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.
..

eatfastnoodle wrote:

:On Feb 2, 2:24*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: :See:
: :
: :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boei..._For_Next_Gene...
: :
: :How much longer will the Navy keep upgrading Harpoon before
: :switching to a newer, possibly supersonic, weapon?
: :
:
: This one seems to fall into the "if it works, don't **** with it"
: category.
:
: What do you want a newer weapon to do that would work better than
: what's already there and in the development plan?
:
:
:F14/F15/F16/F18 certainly work, so why do we spend tens of billions of
:dollars on F22/F35? Why not just buy newer upgraded version of Eagle
:and Falcon? Cause the enemies aren't sitting still, what works today
:might not work tomorrow, you must plan for the future.
:

I'll simply note you dodge the question.

Let me ask again. What do you want a newer weapon to do that would
work better than what's already there and in the development plan?

As for the aircraft you mention, we knew what new requirements we had
(supercruise, stealth, improved maintenance rates, etc).

So what do you want to add to Harpoon that isn't already in the
roadmap?


--
"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

"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

On Feb 2, 2:11*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
eatfastnoodle wrote:

:On Feb 2, 2:24*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:: wrote:

:
: :See:
: :
: :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boei..._For_Next_Gene....
: :
: :How much longer will the Navy keep upgrading Harpoon before
: :switching to a newer, possibly supersonic, weapon?
: :
:
: This one seems to fall into the "if it works, don't **** with it"
: category.
:
: What do you want a newer weapon to do that would work better than
: what's already there and in the development plan?
:
:
:F14/F15/F16/F18 certainly work, so why do we spend tens of billions of
:dollars on F22/F35? Why not just buy newer upgraded version of Eagle
:and Falcon? Cause the enemies aren't sitting still, what works today
:might not work tomorrow, you must plan for the future.
:

I'll simply note you dodge the question.

Let me ask again. *What do you want a newer weapon to do that would
work better than what's already there and in the development plan?

As for the aircraft you mention, we knew what new requirements we had
(supercruise, stealth, improved maintenance rates, etc).

So what do you want to add to Harpoon that isn't already in the
roadmap?

--
"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

Supersonic speed is a good capability addition. Russians are selling
supersonic anti-ship missiles to anybody willing to pay, investing in
new missiles at least can help fending off Russian competition on the
international arms export market.

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.
..

eatfastnoodle wrote:

:On Feb 2, 2:11*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: eatfastnoodle wrote:
:
: :On Feb 2, 2:24*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:: wrote:
:
: :
: : :See:
: : :
: : :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boei..._For_Next_Gene...
: : :
: : :How much longer will the Navy keep upgrading Harpoon before
: : :switching to a newer, possibly supersonic, weapon?
: : :
: :
: : This one seems to fall into the "if it works, don't **** with it"
: : category.
: :
: : What do you want a newer weapon to do that would work better than
: : what's already there and in the development plan?
: :
: :
: :F14/F15/F16/F18 certainly work, so why do we spend tens of billions of
: :dollars on F22/F35? Why not just buy newer upgraded version of Eagle
: :and Falcon? Cause the enemies aren't sitting still, what works today
: :might not work tomorrow, you must plan for the future.
: :
:
: I'll simply note you dodge the question.
:
: Let me ask again. *What do you want a newer weapon to do that would
: work better than what's already there and in the development plan?
:
: As for the aircraft you mention, we knew what new requirements we had
: (supercruise, stealth, improved maintenance rates, etc).
:
: So what do you want to add to Harpoon that isn't already in the
: roadmap?
:
: --
: "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
:
:Supersonic speed is a good capability addition.
:

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.

:
:Russians are selling
:supersonic anti-ship missiles to anybody willing to pay, investing in
:new missiles at least can help fending off Russian competition on the
:international arms export market.
:

You don't make sales by copying them. You make sales by having more
capable kit.

What about "supersonic speed" is worth the costs of adding it (in both
money and traded off capabilities)?


--
"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

"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

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:11:39 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

eatfastnoodle wrote:

:On Feb 2, 2:24*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: :See:
: :
: :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boei..._For_Next_Gene...
: :
: :How much longer will the Navy keep upgrading Harpoon before
: :switching to a newer, possibly supersonic, weapon?
: :
:
: This one seems to fall into the "if it works, don't **** with it"
: category.
:
: What do you want a newer weapon to do that would work better than
: what's already there and in the development plan?
:
:
:F14/F15/F16/F18 certainly work, so why do we spend tens of billions of
:dollars on F22/F35? Why not just buy newer upgraded version of Eagle
:and Falcon? Cause the enemies aren't sitting still, what works today
:might not work tomorrow, you must plan for the future.
:

I'll simply note you dodge the question.

Let me ask again. What do you want a newer weapon to do that would
work better than what's already there and in the development plan?

As for the aircraft you mention, we knew what new requirements we had
(supercruise, stealth, improved maintenance rates, etc).

So what do you want to add to Harpoon that isn't already in the
roadmap?

I thought that the drive for the last few years had been to be
able to deal with numbers of smaller targets and that the
surface-air weapons have been modified in response.

The USN seems to be responding to needs which does not surprise
me all that much.

Peter Skelton

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Kerryn Offord wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: :See:
: :
: :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boei...ssile_999.html
: :
: :How much longer will the Navy keep upgrading Harpoon before
: :switching to a newer, possibly supersonic, weapon?
: :
:
: This one seems to fall into the "if it works, don't **** with it"
: category.
:
: What do you want a newer weapon to do that would work better than
: what's already there and in the development plan?
:
:
:I thought you said you worked for a military contractor?
:

I do, but what does that have to do with anything?


A military contractor questioning the value of the government investing
untold millions to develop a totally new weapons system to do the job
that the existing system already does more than adequately...

Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
eatfastnoodle wrote:

:On Feb 2, 2:11 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: eatfastnoodle wrote:
:
: :On Feb 2, 2:24 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:: wrote:
:
: :
: : :See:
: : :
: : :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boei..._For_Next_Gene...
: : :
: : :How much longer will the Navy keep upgrading Harpoon before
: : :switching to a newer, possibly supersonic, weapon?
: : :
: :
: : This one seems to fall into the "if it works, don't **** with it"
: : category.
: :
: : What do you want a newer weapon to do that would work better than
: : what's already there and in the development plan?
: :
: :
: :F14/F15/F16/F18 certainly work, so why do we spend tens of billions of
: :dollars on F22/F35? Why not just buy newer upgraded version of Eagle
: :and Falcon? Cause the enemies aren't sitting still, what works today
: :might not work tomorrow, you must plan for the future.
: :
:
: I'll simply note you dodge the question.
:
: Let me ask again. What do you want a newer weapon to do that would
: work better than what's already there and in the development plan?
:
: As for the aircraft you mention, we knew what new requirements we had
: (supercruise, stealth, improved maintenance rates, etc).
:
: So what do you want to add to Harpoon that isn't already in the
: roadmap?
:
: --
: "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
:
:Supersonic speed is a good capability addition.
:

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. Indeed there are easily quantifiable training &
elevating times of CIWS mounts and (with a bit of intelligence) time
needed for VLS missiles to get the interception course from the
straight-up course.

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.