Boeing Awarded Contract For Next-Generation Harpoon Block III Missile

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:In message , Peter Skelton
writes
:Aren't the small, modified AA missles supersonic, small and about
:as long-ranged as harpoon? They've a much smaller punch -
:nothing's free, as you say, but they'd be likely to hit against
:current defenses.
:
:SAMs in surface mode can be pretty effective. During Preying Mantis, an
:Iranian FAC fired a Harpoon at a USN surface action group (it missed or
:was decoyed, opinions vary) and won half-a-dozen Standards and a Harpoon
:in return. The Standards made such a mess of the Joshan that the Harpoon
:didn't hit: the wreck was so low in the water that the Harpoon either
:couldn't lock, or overflew.
:
:Harpoon gets you range (~60-70 miles compared to the horizon) and a much
:bigger warhead, but for the inshore battle there's a lot to be said for
:the speed and selectivity of a semi-active SAM.
:

If by "AA missiles" you're talking about SAMs (when I see "AA missile"
I think "air-to-air missile"), then I know what you're talking about.

Before Harpoon fielded there were ships out there with a system called
ISM. It was essentially a modified Standard Missile fired in an
anti-ship mode and was put out there to 'fill the gap' until Harpoon
was available.

There are, of course, trade offs in using a missile designed to attack
aircraft and other missiles to attack ships.


--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

On Feb 3, 9:40 am, Peter Skelton wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:06:22 -0700, Fred J. McCall



wrote:
"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
:
: Why? What does it get you? The missile is already 20x faster than
: what you're shooting it at.
:
: Capability isn't free. If you want a supersonic anti-ship missile, it
: has to be bigger (which means you can carry fewer of them), fly higher
: (to escape reflections of its own shockwave from the surface), etc.
:
:
:As I understand, very high speed in ASuW missiles is conceived as
:counter-measure against CIWS systems, on the basis of reducing the
:available reaction time.
:

I know it's viewed that way, but does it really buy you anything? You
pick it up farther away (because it has to fly higher and is larger)
and you have many fewer missiles to use to try to overload a defensive
sector (again, because the missiles must be much larger).

And, of course, a larger, hotter missile is also easier to hit once
you detect it...

Aren't the small, modified AA missles supersonic, small and about
as long-ranged as harpoon? They've a much smaller punch -
nothing's free, as you say, but they'd be likely to hit against
current defenses.

Peter Skelton

Raytheon ESSMs intercept Vandal, Harpoon in sea tests

RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSMs)-built by the Raytheon
Company-successfully intercepted a supersonic target and actual cruise
missiles for the first time during two recent at-sea tests.

On 27 March an ESSM-fired from the Navy's Self-Defense Test Ship
(SDTS), the former destroyer Decatur-intercepted a Harpoon antiship
cruise missile flying a low-altitude trajectory. The ESSM was launched
in the HAW (home all the way) guidance mode, and its warhead destroyed
the Harpoon after the ESSM's proximity fuze detected the target.

Earlier, on 6 March, an ESSM was launched against an MQM-8G ER Vandal
low-altitude supersonic target simulating an antiship cruise missile.
Upon detection the Vandal was assigned to the ESSM, which was fired
using inertial mid-course guidance. The missile acquired the target,
switched to terminal guidance, and intercepted the target. The
missile's proximity fuze detected the target and detonated the ESSM's
warhead.

"The primary reason for developing [the ESSM] ... is to defend against
the modern supersonic threats," said Gary Hagedon, ESSM program
director for Raytheon. "This test shows that the missile can intercept
this type of antiship target."

The ESSM-an advanced ship self-defense missile designed to protect
ships from antiship missiles that fly at low altitude and maneuver
during their terminal approach-is in low-rate initial production for
the U.S. Navy and nine of the 11 nations of the NATO SeaSparrow
Consortium.

The ESSM firings-carried out off the coast of southern California-were
the third and fourth successful tests of the ESSM since November 2001.
On 6 February an ESSM intercepted a maneuvering, low-altitude,
subsonic BQM-74E target. A firing on 25 January at the White Sands
Missile Range in New Mexico was the third test conducted to verify the
ESSM's compatibility with the Aegis Weapons System.

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:53:26 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:06:22 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote:
:
::Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
::
:: Why? What does it get you? The missile is already 20x faster than
:: what you're shooting it at.
::
:: Capability isn't free. If you want a supersonic anti-ship missile, it
:: has to be bigger (which means you can carry fewer of them), fly higher
:: (to escape reflections of its own shockwave from the surface), etc.
::
::
::As I understand, very high speed in ASuW missiles is conceived as
::counter-measure against CIWS systems, on the basis of reducing the
::available reaction time.
::
:
:I know it's viewed that way, but does it really buy you anything? You
:pick it up farther away (because it has to fly higher and is larger)
:and you have many fewer missiles to use to try to overload a defensive
:sector (again, because the missiles must be much larger).
:
:And, of course, a larger, hotter missile is also easier to hit once
:you detect it...
:
:Aren't the small, modified AA missles supersonic, small and about
:as long-ranged as harpoon? They've a much smaller punch -
:nothing's free, as you say, but they'd be likely to hit against
:current defenses.
:

I'm not sure what missiles you're talking about.

The standard family for certain, I'm not sure how much other kit
has been upgraded.


Peter Skelton

In message , Peter Skelton
writes
The standard family for certain, I'm not sure how much other kit
has been upgraded.

What's to upgrade? Inside horizon distance, a lot of SAMs have
demonstrable surface-to-surface modes. Sea Slug did, and Sea Dart still
does. (One excuse why the 42s don't have a SSM fit).

Going out over the horizon needs more changes, but is still feasible if
the need's there.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

Jack Linthicum ha scritto:

Earlier, on 6 March, an ESSM was launched against an MQM-8G ER Vandal
low-altitude supersonic target simulating an antiship cruise missile.
Upon detection the Vandal was assigned to the ESSM, which was fired
using inertial mid-course guidance. The missile acquired the target,
switched to terminal guidance, and intercepted the target. The
missile's proximity fuze detected the target and detonated the ESSM's
warhead.

6 march of what year ? AFAICT the last Vandal (former Talon missiles)
was expended sometime in the 2004-5 timeframe...

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 18:19:43 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Peter Skelton
writes
The standard family for certain, I'm not sure how much other kit
has been upgraded.

What's to upgrade? Inside horizon distance, a lot of SAMs have
demonstrable surface-to-surface modes. Sea Slug did, and Sea Dart still
does. (One excuse why the 42s don't have a SSM fit).

Going out over the horizon needs more changes, but is still feasible if
the need's there.

You seem to be saying nothing needs changing and simultaneously
that more changes will be needed. I think that a little
consideration of your response will answer your question.


Peter Skelton

On Feb 3, 1:49 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote:
Jack Linthicum ha scritto:

Earlier, on 6 March, an ESSM was launched against an MQM-8G ER Vandal
low-altitude supersonic target simulating an antiship cruise missile.
Upon detection the Vandal was assigned to the ESSM, which was fired
using inertial mid-course guidance. The missile acquired the target,
switched to terminal guidance, and intercepted the target. The
missile's proximity fuze detected the target and detonated the ESSM's
warhead.

6 march of what year ? AFAICT the last Vandal (former Talon missiles)
was expended sometime in the 2004-5 timeframe...

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

It's a 2002 article from Sea Power
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...05/ai_n9021027

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:53:26 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:06:22 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote:
::
:::Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
:::
::: Why? What does it get you? The missile is already 20x faster than
::: what you're shooting it at.
:::
::: Capability isn't free. If you want a supersonic anti-ship missile, it
::: has to be bigger (which means you can carry fewer of them), fly higher
::: (to escape reflections of its own shockwave from the surface), etc.
:::
:::
:::As I understand, very high speed in ASuW missiles is conceived as
:::counter-measure against CIWS systems, on the basis of reducing the
:::available reaction time.
:::
::
::I know it's viewed that way, but does it really buy you anything? You
::pick it up farther away (because it has to fly higher and is larger)
::and you have many fewer missiles to use to try to overload a defensive
::sector (again, because the missiles must be much larger).
::
::And, of course, a larger, hotter missile is also easier to hit once
::you detect it...
::
::Aren't the small, modified AA missles supersonic, small and about
::as long-ranged as harpoon? They've a much smaller punch -
::nothing's free, as you say, but they'd be likely to hit against
::current defenses.
::
:
:I'm not sure what missiles you're talking about.
:
:The standard family for certain, I'm not sure how much other kit
:has been upgraded.
:

I don't believe they are nearly as long-ranged as Harpoon when they
are used in the anti-ship mode. One of the things you give up for
supersonic speed is range (you burn the fuel grain much faster) unless
you make them very, very large.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

In message , Peter Skelton
writes
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 18:19:43 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
What's to upgrade? Inside horizon distance, a lot of SAMs have
demonstrable surface-to-surface modes. Sea Slug did, and Sea Dart still
does. (One excuse why the 42s don't have a SSM fit).

Going out over the horizon needs more changes, but is still feasible if
the need's there.

You seem to be saying nothing needs changing and simultaneously
that more changes will be needed. I think that a little
consideration of your response will answer your question.

The requirement to engage over the horizon assumes that OTH shots are
likely and permissible, which in the current state of affairs is highly
arguable (and Harpoon is pretty good for those should there be a
requirement).


--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:43:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:53:26 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:06:22 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote:
::
:::Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
:::
::: Why? What does it get you? The missile is already 20x faster than
::: what you're shooting it at.
:::
::: Capability isn't free. If you want a supersonic anti-ship missile, it
::: has to be bigger (which means you can carry fewer of them), fly higher
::: (to escape reflections of its own shockwave from the surface), etc.
:::
:::
:::As I understand, very high speed in ASuW missiles is conceived as
:::counter-measure against CIWS systems, on the basis of reducing the
:::available reaction time.
:::
::
::I know it's viewed that way, but does it really buy you anything? You
::pick it up farther away (because it has to fly higher and is larger)
::and you have many fewer missiles to use to try to overload a defensive
::sector (again, because the missiles must be much larger).
::
::And, of course, a larger, hotter missile is also easier to hit once
::you detect it...
::
::Aren't the small, modified AA missles supersonic, small and about
::as long-ranged as harpoon? They've a much smaller punch -
::nothing's free, as you say, but they'd be likely to hit against
::current defenses.
::
:
:I'm not sure what missiles you're talking about.
:
:The standard family for certain, I'm not sure how much other kit
:has been upgraded.
:

I don't believe they are nearly as long-ranged as Harpoon when they
are used in the anti-ship mode. One of the things you give up for
supersonic speed is range (you burn the fuel grain much faster) unless
you make them very, very large.

They are longer ranged in anti-ship mode than in anti-air - it
has to be that way, the height it has in AA mode at maximum range
is available as energy to get out farther at the surface. SM2 ER
should be good to 90 sea miles.

That doesn't mean targeting and sensors work that way, the world
being curved and all.

(I'm not sure that these are usefully smaller than harpoon - the
diameter of both is 13.5")

Peter Skelton