USAF considers new anti-ship weapon.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:28:31 -0700, "Joe Delphi"
wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...

Harpoon has been around for awhile now, though newer versions are an
improvement
over the original. Can Harpoon still hack it against modern air
defenses?


Yes, Harpoon has been in the Fleet since at least the late 1980s, but it is
still a formidable weapon. Not sure what a "JASSAM-variant" would offer
that would be significantly better than Harpoon.

What do you mean by "modern air defenses". Are you talking about the
automatic close in weapon systems that shoot out 1 zillion depleted uranium
rounds per second? Not sure who has those systems other than the United
States or how Harpoon or JASSAM would perform against that type of defense.


Surface to air technology has improved to the point where a
Harpoon launcher can be at excessive risk. ISTM that the USAF
wants to stand back a bit farther.

Peter Skelton

Peter Skelton wrote:


[SNIP]


Surface to air technology has improved to the point where a
Harpoon launcher can be at excessive risk. ISTM that the USAF
wants to stand back a bit farther.

Peter Skelton



Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is
the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Skelton wrote:


[SNIP]


Surface to air technology has improved to the point where a
Harpoon launcher can be at excessive risk. ISTM that the USAF
wants to stand back a bit farther.

Peter Skelton



Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is
the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy?


Because they have more aircraft?

On 14 Sep 2005 09:07:04 -0700, wrote:

Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is
the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy?


Because the USN is the intended target?

wrote in message
...
On 14 Sep 2005 09:07:04 -0700, wrote:

Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is
the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy?


Because the USN is the intended target?

At least at the budget hearings!

On 14 Sep 2005 09:07:04 -0700, wrote:


Peter Skelton wrote:


[SNIP]


Surface to air technology has improved to the point where a
Harpoon launcher can be at excessive risk. ISTM that the USAF
wants to stand back a bit farther.

Peter Skelton



Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is
the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy?

Because there's a part of the navy that regards surface ships as
targets.

Peter Skelton

In article ,
wrote:

On 14 Sep 2005 09:07:04 -0700, wrote:


Peter Skelton wrote:


[SNIP]


Surface to air technology has improved to the point where a
Harpoon launcher can be at excessive risk. ISTM that the USAF
wants to stand back a bit farther.

Peter Skelton



Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is
the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy?

Because there's a part of the navy that regards surface ships as
targets.

Peter Skelton

When did submarines start air launching?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:16:14 -0400, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On 14 Sep 2005 09:07:04 -0700, wrote:


Peter Skelton wrote:


[SNIP]


Surface to air technology has improved to the point where a
Harpoon launcher can be at excessive risk. ISTM that the USAF
wants to stand back a bit farther.

Peter Skelton



Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is
the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy?

Because there's a part of the navy that regards surface ships as
targets.

Peter Skelton

When did submarines start air launching?

Think about what you just said.

Peter Skelton

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:16:14 -0400, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On 14 Sep 2005 09:07:04 -0700, wrote:


Peter Skelton wrote:


[SNIP]


Surface to air technology has improved to the point where a
Harpoon launcher can be at excessive risk. ISTM that the USAF
wants to stand back a bit farther.

Peter Skelton



Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is
the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy?

Because there's a part of the navy that regards surface ships as
targets.

Peter Skelton

When did submarines start air launching?

Think about what you just said.

Peter Skelton

OK, launching in air, not WITH air.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:16:07 -0400, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:16:14 -0400, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On 14 Sep 2005 09:07:04 -0700, wrote:


Peter Skelton wrote:


[SNIP]


Surface to air technology has improved to the point where a
Harpoon launcher can be at excessive risk. ISTM that the USAF
wants to stand back a bit farther.

Peter Skelton



Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is
the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy?

Because there's a part of the navy that regards surface ships as
targets.

Peter Skelton

When did submarines start air launching?

Think about what you just said.

Peter Skelton

OK, launching in air, not WITH air.

Think harder.

The USN is not nearly as motivated as the air force to develop an
air-based way to take out surface ships because their primary
weapon against them is the submarine.

The USN is probably better off overall if surface ships are hard
to take out from the air. It protects their submarine arm from
their real enemy, the USAF, on the battlefield that matters,
appropriations.


Peter Skelton