A somewhat delayed reply, owing to my answering other posts higher up in my
newsreader, and then getting tired before I got around to yours.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"KDR" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was wondering if Boeing has proposed a helicopter-launched version
of
SLAM-ER. Have you heard anything about this?

At nearly 1500 pounds and a length of fourteen feet, why would anyone
want
to bother?

Probably for the same reason that Exocet has been carried by Super
Frelons,
Sea Kings and Cougars for years.

But the USN does not operate under the same constraints that those
services
do, and neither do we have any "attack" platforms in the Super Frelon
category.

A point I made below, but you said why would 'anyone' want to bother.
Boeing's
SLAM-ER customers aren't necessarily restricted to the USN.

Who else have they sold them to? The ROKAF is getting them....for their
F-15K's. AFAICT that is the only other SLAM-ER customer. Do you really see
the ROK's planning to send helos laden with SLAM-ER's after targets in the
DPRK?

No, but just because the RoK is the only export customer to date doesn't mean
that will remain the case. AFAIK SLAM and SLAM-ER weren't cleared for export
until fairly recently. Besides, it's not as if SLAM and SLAM-ER are only useful
against land targets; an IIR seeker provides not only an ECCM but also a target
selection advantage over radar-guided ASSMs for anti-shipping strikes, not to
mention allowing aimpoint selection and a considerable degree of real-time BDA
if a data-link is used.

Sure beats closing into retaliation range

But being as we don't really envision sending roatary assets against that
kind of threat, it is sort of moot.

Again, _we_ don't.

Do you really think the ROK's are?

No, but they don't need to against the DPRK. OTOH, just for a start some of the
export customers for Seahawk, i.e. Spain, Thailand, Australia, Japan, Greece,
Turkey, and the RoC, might decide that it's a capability _they_ want. And then
there are other countries which haven't bought Sea Hawks, but still might like
to arm their medium and large ship-based helos with long-range, stand-off,
anti-ship and land-attack IIR missile capability.

with your skimmer. Of course, the USN is a lot better equipped with
fixed-wing
air than other navies, but that didn't stop them integrating Penguin
and
Hellfire on their SH-60s.

Uhmmm...Penguin was envisioned as being used against comparitively small
enemy surface combatants (the sort that were not usually configured with
long range air defense systems). Hellfire even more so. I don't see much
chance of the USN being interested in trying to strap a 14-plus foot long
SLAM-ER onto the side of an SH-60 (unless maybe you were thinking they'd
rig
a way to fire it from a slingload? :-) ).

Might be difficult size-wise (I'd have to scale it from a photo) on an
SH-60,
but power and weight-wise an SH-60 has the same or more as a Sea King or
Cougar. Penguin isn't exactly small -- Gunston gives 10' 5.25" long x 11"
diameter, so Harpoon/SLAM is at least in the ballpark.

Actually it is some 40% longer, and IIRC a couple of inches greater in
diameter.

Which is why I said Penguin was "at least in the ballpark" of SLAM/Harpoon etc.,
as compared to something like Hellfire (ca. 64" x7" and 100 lb.). Practically,
only the SLAM-ER's length is likely to be an issue -- a 230 gallon tank is
probably fatter, and a fourpack of Hellfires definitely is. SLAM/ER might need a
small booster rocket for helo use, depending on what the minimum launch speed
is, so it might be a bit longer than the base version. If required the booster
could presumably be shorter than the one required for surface/sub launch, as the
helo should be able to provide at least 80 knots (and probably more) at launch.

Missile weight isn't an
issue-- carrying a pair of Penguins adds 1,766 lb, so a single SLAM-ER is
certainly doable with fuel internal fuel (4,012lb. for an "International
Sea
Hawk" per Sikorsky's tech specs, and giving up an appropriate amount of
internal
fuel would allow carriage of two. The ESSS on the Blackhawk is able to
carry a
pair of 230 gal. tanks each side, so it doesn't appear that getting a
pylon to
carry the weight of SLAM-ER would be a major problem. And there's a fair
number
of naval users of the Sea Hawk, who might well want a true helo-launched
stand-off ASSM capability, as opposed to just an anti-FPB/sub capability.
Whether Boeing chooses to do this is a separate issue, but there's seems
adequate reason for someone to want to do it.

Yet nobody has yet expressed such an interest in integrating SLAM-ER with a
helo launch platform...

Since I doubt either of us is privy to Boeing's internal deliberations or what
discussions they might have had with potential customers (assuming they were
even cleared to do so), we don't know that to be the case. It may be, but we
just don't know. But even assuming that has been the case up to the present,
that doesn't mean it will remain the case in the future.

Guy