really? I don't suppose you could demonstrate this by telling us
which FMS customers drove which developments?


Sorry, but I don't think I want to go there.

scott s.
..

"scott s." wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: "scott s." wrote:
:
::
::My experience was that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers were
::the main drivers for Harpoon developments.
::
:
: Really? I don't suppose you could demonstrate this by telling us
: which FMS customers drove which developments?
:
:
:Sorry, but I don't think I want to go there.
:

Then I don't believe it.

I ask the question because MY experience is that FMS customers want
the kit that is currently being used by US forces. They seldom pay
for their own special developments of new capability.

[When they do it is usually as a direct sale and not FMS.]


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

"scott s." wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
m:
:
: "scott s." wrote:
:
::
::My experience was that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers were
::the main drivers for Harpoon developments.
::
:
: Really? I don't suppose you could demonstrate this by telling us
: which FMS customers drove which developments?
:
:
:Sorry, but I don't think I want to go there.
:

Then I don't believe it.

I ask the question because MY experience is that FMS customers want
the kit that is currently being used by US forces. They seldom pay
for their own special developments of new capability.

[When they do it is usually as a direct sale and not FMS.]

There are some direct sales of Harpoon, but in most cases they want
the launching system as well as the missiles, and that typically
requires some FMS so they can get USN support for things like
logistics. The main problem was that CNO surface warfare decided
that Harpoon was no longer a priority, and didn't want to fund any
further development. We had a program going that would rehost
the SWG-1A within the Tomahawk SWG-4 but that was killed by OPNAV.

Of course, you are free to believe what you want.

scott s.
..

Excuse me?

Block II was NOT procured by U.S.

It was totally driven by FMS.

I am confused anyway because all we fly in a Carrier Battle Group is
SLAM-ER used with AWW-13 data link pods on the Hornets.

I'm certain P-3's fly the same thing, so I don't know where this
"Block III" BS comes from?

Maybe the Block III is an upgrade to the Block II for FMS?

What role would it have for U.S.? When we are already using
SLAM-ER????

Please make me smart on that?


On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 03:16:08 -0000, "scott s."
wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

"scott s." wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: "scott s." wrote:
:
::
::My experience was that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers were
::the main drivers for Harpoon developments.
::
: lock
: Really? I don't suppose you could demonstrate this by telling us
: which FMS customers drove which developments?
:
:
:Sorry, but I don't think I want to go there.
:

Then I don't believe it.

I ask the question because MY experience is that FMS customers want
the kit that is currently being used by US forces. They seldom pay
for their own special developments of new capability.

[When they do it is usually as a direct sale and not FMS.]

There are some direct sales of Harpoon, but in most cases they want
the launching system as well as the missiles, and that typically
requires some FMS so they can get USN support for things like
logistics. The main problem was that CNO surface warfare decided
that Harpoon was no longer a priority, and didn't want to fund any
further development. We had a program going that would rehost
the SWG-1A within the Tomahawk SWG-4 but that was killed by OPNAV.

Of course, you are free to believe what you want.

scott s.
.

fudog50 wrote:
:
:Excuse me?
:

Why? Did you fart?

If so, you managed to blow all the context away so nobody can tell
what the hell you're replying to.

Oh, never mind. I see that you just brokenly top-posted.

:
:Block II was NOT procured by U.S.
:

True, but the development is being supported by Navy GFE.

:
:It was totally driven by FMS.
:

Really? Then it's interesting that the following statement got made:

In return, the Navy will "reap the benefits of a more advanced cruise
missile in the future, without investing money today," Navy officials
said.

Why would the Navy support development of Harpoon Block II if it was
"totally driven by FMS"?

:
:I am confused anyway because all we fly in a Carrier Battle Group is
:SLAM-ER used with AWW-13 data link pods on the Hornets.
:

You're very confused. The Navy just bought another 245 Harpoons, so
it's funny that you don't think they're used (and SLAM-ER is a very
different weapon, despite using the same body tube and such).

What squadron are you in where you ONLY fly SLAM-ER?

:
:I'm certain P-3's fly the same thing, so I don't know where this
:"Block III" BS comes from?
:

Yes, P-3s fly the same thing (both Harpoons and SLAM-ERs) and your
ignorance with regard to Harpoon Block III is your problem.

If you'd like, send me your navy.mil email address and I'll put you in
touch with Captain Winter and you can explain to him how all this
Network Enable Weapon stuff is BS.

Of course, you could just look him up in the locater and email him
directly about it.

:
:Maybe the Block III is an upgrade to the Block II for FMS?
:

Nope. Block III quite likely won't be exportable.

:
:What role would it have for U.S.? When we are already using
:SLAM-ER????
:

Same role as existing Harpoon. Anti-ship.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson