Boeing Awarded Contract For Next-Generation Harpoon Block III Missile

[[email protected]]

See:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_For_Next_Generation_Harpoo n_Block_III_Missile_999.html

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

[Fred J. McCall]

wrote:

:See:
:
:http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_For_Next_Generation_Harpoo n_Block_III_Missile_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?


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

[Kerryn Offord]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> wrote:
>
> :See:
> :
> :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_For_Next_Generation_Harpoo n_Block_III_Missile_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? (Or do your lot
make the Harpoon?)

[Paul J. Adam]

In message
>,
writes
>See:
>
>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_For_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.



--
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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 2, 4:53 am, Kerryn Offord > wrote:
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > :See:
> > :
> > :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_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?
>
> I thought you said you worked for a military contractor? (Or do your lot
> make the Harpoon?)

Yes

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Jack Linthicum ha scritto:
>> I thought you said you worked for a military contractor? (Or do your lot
>> make the Harpoon?)
>
> Yes

Jack, the question are for Fred....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Fred J. McCall]

Kerryn Offord > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> wrote:
:>
:> :See:
:> :
:> :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_For_Next_Generation_Harpoo n_Block_III_Missile_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?

:
:(Or do your lot make the Harpoon?)
:

Nope.


--
"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

[Fred J. McCall]

"dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote:

:Jack Linthicum ha scritto:
:>> I thought you said you worked for a military contractor? (Or do your lot
:>> make the Harpoon?)
:>
:> Yes
:
:Jack, the question are for Fred....
:

And, as usual, Jack doesn't know what he's talking about.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 2, 12:50 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote:
>
> :Jack Linthicum ha scritto:
> :>> I thought you said you worked for a military contractor? (Or do your lot
> :>> make the Harpoon?)
> :>
> :> Yes
> :
> :Jack, the question are for Fred....
> :
>
> And, as usual, Jack doesn't know what he's talking about.
>
> --
> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
> soul with evil."
> -- Socrates

Not necessarily true, truth Raytheon doesn't make the Harpoon missile,
another truth they do make the guidance on several versions. It's
called evading the truth.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/harpoon.htm

Model: UGM-84C. Short range cruise missile. Country: USA. Department
of Defence Designation: UGM-84C. Popular Name: Harpoon.

Sub-launched version.

Manufacturer: The Boeing Co., Military Aircraft & Missile Systems
Group. Location: St. Louis, MO, USA. Guidance contractor: Raytheon,
Loral, Northrop Grumman. Total Mass: 694 kg (1,530 lb). Core Diameter:
0.34 m (1.10 ft). Total Length: 4.79 m (15.71 ft). Span: 0.92 m (3.00
ft). Maximum range: 120 km (70 mi). Boost Propulsion: Turbojet. Boost
engine: J402-CA-400. Guidance: Active Radar Homing.

Model: AGM-84A. Anti-ship missile. Country: USA. Department of
Defence Designation: AGM-84A. Popular Name: Harpoon.

Air launched anti-ship version.

Manufacturer: McDonnel Douglas. Location: St. Louis, MO, USA. Guidance
contractor: Raytheon, Loral, Northrop Grumman. Total Mass: 521 kg
(1,148 lb). Core Diameter: 0.34 m (1.11 ft). Total Length: 3.84 m
(12.59 ft). Span: 0.91 m (2.98 ft). Standard warhead mass: 226 kg (498
lb). Maximum range: 285 km (177 mi). Boost Propulsion: Turbojet. Boost
engine: J402-CA-400. Guidance: Active Radar Homing. Maximum speed: 960
kph (590 mph).

Model: AGM-84E. Short range cruise missile. Country: USA. Department
of Defence Designation: AGM-84E. Popular Name: SLAM.

Standoff air launched land attack missile.

Manufacturer: The Boeing Co., Military Aircraft & Missile Systems
Group. Location: St. Louis, MO, USA. Guidance contractor: Boeing,
Raytheon. Total Mass: 628 kg (1,384 lb). Core Diameter: 0.34 m (1.10
ft). Total Length: 4.45 m (14.60 ft). Span: 0.92 m (3.00 ft). Standard
warhead mass: 226 kg (498 lb). Maximum range: 260 km (160 mi). Boost
Propulsion: Turbojet. Boost engine: J402-CA-400. Guidance: Imaging
Infra-Red Homing/GPS/datalink.

[eatfastnoodle]

On Feb 2, 2:24*am, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> :See:
> :
> :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_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?
>
> --
> "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney

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.

[scott s.]

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

> In message
> >,
> writes
>>See:
>>
>>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_For_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.
..

[Fred J. McCall]

eatfastnoodle > wrote:

:On Feb 2, 2:24*am, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:> wrote:
:>
:> :See:
:> :
:> :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_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

[Fred J. McCall]

"scott s." > wrote:

:"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in news:BkVqTUEmtFpHFwc0
:
:
:> In message
:> >,
:> writes
:>>See:
:>>
:>>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_For_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

[eatfastnoodle]

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/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_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.

[scott s.]

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.
..

[Fred J. McCall]

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/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_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

[Fred J. McCall]

"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

[Peter Skelton]

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/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_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

[Kerryn Offord]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :> :See:
> :> :
> :> :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_For_Next_Generation_Harpoo n_Block_III_Missile_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...

[dott.Piergiorgio]

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/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_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.

[Fred J. McCall]

Kerryn Offord > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Kerryn Offord > wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :See:
:> :> :
:> :> :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_For_Next_Generation_Harpoo n_Block_III_Missile_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...
:

I'm Engineering, not Business Development.

Besides, it's not like the government came to me with an RFP about a
supersonic anti-ship missile... :-)


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

[Fred J. McCall]

"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...


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

[scott s.]

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.
>:>:
>:>
>:> 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.
..

[g lof2]

On Feb 2, 12:28 pm, 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/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I have been wondering about developing a land attack/anti-ship
version of the Standard missile family. We already use the regular
version to attack ships from the Flight-2a DDGs so we now it's
possible and there was the LASM after all, so we know such a version
of the Standard should be possible. All we need is to finish
development of the warhead and add a terminal Anti-ship guidance
system to the GPS system.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message
>,
eatfastnoodle > writes
>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.

Who is shopping for supersonic anti-ship missiles that (a) would be
eager to buy from the US and (b) would be an acceptable customer?
Somehow I don't see developing a new weapon for China or Iran as being
very popular in the US...

What's the splendiferous advantage brought by going supersonic, compared
to the drawbacks, and why would this tradeoff appeal to the US (or
anyone else) compared to the existing Harpoon capability?


--
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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Fred J. McCall]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

:In message
>,
:eatfastnoodle > writes
:>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.
:
:Who is shopping for supersonic anti-ship missiles that (a) would be
:eager to buy from the US and (b) would be an acceptable customer?
:Somehow I don't see developing a new weapon for China or Iran as being
:very popular in the US...
:
:What's the splendiferous advantage brought by going supersonic, compared
:to the drawbacks, and why would this tradeoff appeal to the US (or
:anyone else) compared to the existing Harpoon capability?
:

I already asked him those questions, Paul. He doesn't know and you're
late to the game.


--
"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

[Peter Skelton]

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

[Paul J. Adam]

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.

--
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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Fred J. McCall]

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 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

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Peter Skelton ha scritto:

> 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.

If you recall, some months ago, I have strted a discussion about the
idea of a secondary AsuW missile battery (IIRC the original thread was
about the secondary (gun) battery) and IIRC there was consensus that
dual purpose AA missiles was the best solution, for the same reasons for
wchich DP guns was the best solution in WWII. And since 3T US AA
missiles has a secondary AsuW capability; the effectiveness was also
shown in the Saratoga-Muavenet incident.

For Mr. McCall: I'm thinking about your point; As you known, I'm a bit
competent in Naval cinematics and I'm making some speed vs. time
considerations in the spare time of this, let's say, family days (My
father came here for some days with me)

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Fred J. McCall]

"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

[Jack Linthicum]

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.

[Peter Skelton]

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

[Paul J. Adam]

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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[dott.Piergiorgio]

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.

[Peter Skelton]

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

[Jack Linthicum]

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/mi_qa3738/is_200205/ai_n9021027

[Fred J. McCall]

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

[Paul J. Adam]

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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Peter Skelton]

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

[Fred J. McCall]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
:
: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).
:

We will not always be fighting today's war, Paul. Planning your
capabilities based on what you're doing today virtually guarantees
that you will be caught short tomorrow.


--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

: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.
:

No, it doesn't have to be that way at all. Air resistance matters.
What altitude the rocket nozzle is optimized for matters. Flight
profile matters.

:
: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")
:

They're not. In fact they're pretty much the same size and weight.
The Standard Missile motor burns much hotter. Flight profile is very
different. Standard will launch from a Mk-41 VLS while Harpoon will
not.


--
"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

[Dean A. Markley]

Peter Skelton wrote:
snipped
>
> 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

A quick search reveals the following:

Harpoon weight of 1145 lbs Max Speed = 530mph

SM2 weight of 2980 lbs(don't know if this includes booster) Max Speed =
1900mph

Now the Harpoon carries a much larger warhead but the SM2 is heavier and
impacts at a much higher speed. Is it reasonable to make a SWAG that a
Standard SM2 will inflict as much or more damage?

After all, speed kills....

Dean

[Fred J. McCall]

"Dean A. Markley" > wrote:

:Peter Skelton wrote:
:snipped
:>
:> 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
:
:A quick search reveals the following:
:

Should have searched a bit slower. Let me correct:

:
:Harpoon weight of 1145 lbs Max Speed = 530mph
:

That's the weight for the air-launch Harpoon. If you launch it from a
ship it weighs almost 1500 pounds.

:
:SM2 weight of 2980 lbs(don't know if this includes booster) Max Speed =
:1900mph
:

That's the weight for the ER version. It's over 26 feet long and I
don't believe we currently have any ships that fire it. The MR
version of SM-2 weighs around 1400 pounds.

Oh, and that 1900 MPH is at altitude. It's going to be slower down in
denser air.

:
:Now the Harpoon carries a much larger warhead but the SM2 is heavier and
:impacts at a much higher speed. Is it reasonable to make a SWAG that a
:Standard SM2 will inflict as much or more damage?
:
:After all, speed kills....
:

By the time they reach the target, Harpoon is probably heavier
(because of the heavier warhead). A lot of that weight in the
Standard round is fuel.

Speed isn't what kills. That's why we put warheads on the things.


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

[Peter Skelton]

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:36:50 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>: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.
>:
>
>No, it doesn't have to be that way at all. Air resistance matters.
>What altitude the rocket nozzle is optimized for matters. Flight
>profile matters.
>
Straight down is always achievable


Peter Skelton

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Peter Skelton wrote:
[snip]

>
> 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.

Over the horizon targeting could be performed by an aircraft,
satellite or small boat.

Andrew Swallow

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

:On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:36:50 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>
:>: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.
:>:
:>
:>No, it doesn't have to be that way at all. Air resistance matters.
:>What altitude the rocket nozzle is optimized for matters. Flight
:>profile matters.
:>
:
:Straight down is always achievable
:

But hitting something that way isn't.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

Andrew Swallow > wrote:

:Peter Skelton wrote:
:>
:> That doesn't mean targeting and sensors work that way, the world
:> being curved and all.
:
:Over the horizon targeting could be performed by an aircraft,
:satellite or small boat.
:

Not without radical changes to the missile. And if you're going to do
that, why not just modify it enough so that OTH targeting isn't
required?


--
"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

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Paul J. Adam ha scritto:
> 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).

And the seaslug got also an impromptu land-attack mode, full descripted
in Inskip's "Ordeal by Exocet".

Personally I think that the virtues of electronics up until early 90s is
their flexibility and adaptability to procedures & modification not
envisioned by manufacturers. If recent batches of Military hardware are
hardware& software locked like the rest of current electronics, (for
example, someone can modify or make A&A on LCD TV set ?) I guess that
many troubles lies not far ahead....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Jack Linthicum ha scritto:

>> 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/mi_qa3738/is_200205/ai_n9021027

OK thanks.

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[scott s.]

g lof2 > wrote in
:

>
> Well, I have been wondering about developing a land attack/anti-ship
> version of the Standard missile family. We already use the regular
> version to attack ships from the Flight-2a DDGs so we now it's
> possible and there was the LASM after all, so we know such a version
> of the Standard should be possible. All we need is to finish
> development of the warhead and add a terminal Anti-ship guidance
> system to the GPS system.
>

There was a certain amount of competition between program offices
on this, and Boeing and Raytheon aren't exactly buddies either.

scott s.
..

[fudog50[_2_]]

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.
>.

[Fred J. McCall]

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Clark > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:
:> "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
:[snip]
:>:
:>:A quick search reveals the following:
:>:
:>
:> Should have searched a bit slower. Let me correct:
:>
:
:Why do you claim authority?
:

Because I can read and you apparently cannot.

:
:>
:>:
:>:Harpoon weight of 1145 lbs Max Speed = 530mph
:>:
:>
:> That's the weight for the air-launch Harpoon. If you launch it from a
:> ship it weighs almost 1500 pounds.
:>
:>:
:>:SM2 weight of 2980 lbs(don't know if this includes booster) Max Speed =
:>:1900mph
:>:
:>
:> That's the weight for the ER version. It's over 26 feet long and I
:> don't believe we currently have any ships that fire it. The MR
:> version of SM-2 weighs around 1400 pounds.
:
:Just what system is the Navy using for ABM? They are in service even if it
:is a small number of ships...
:

SM-3. It's a very different configuration with different guidance and
a different warhead.

:
:>
:> Oh, and that 1900 MPH is at altitude. It's going to be slower down in
:> denser air.
:>
:
:??? What trajectory does the SM use? Is it a sea skimmer in the surface
:attack mode?
:

You think enemy ships are at 30,000 feet? I'd find that pretty
surprising, personally.

:
:>
:>:
:>:Now the Harpoon carries a much larger warhead but the SM2 is heavier and
:>:impacts at a much higher speed. Is it reasonable to make a SWAG that a
:>:Standard SM2 will inflict as much or more damage?
:>:
:>:After all, speed kills....
:>:
:>
:> By the time they reach the target, Harpoon is probably heavier
:> (because of the heavier warhead). A lot of that weight in the
:> Standard round is fuel.
:>
:> Speed isn't what kills. That's why we put warheads on the things.
:>
:
:Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the target? That
:question is all that matters.
:

And much more is generally delivered by something going 'boom' than by
something that doesn't.

Go run the numbers for yourself...


--
"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

[Fred J. McCall]

Clark > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:
:> Clark > wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:>:
:>:> "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
:>:[snip]
:>:>:
:>:>:A quick search reveals the following:
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> Should have searched a bit slower. Let me correct:
:>:>
:>:
:>:Why do you claim authority?
:>:
:>
:> Because I can read and you apparently cannot.
:
:In other words you are a parrot with no authority. Start backing up your
:claims or drop your 'tude to a sociable level.
:

In other words, I can read and go with the facts and you cannot. Feel
free to go sod yourself.

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:Harpoon weight of 1145 lbs Max Speed = 530mph
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> That's the weight for the air-launch Harpoon. If you launch it from a
:>:> ship it weighs almost 1500 pounds.
:
:Yup and that weight drops back to the 1145 as soon as the booster drops
:off. Now why didn't you note that Freddy? Hmmmm. You failed to note that
:because it detracts from your arguement, doesn't Freddy.
:

I don't have an "argument", you stupid git. I'm just correcting his
facts.

And the weight of both of them changes as they burn fuel. So what?

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:SM2 weight of 2980 lbs(don't know if this includes booster) Max Speed =
:>:>:1900mph
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> That's the weight for the ER version. It's over 26 feet long and I
:>:> don't believe we currently have any ships that fire it. The MR
:>:> version of SM-2 weighs around 1400 pounds.
:>:
:>:Just what system is the Navy using for ABM? They are in service even if
:it
:>:is a small number of ships...
:>:
:>
:> SM-3. It's a very different configuration with different guidance and
:> a different warhead.
:>
:
:SM-3 is a derivative of SM-2 ER Block IV. For the purposes of this argument
:it is SM-3 because the you're arguing weight.
:

Do you know for a fact that a VLS cell that will handle SM-3
(essentially a 4 stage missile of much greater weight and height) will
handle an SM-2ER? I don't.

Do you know for a fact that SM-3 with a LEAP warhead even *has* a
secondary anti-ship mode? I don't. Again, the guidance is *VERY*
different.

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:> Oh, and that 1900 MPH is at altitude. It's going to be slower down in
:>:> denser air.
:>:>
:>:
:>:??? What trajectory does the SM use? Is it a sea skimmer in the surface
:>:attack mode?
:>:
:>
:> You think enemy ships are at 30,000 feet? I'd find that pretty
:> surprising, personally.
:>
:
:Look up the word trajectory. Try to understand that there are several paths
:between two points. Now try to think about my question and then smack
:yourself in the forehead when you realize how absolutely stupid your
:comment is. Now hit yourself in the forehead again so you remember not to
:leap to an idiotic conclusion next time.
:

Look up the guidance for SM-2, you stupid clod.

:
:Since you still haven't figured it out, I neve said the SM would stay at
:any particular altitude. Now try to remember the concepts of potential
:energy and kinetic energy. Try real hard. Get some help if you can't figure
:out why an arcing trajectory is desirable for some points of view.
:

It certainly makes you easier to shoot down. It also screws up
guidance for this particular missile.

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:Now the Harpoon carries a much larger warhead but the SM2 is heavier and
:>:>:impacts at a much higher speed. Is it reasonable to make a SWAG that a
:>:>:Standard SM2 will inflict as much or more damage?
:>:>:
:>:>:After all, speed kills....
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> By the time they reach the target, Harpoon is probably heavier
:>:> (because of the heavier warhead). A lot of that weight in the
:>:> Standard round is fuel.
:>:>
:>:> Speed isn't what kills. That's why we put warheads on the things.
:>:>
:>:
:>:Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the target? That
:>:question is all that matters.
:>:
:>
:> And much more is generally delivered by something going 'boom' than by
:> something that doesn't.
:>
:> Go run the numbers for yourself...
:>
:
:Don't tell me what to do punk. You really should allow room for the world
:to change Freddy. It is going to change whether you like it or not.
:

Fine, don't run them. You've just shown you're merely a loudmouth
idiot incapable of supporting your own position.


--
"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

[Fred J. McCall]

Clark > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:
:> Clark > wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:>:
:>:> Clark > wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:>:>:
:>:>:> "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
:>:>:[snip]
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:A quick search reveals the following:
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> Should have searched a bit slower. Let me correct:
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:Why do you claim authority?
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> Because I can read and you apparently cannot.
:>:
:>:In other words you are a parrot with no authority. Start backing up your
:>:claims or drop your 'tude to a sociable level.
:>:
:>
:> In other words, I can read and go with the facts and you cannot. Feel
:> free to go sod yourself.
:
:And you too, my fine parrot friend.
:

Sorry you can't stand having actual facts injected.

:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:Harpoon weight of 1145 lbs Max Speed = 530mph
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> That's the weight for the air-launch Harpoon. If you launch it from
:>:>:> a ship it weighs almost 1500 pounds.
:>:
:>:Yup and that weight drops back to the 1145 as soon as the booster drops
:>:off. Now why didn't you note that Freddy? Hmmmm. You failed to note that
:>:because it detracts from your arguement, doesn't Freddy.
:>:
:>
:> I don't have an "argument", you stupid git.
:
:Thanks for admitting you don't have a leg to stand on.
:

Thanks for demonstrating you can't read simple English sentences.

:
:>
:> And the weight of both of them changes as they burn fuel. So what?
:
:Get real. You tried to make out the Harpoon to be better by neglecting an
:important point. I exposed the weakness in your position. Sorry 'bout that.
:Really.
:

I did no such thing. What I did was CORRECT NUMBERS SOMEONE GAVE THAT
WERE INCORRECT. That's it. That's why I don't have an 'argument';
because I'm not taking any position except to state that the numbers
given were wrong.

Sorry you're so allergic to facts.

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:SM2 weight of 2980 lbs(don't know if this includes booster) Max
:>:>:>:Speed = 1900mph
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> That's the weight for the ER version. It's over 26 feet long and I
:>:>:> don't believe we currently have any ships that fire it. The MR
:>:>:> version of SM-2 weighs around 1400 pounds.
:>:>:
:>:>:Just what system is the Navy using for ABM? They are in service even
:>:>:if
:>:it
:>:>:is a small number of ships...
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> SM-3. It's a very different configuration with different guidance and
:>:> a different warhead.
:>:>
:>:
:>:SM-3 is a derivative of SM-2 ER Block IV. For the purposes of this
:>:argument it is SM-3 because the you're arguing weight.
:>:
:>
:> Do you know for a fact that a VLS cell that will handle SM-3
:> (essentially a 4 stage missile of much greater weight and height) will
:> handle an SM-2ER? I don't.
:
:I do. The SM-3 operates from an Aegis VLS system. No doubt and no question.
:Read up a little bit old boy (since that's what you claim to do)
:

There's no such thing as "an Aegis VLS system", old boy. Aegis is the
*RADAR*. VLS is a generic term for 'Vertical Launch System' and is
the hole in the deck that holds the missile. The 'standard' VLS
system used on modern US ships is the Mk 41 VLS system. The SM-3 will
*NOT* fit in a standard Mk 41 VLS cell. They're nowhere near deep
enough. It takes a specialized cell to hold them.

Let me help you out, since you're apparently incapable of learning
anything on your own.

"The RIM-67 SM-2ER was the Navy's replacement for RIM-2 Terrier
missile. Ships carrying the SM-2 ER were often still called Terrier
ships even after the SM-2ER. Because the RIM-67's first stage booster
was very long, it could not fit into the Mk 41 VLS system, and thus
could not be used with the Aegis weapon system."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_missile

:
:>
:> Do you know for a fact that SM-3 with a LEAP warhead even *has* a
:> secondary anti-ship mode? I don't. Again, the guidance is *VERY*
:> different.
:>
:
:And do you know that it doesn't? Of course you don't but what ever you do
:don't let that slow you down one little bit my fine parrot friend.
:

Well, hell, maybe they have a thousand Marines with slingshots. I
don't KNOW that they don't, but it's pretty unlikely in the judgment
of anyone with a couple of neurons still working above the neck.

I suggest you look up LEAP and how it works. I also suggest you look
up SM-3 and how it works.

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> Oh, and that 1900 MPH is at altitude. It's going to be slower down
:>:>:> in denser air.
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:??? What trajectory does the SM use? Is it a sea skimmer in the
:>:>:surface attack mode?
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> You think enemy ships are at 30,000 feet? I'd find that pretty
:>:> surprising, personally.
:>:>
:>:
:>:Look up the word trajectory. Try to understand that there are several
:>:paths between two points. Now try to think about my question and then
:>:smack yourself in the forehead when you realize how absolutely stupid
:>:your comment is. Now hit yourself in the forehead again so you remember
:>:not to leap to an idiotic conclusion next time.
:>:
:>
:> Look up the guidance for SM-2, you stupid clod.
:
:I'm sorry parrot boy but you made the absurd claim that a ship would have
:to be at 30,000 feet.
:

Nonsense! I see you can't read. I can't say I'm surprised.

:
:You are the one sorely in need of education on the
:matter. So sorry 'bout that parrot boy.
:

Poor dumbass. Perhaps some day you'll develop an actual clue.

:
:>
:>:
:>:Since you still haven't figured it out, I neve said the SM would stay at
:>:any particular altitude. Now try to remember the concepts of potential
:>:energy and kinetic energy. Try real hard. Get some help if you can't
:>:figure out why an arcing trajectory is desirable for some points of
:>:view.
:>:
:>
:> It certainly makes you easier to shoot down. It also screws up
:> guidance for this particular missile.
:
:No to both. It may or may not make it easier to detect. Interception is a
:whole 'nother story.
:

Oh? You speak with authority in this area, do you?

So tell us, how does a missile with the type of guidance that Standard
has engage a surface target that is over the horizon?

So tell us, just what miracle of geometry comes to pass that a missile
with a high trajectory isn't in view at much longer ranges?

So tell us, how hard is it to shoot down something that is CBDR and
visible a long way off?

Dumbass.

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:Now the Harpoon carries a much larger warhead but the SM2 is heavier
:>:>:>:and impacts at a much higher speed. Is it reasonable to make a SWAG
:>:>:>:that a Standard SM2 will inflict as much or more damage?
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:After all, speed kills....
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> By the time they reach the target, Harpoon is probably heavier
:>:>:> (because of the heavier warhead). A lot of that weight in the
:>:>:> Standard round is fuel.
:>:>:>
:>:>:> Speed isn't what kills. That's why we put warheads on the things.
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the target?
:>:>:That question is all that matters.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> And much more is generally delivered by something going 'boom' than by
:>:> something that doesn't.
:>:>
:>:> Go run the numbers for yourself...
:>:>
:>:
:>:Don't tell me what to do punk. You really should allow room for the
:>:world to change Freddy. It is going to change whether you like it or
:>:not.
:>:
:>
:> Fine, don't run them. You've just shown you're merely a loudmouth
:> idiot incapable of supporting your own position.
:>
:
:Har, har. Is that the best you can do?
:

Yep. Nothing better than pointing out that you can't be bothered to
support your own outrageous claims.

:
:Well I suppose it is after you've
:been beaten to a pulp by pointing out the flaws in your own argument.
:

You're apparently too thick to even understand that I don't have an
'argument'. I merely corrected some incorrect numbers.

:
:Sorry
:'bout that parrot boy. Better luck next time.
:

Sorry you're such a dumbass. Get back to me if you ever develop a
clue.

:
:You know what they say don't you parrot boy? I'll give you a hint: If you
:can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
:

Guess we're having fried dumbass for dinner tonight. All heat and no
light.

:
:Bye now and try not to suck so bad next time. 'kay?
:

Poor, ignorant Clark. He can't support his own rants, so he blats the
preceding and declares victory.

So, just what fast food joint do you earn your living in, anyway?


--
"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

[Fred J. McCall]

Clark > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:
:> Clark > wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:>:
:>:> Clark > wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:>:>:
:>:>:> Clark > wrote:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:> "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
:>:>:>:[snip]
:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>:A quick search reveals the following:
:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:> Should have searched a bit slower. Let me correct:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:Why do you claim authority?
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> Because I can read and you apparently cannot.
:>:>:
:>:>:In other words you are a parrot with no authority. Start backing up
:>:>:your claims or drop your 'tude to a sociable level.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> In other words, I can read and go with the facts and you cannot. Feel
:>:> free to go sod yourself.
:>:
:>:And you too, my fine parrot friend.
:>:
:>
:> Sorry you can't stand having actual facts injected.
:
:Your actual "facts" are obviously not since all you can do is parrot
:inaccurate sources. Do keep trying parrot boy.
:

Except they're ACCURATE figures, dumbass, correcting inaccurate
figures.

:
:>
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>:Harpoon weight of 1145 lbs Max Speed = 530mph
:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:> That's the weight for the air-launch Harpoon. If you launch it
:>:>:>:> from a ship it weighs almost 1500 pounds.
:>:>:
:>:>:Yup and that weight drops back to the 1145 as soon as the booster
:>:>:drops off. Now why didn't you note that Freddy? Hmmmm. You failed to
:>:>:note that because it detracts from your arguement, doesn't Freddy.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> I don't have an "argument", you stupid git.
:>:
:>:Thanks for admitting you don't have a leg to stand on.
:>:
:>
:> Thanks for demonstrating you can't read simple English sentences.
:
:I read it just fine, parrot boy. Sorry you can't accept your stupidity.
:

Of course you can, dear boy. Now why don't you run along and play
with yourself like a good troglodyte?

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:> And the weight of both of them changes as they burn fuel. So what?
:>:
:>:Get real. You tried to make out the Harpoon to be better by neglecting
:>:an important point. I exposed the weakness in your position. Sorry 'bout
:>:that. Really.
:>:
:>
:> I did no such thing. What I did was CORRECT NUMBERS SOMEONE GAVE THAT
:> WERE INCORRECT. That's it. That's why I don't have an 'argument';
:> because I'm not taking any position except to state that the numbers
:> given were wrong.
:
:Sorry parrot boy. That approach won't work. Your numbers are mis-leading and
:they don't correct a thing. In other words you're twisting in the wind like a
:politician and don't have a leg to stand on.
:

I see reality doesn't matter in your universe.
:
:>
:> Sorry you're so allergic to facts.
:>
:
:That's what all the politicians say when their lies are exposed. Good luck
:arguing with yourself parrot boy.
:

You poor, sad little ******. This is really the only way you can
convince yourself you 'matter', isn't it?

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>:SM2 weight of 2980 lbs(don't know if this includes booster) Max
:>:>:>:>:Speed = 1900mph
:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:> That's the weight for the ER version. It's over 26 feet long and
:>:>:>:> I don't believe we currently have any ships that fire it. The MR
:>:>:>:> version of SM-2 weighs around 1400 pounds.
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:Just what system is the Navy using for ABM? They are in service even
:>:>:>:if
:>:>:it
:>:>:>:is a small number of ships...
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> SM-3. It's a very different configuration with different guidance
:>:>:> and a different warhead.
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:SM-3 is a derivative of SM-2 ER Block IV. For the purposes of this
:>:>:argument it is SM-3 because the you're arguing weight.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> Do you know for a fact that a VLS cell that will handle SM-3
:>:> (essentially a 4 stage missile of much greater weight and height) will
:>:> handle an SM-2ER? I don't.
:>:
:>:I do. The SM-3 operates from an Aegis VLS system. No doubt and no
:>:question. Read up a little bit old boy (since that's what you claim to
:>:do)
:>:
:>
:> There's no such thing as "an Aegis VLS system", old boy. Aegis is the
:> *RADAR*. VLS is a generic term for 'Vertical Launch System' and is
:> the hole in the deck that holds the missile. The 'standard' VLS
:> system used on modern US ships is the Mk 41 VLS system. The SM-3 will
:> *NOT* fit in a standard Mk 41 VLS cell. They're nowhere near deep
:> enough. It takes a specialized cell to hold them.
:>
:> Let me help you out, since you're apparently incapable of learning
:> anything on your own.
:>
:> "The RIM-67 SM-2ER was the Navy's replacement for RIM-2 Terrier
:> missile. Ships carrying the SM-2 ER were often still called Terrier
:> ships even after the SM-2ER. Because the RIM-67's first stage booster
:> was very long, it could not fit into the Mk 41 VLS system, and thus
:> could not be used with the Aegis weapon system."
:>
:> -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_missile
:>
:
:Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with Aegis. Can't
:do it now can you parrot boy. You can apologize any time you like. Sorry you
:are so wrong.
:

Poor little ******. The one used with Aegis (Mk 41) isn't always used
with Aegis. It's used all over the place. Aegis usually implies a Mk
41 VLS, but the reverse is not true. And that's not to mention
Umkhonto, SYLVER, GWS 26 VLS, Mk 57, all the variously sized and
mechanized Russian systems for Grumble, Gauntlet, Shipwreck, etc, etc.

You are SERIOUSLY in need of a clue. However, I'm pretty sure that
you wouldn't be able to find one even if it was stapled to your
forehead.

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:> Do you know for a fact that SM-3 with a LEAP warhead even *has* a
:>:> secondary anti-ship mode? I don't. Again, the guidance is *VERY*
:>:> different.
:>:>
:>:
:>:And do you know that it doesn't? Of course you don't but what ever you
:>:do don't let that slow you down one little bit my fine parrot friend.
:>:
:>
:> Well, hell, maybe they have a thousand Marines with slingshots. I
:> don't KNOW that they don't, but it's pretty unlikely in the judgment
:> of anyone with a couple of neurons still working above the neck.
:>
:> I suggest you look up LEAP and how it works. I also suggest you look
:> up SM-3 and how it works.
:>
:
:I suggest you pull your head out of your rectal orfice. Of course you won't
:do that 'cause you like the smell.
:

You know, you aren't even very good at this. Here, let me help you
out.

It sounds like English; it even looks like English, but I can't
understand a word you're blabbering. How about putting that into
proper syntax, form, and grammar so that I can at least understand
what you are saying before I dismiss it?

I suppose I should have some sympathy for your handicap. You are
obviously paralyzed from the neck up. You must have a very large brain
to hold such a vast amount of sheer ignorance. Oh well, at least you
only charge what your free advice is worth. Oh well, as the late
Douglas Adams said: "You live and learn. At any rate, you live."

When god was handing out personalities, you must have been holding the
door. You're so boring, even a boomerang wouldn't come back to you.
You are like watching Amputee Field Hockey: pathetic, and very quickly
disgusting. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a pathetic loser if
didn't lack even the dim flicker of sentience needed to qualify as a
imbecile; if your weren't so fat that when God said "Let there be
Light", he told you to move your fat ass out of the way, or if you
didn't have a face that could be used as an alternative to a stomach
pump. Nah, of course you would.

In future, wake up the dozy peglegged hamster operating that
wheel-powered brain of yours before you start typing.

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:> Oh, and that 1900 MPH is at altitude. It's going to be slower
:>:>:>:> down in denser air.
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:??? What trajectory does the SM use? Is it a sea skimmer in the
:>:>:>:surface attack mode?
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> You think enemy ships are at 30,000 feet? I'd find that pretty
:>:>:> surprising, personally.
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:Look up the word trajectory. Try to understand that there are several
:>:>:paths between two points. Now try to think about my question and then
:>:>:smack yourself in the forehead when you realize how absolutely stupid
:>:>:your comment is. Now hit yourself in the forehead again so you
:>:>:remember not to leap to an idiotic conclusion next time.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> Look up the guidance for SM-2, you stupid clod.
:>:
:>:I'm sorry parrot boy but you made the absurd claim that a ship would
:>:have to be at 30,000 feet.
:>:
:>
:> Nonsense! I see you can't read. I can't say I'm surprised.
:>
:
:There is no nonsense. You clearly state that ships have to be at 30,000 feet
:to be attacked by a SM. That is clearly false. You really need to buy a few
:clues parrot boy.
:

And just where did I make this non-existent statement, ******?

You REALLY don't read, do you?

:
:>
:>:
:>:You are the one sorely in need of education on the
:>:matter. So sorry 'bout that parrot boy.
:>:
:>
:> Poor dumbass. Perhaps some day you'll develop an actual clue.
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:Since you still haven't figured it out, I neve said the SM would stay
:>:>:at any particular altitude. Now try to remember the concepts of
:>:>:potential energy and kinetic energy. Try real hard. Get some help if
:>:>:you can't figure out why an arcing trajectory is desirable for some
:>:>:points of view.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> It certainly makes you easier to shoot down. It also screws up
:>:> guidance for this particular missile.
:>:
:>:No to both. It may or may not make it easier to detect. Interception is
:>:a whole 'nother story.
:>:
:>
:> Oh? You speak with authority in this area, do you?
:>
:> So tell us, how does a missile with the type of guidance that Standard
:> has engage a surface target that is over the horizon?
:
:Ever hear of Standard Land Attack. Guess not. Oh well.
:

Yeah. Do you know anything at all about it? Guess not. Oh well.

Oh, and that's Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM), not "Standard Land
Attack", you poor ignorant git.

:
:>
:> So tell us, just what miracle of geometry comes to pass that a missile
:> with a high trajectory isn't in view at much longer ranges?
:>
:> So tell us, how hard is it to shoot down something that is CBDR and
:> visible a long way off?
:>
:> Dumbass.
:
:Well I just call you parrot boy but if you want to sign your statements as
:dumbass that's fine by me. Have fun parrot boy.
:

You must be a vegetarian. One could wish you were smarter than your
food.

Some people are has-beens. You are a never-was.

:
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>:Now the Harpoon carries a much larger warhead but the SM2 is
:>:>:>:>:heavier and impacts at a much higher speed. Is it reasonable to
:>:>:>:>:make a SWAG that a Standard SM2 will inflict as much or more
:>:>:>:>:damage?
:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>:After all, speed kills....
:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:> By the time they reach the target, Harpoon is probably heavier
:>:>:>:> (because of the heavier warhead). A lot of that weight in the
:>:>:>:> Standard round is fuel.
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:> Speed isn't what kills. That's why we put warheads on the things.
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the
:>:>:>:target? That question is all that matters.
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> And much more is generally delivered by something going 'boom' than
:>:>:> by something that doesn't.
:>:>:>
:>:>:> Go run the numbers for yourself...
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:Don't tell me what to do punk. You really should allow room for the
:>:>:world to change Freddy. It is going to change whether you like it or
:>:>:not.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> Fine, don't run them. You've just shown you're merely a loudmouth
:>:> idiot incapable of supporting your own position.
:>:>
:>:
:>:Har, har. Is that the best you can do?
:>:
:>
:> Yep. Nothing better than pointing out that you can't be bothered to
:> support your own outrageous claims.
:
:Ahem. You're the one making false claims parrot boy. Keep at it and you will
:earn a special usenet place along with the other k00ks.
:

And just what 'false claims' would those be? So far, your litany
seems to run to objecting to actual facts, a rather poor variety of
personal insult, and bird references.

You're really not even a very good troll. But I've got time to waste,
so I'll slap you around a bit.

It's really a shame when you adolescents can't find any other way to
convince yourself you matter than this sort of thing.

:
:>
:>:
:>:Well I suppose it is after you've
:>:been beaten to a pulp by pointing out the flaws in your own argument.
:>:
:>
:> You're apparently too thick to even understand that I don't have an
:> 'argument'. I merely corrected some incorrect numbers.
:
:Nope. You tried to slant things your way (which by the way is called an
:argument since you obviously don't know that) by making irrelevant
:statements. I pointed out that the statements weren't pertinent and all you
:can do is falsely deny. So sorry 'bout that.
:

I don't have a 'way' to slant things toward, you silly git.

:
:>
:>:
:>:Sorry
:>:'bout that parrot boy. Better luck next time.
:>:
:>
:> Sorry you're such a dumbass. Get back to me if you ever develop a
:> clue.
:>
:>:
:>:You know what they say don't you parrot boy? I'll give you a hint: If
:>:you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
:>:
:>
:> Guess we're having fried dumbass for dinner tonight. All heat and no
:> light.
:>
:
:Really? eating your own gizzard for dinner is really sad. Oh well.
:

Well, you would know.

Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I
take all the credit for what nature has done to you?

:
:>
:>:
:>:Bye now and try not to suck so bad next time. 'kay?
:>:
:>
:> Poor, ignorant Clark. He can't support his own rants, so he blats the
:> preceding and declares victory.
:>
:> So, just what fast food joint do you earn your living in, anyway?
:>
:
:So sorry you're still sucking so bad that the weather service notes a vacuum
:in your area. Sorry about that parrot boy. The only way out for you now is to
:just give up. Maybe you can change your usenet name and no one will notice.
:Probably not but give it a shot since you've got nothing else left.
:

Congratulations! You have just proved the theory that there is no
limit to human stupidity. I suggest you hone your writing skills
before applying borrowed glories as a mere typist.

It seems your fingers not only did your typing, but did your thinking
too. Have you considered suing your brain for non-support? You're just
another Internet-addicted idiot suffering from diarrhea of the mouth
and constipation of the mind. Have you ever noticed that whenever you
sit behind a keyboard, some idiot starts typing? You bring to mind a
quote from Josh Billing: "Doesn't know much, but leads the league in
nostril hair."

When god was handing out personalities, you must have been holding the
door. You're so boring, even a boomerang wouldn't come back to you.
There's nothing wrong with you that couldn't be cured with a little
Prozac and a polo mallet, or, better yet, suicide. Maybe you wouldn't
come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if your brain
cells weren't on the Endangered Species list; if your weren't so fat
that all the restaurants in town have signs that say: "Maximum
Occupancy: 80 Patrons OR You.", or if you didn't have a face that is
registered as a biological weapon. No, come to think of it, you would.

:
:In the future Freddy boy you'll find things much easier if you aren't so
:combative and a little more open to other perspectives (which happen to be
:correct in this case). Of course you'll never accept this advice since your
:head is firmly embedded up your own ass. Obviously you like the smell so
:you'll keep it there.
:
:Good Luck!
:

I don't need luck. I have reality.

Good luck finding a date to that 8th grade prom...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Ian MacLure]

Peter Skelton > wrote in
:

[snip]

> 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.

And taking a hit from several hundred lbs of metal + 80 or
so lbs of blast/frag warhead at M3 has a quality all its own
so to speak.

[Ian MacLure]

Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:

[snip]

> 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.

Didn't the Talos system have an ASuW mode of operation.
I vaguely recall reading something about that some years ago.
The part that would hit the target would probably mass something
like a ton and a half.

IBM

[Ian MacLure]

Andrew Swallow > wrote in
:

[snip]

> Over the horizon targeting could be performed by an aircraft,
> satellite or small boat.

Manned or unmanned aircraft or surface vessels, I should add.

IBM

[Ian MacLure]

Clark > wrote in
:

[snip]

> Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the target? That
> question is all that matters.

Yup, if you drop a common 30-50lb crowbar from orbit
its going to inflict a world of hurt on whatever it hits
notwithstanding its simply an inert piece of metal.

IBM

[Fred J. McCall]

Ian MacLure > wrote:

:Peter Skelton > wrote in
:
:
: [snip]
:
:> 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.
:
: And taking a hit from several hundred lbs of metal + 80 or
: so lbs of blast/frag warhead at M3 has a quality all its own
: so to speak.
:

But high velocity is still not a good substitute for a large warhead.


--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Clark
> writes
>Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with Aegis.

GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6 and
SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose designation
I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit. Vertically Launched Sea
Sparrow.

There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.

--
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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Vince]

Ian MacLure wrote:
> Clark > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the target? That
>> question is all that matters.
>
> Yup, if you drop a common 30-50lb crowbar from orbit
> its going to inflict a world of hurt on whatever it hits
> notwithstanding its simply an inert piece of metal.
>
> IBM


a crowbar probably would not hit the ground (ever seen a long thin iron
meteor?)

Vince

[fudog50[_2_]]

Relax Fred,

I asked nicely that you make me smart.

I certainly didn't ask for personal attacks. That is why I don't visit
here often.

I'm sure Capt. Winter would be proud of you for making me smart in
such a belligerent fashion. Now that is professionalism and superior
leadership at it's best! ;(

Thanks for the information, you have obviously made me smarter.

But no thanks for the *******ly way you insulted me.

I won't stoop that low as to retaliate, you ain't worth it, I'll just
let your comments speak for themselves.

And OBTW, you just lost another valuable contributor to this group.
While I may have been out in left field on this perticular subject, I
am now closer the glideslope.

But you won't see me in here again, it ain't worth the childish
diatribes from the likes such as yourself.

Seeya

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:24:15 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>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.

[Dean A. Markley]

Vince wrote:
> Ian MacLure wrote:
>> Clark > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the target?
>>> That question is all that matters.
>>
>> Yup, if you drop a common 30-50lb crowbar from orbit
>> its going to inflict a world of hurt on whatever it hits
>> notwithstanding its simply an inert piece of metal.
>>
>> IBM
>
>
> a crowbar probably would not hit the ground (ever seen a long thin iron
> meteor?)
>
> Vince
Meteors are not man-made either. It's the same concept as an armor
piercing tank round. Long and thin to concentrate the density in a
small frontal cross section. And it would not really have a curved end
like a crowbar. I hope.

Dean

[Vince]

Dean A. Markley wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>> Ian MacLure wrote:
>>> Clark > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the
>>>> target? That question is all that matters.
>>>
>>> Yup, if you drop a common 30-50lb crowbar from orbit
>>> its going to inflict a world of hurt on whatever it hits
>>> notwithstanding its simply an inert piece of metal.
>>>
>>> IBM
>>
>>
>> a crowbar probably would not hit the ground (ever seen a long thin
>> iron meteor?)
>>
>> Vince
> Meteors are not man-made either. It's the same concept as an armor
> piercing tank round. Long and thin to concentrate the density in a
> small frontal cross section. And it would not really have a curved end
> like a crowbar. I hope.
>
> Dean

are we still talking about dropping from orbit?


Vince

[Dean A. Markley]

Vince wrote:
> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>> Vince wrote:
>>> Ian MacLure wrote:
>>>> Clark > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the
>>>>> target? That question is all that matters.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, if you drop a common 30-50lb crowbar from orbit
>>>> its going to inflict a world of hurt on whatever it hits
>>>> notwithstanding its simply an inert piece of metal.
>>>>
>>>> IBM
>>>
>>>
>>> a crowbar probably would not hit the ground (ever seen a long thin
>>> iron meteor?)
>>>
>>> Vince
>> Meteors are not man-made either. It's the same concept as an armor
>> piercing tank round. Long and thin to concentrate the density in a
>> small frontal cross section. And it would not really have a curved
>> end like a crowbar. I hope.
>>
>> Dean
>
> are we still talking about dropping from orbit?
>
>
> Vince
I think so...

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

"Dean A. Markley" > wrote in message
. ..
> Vince wrote:
>> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>> Vince wrote:
>>>> Ian MacLure wrote:
>>>>> Clark > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the target?
>>>>>> That question is all that matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, if you drop a common 30-50lb crowbar from orbit
>>>>> its going to inflict a world of hurt on whatever it hits
>>>>> notwithstanding its simply an inert piece of metal.
>>>>>
>>>>> IBM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> a crowbar probably would not hit the ground (ever seen a long thin
>>>> iron meteor?)
>>>>
>>>> Vince
>>> Meteors are not man-made either. It's the same concept as an armor
>>> piercing tank round. Long and thin to concentrate the density in a
>>> small frontal cross section. And it would not really have a curved end
>>> like a crowbar. I hope.
>>>
>>> Dean
>>
>> are we still talking about dropping from orbit?
>>
>>
>> Vince
> I think so...

Project Thor I think was the name proposed. There are severe problems
with targetting however. Looking through the plasma generated by
reentry is a major problem and at hypersonic speeds last minute
manoeveuring is not a real option.

Keith

[Richard Casady]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:12:01 -0500, "Dean A. Markley"
> wrote:

> And it would not really have a curved end
>like a crowbar. I hope.

Have no fear, there is no curve in a crowbar. Not to be confused with
a wrecking bar, which is obviously what you have in mind.

Casady

[Dean A. Markley]

Richard Casady wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:12:01 -0500, "Dean A. Markley"
> > wrote:
>
>> And it would not really have a curved end
>> like a crowbar. I hope.
>
> Have no fear, there is no curve in a crowbar. Not to be confused with
> a wrecking bar, which is obviously what you have in mind.
>
> Casady
The local dialect here calls the curved ones crowbars. Ask any Amish
builder.

Dean

[Fred J. McCall]

Clark > wrote:

:On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
:
:> In message >, Clark
:> > writes
:>>Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with Aegis.
:>
:> GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6 and
:> SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose designation
:> I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit. Vertically Launched Sea
:> Sparrow.
:>
:> There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
:> vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
:>
:
:In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We were
:typing about Standard missiles.
:

No, we weren't. You insisted that "AEGIS" was identically "VLS".

You're wrong. It's not.

That's not even true for Standard-capable launchers (Mk 41 VLS), since
the new LPDs will have Mk 41 launchers and no AEGIS system. Some of
the Spruance class (all those currently left in commission) have Mk 41
VLS and no AEGIS system.

Now, would you like to wriggle some more, or shall you just admit you
didn't know what you were talking about and move on?


--
"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

[Fred J. McCall]

Clark > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:
:> Clark > wrote:
:[snip Freddies cries for help]
:>:
:>:I suggest you pull your head out of your rectal orfice. Of course you
:>:won't do that 'cause you like the smell.
:>:
:>
:> You know, you aren't even very good at this. Here, let me help you
:> out.
:>
:> It sounds like English; it even looks like English, but I can't
:> understand a word you're blabbering. How about putting that into
:> proper syntax, form, and grammar so that I can at least understand
:> what you are saying before I dismiss it?
:>
:There it is in a nutshell folks. Freddy is sooo stupid he can't even
:understand being told why he likes keeping his head up his ass. Poor sot!
:
:Nothing more needs said.
:

Yes, Clarkie, when you're wrong and stupid you should indeed just try
to declare victory and run away.

You still don't know what you're talking about on pretty much any
topic one would care to name.


--
"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

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Clark
> writes
>On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
>> In message >, Clark
>> > writes
>>>Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with Aegis.
>>
>> GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6 and
>> SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose designation
>> I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit. Vertically Launched Sea
>> Sparrow.
>>
>> There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
>> vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
>>
>
>In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We were
>typing about Standard missiles.

No, you weren't - unless you can show me a submarine firing Standards...

Even letting that pass, turn your eyes to the Canadian Tribal-class
destroyers, and their Mark 41 VLS systems, the Standard missiles
therein, and their remarkable lack of AEGIS. Or the Australian Adelaides
after their VLS modification, ditto. Or the German Sachsens....

Plenty of VLS systems launching Standard that still have no AEGIS
involved on the ship.

--
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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Fred J. McCall]

Clark > wrote:

:"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:
:
:> In message >, Clark
:> > writes
:>>On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
:>>> In message >, Clark
:>>> > writes
:>>>>Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with Aegis.
:>>>
:>>> GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6
:and
:>>> SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose designation
:>>> I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit. Vertically Launched Sea
:>>> Sparrow.
:>>>
:>>> There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
:>>> vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
:>>>
:>>
:>>In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We were
:>>typing about Standard missiles.
:>
:> No, you weren't - unless you can show me a submarine firing Standards...
:
:What? All I have mentioned is Standards. I specifically excluded submarine
:VLS. Are you having a bad day?
:

And why would you do that if you were only referring to Standards,
which any fool knows are not fired from submarines?

:
:>
:> Even letting that pass, turn your eyes to the Canadian Tribal-class
:> destroyers, and their Mark 41 VLS systems, the Standard missiles
:> therein, and their remarkable lack of AEGIS. Or the Australian Adelaides
:> after their VLS modification, ditto. Or the German Sachsens....
:>
:> Plenty of VLS systems launching Standard that still have no AEGIS
:> involved on the ship.
:>
:
:And none of them US. Fine. There are other non-US Standard VLS systems
:without Aegis. Are there are any US VLS systems without Aegis?
:

Yes. I already told you that.


--
"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

[Fred J. McCall]

Clark > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:
:> Clark > wrote:
:>
:>:On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
:>:
:>:> In message >, Clark
:>:> > writes
:>:>>Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with Aegis.
:>:>
:>:> GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6
:and
:>:> SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose designation
:>:> I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit. Vertically Launched Sea
:>:> Sparrow.
:>:>
:>:> There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
:>:> vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
:>:>
:>:
:>:In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We were
:>:typing about Standard missiles.
:>:
:>
:> No, we weren't. You insisted that "AEGIS" was identically "VLS".
:
:Read it again dimwit. I noted that Aegis and vls went together and they do.
:

Read it again, dumbass. You insisted that "AEGIS" and "VLS" meant the
same thing. They don't. They also don't always go together. There
have been AEGIS ships without VLS and VLS ships without AEGIS.

:
:>
:> You're wrong. It's not.
:
:Show me an Aegis that doesn't have VLS.
:>
:> That's not even true for Standard-capable launchers (Mk 41 VLS), since
:> the new LPDs will have Mk 41 launchers and no AEGIS system. Some of
:> the Spruance class (all those currently left in commission) have Mk 41
:> VLS and no AEGIS system.
:
:There are no Sprucans left in commission. Last one was decommissioned in
:05.
:

So what? You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS. You then
revised to there being no VLS firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice
versa).

You're still wrong. There have been AEGIS ships without VLS and there
have been VLS ships, firing both Standard and other missiles, without
AEGIS.

:>
:> Now, would you like to wriggle some more, or shall you just admit you
:> didn't know what you were talking about and move on?
:>
:Get real. You are the arrogant clueless one here. You really need a reality
:check...and some parental guidance.
:

Both my parents are dead, you stupid ****e. My mother just died a few
weeks ago.

And you're not only ignorant and stupid, you're apparently also
ill-mannered and insensitive.

Sort of a Renaissance ****head.


--
"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

[Dave[_6_]]

Clark > wrote in news:Xns9A43DA50D778Cch2uswestnet@
64.209.0.91:
> Are there are any US VLS systems without Aegis?

Yes (maybe).

From - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-41-
vls.htm:

"The US Navy currently deploys MK 41 VLS - on AEGIS-equipped Ticonderoga-
class cruisers and Spruance- and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers - and plans
to use it on next generation of surface ships, the LDP17, DD-21 and CG-21."

LPD-17 is commissioned and operating.

From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lpd-17-design.htm

Paraphrased - The class is designed for installation of the Mk-41 VLs, but
none were installed, due to budget restructuring. There is capacity to back
fit VLS in all 12 ships in the class.

**********
Regarding AEGIS w/o VLS, I'd say there are none.

From various Wikipedia articles:

"The Aegis Weapons System comprises the SPY-1 Radar, MK 99 Fire Control
System and ORTS, MK 41 VLS, the Command and Decision Suite, and SM-3
Standard Missile systems. Shipboard torpedo and naval gunnery systems are
also integrated."

"Originally, the first five ships of the United States' Aegis equipped
Ticonderoga class cruisers were outfitted with Mark-26 twin-arm missile
launchers; however, the ships with this system have been decommissioned and
are no longer in service."

"The current generation of American-produced VLS is known as the Mk 41
Guided Missile Launch System or Vertical Launch System. It is capable of
carrying an extremely wide range of missiles, including the Evolved Sea
Sparrow Missile (ESSM) naval self defense, short range SAM, SM-2 medium
range/long range SAM/SSM, SM-3 anti-ballistic missile, VLA (RUM-139
vertical launch ASROC) anti-submarine missile with Mk-46 torpedo warhead,
an advanced version of the earlier ASROC (RUR-5), and the Tomahawk cruise
missile (long range strike)."

"The RIM-67 SM-2ER was the Navy's replacement for RIM-2 Terrier missile.
Ships carrying the SM-2 ER were often still called Terrier ships even after
the SM-2ER. Because the RIM-67's first stage booster was very long, it
could not fit into the Mk 41 VLS system, and thus could not be used with
the Aegis weapon system. The SM-2 Block IV with the Mk 72 booster was
developed to compensate for the lack of a long range SM for the
Ticonderoga-class of Aegis cruisers."

And more here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/aegis.htm

**********
Now that we have solved, will you little children stop whining and grow up?

[Fred J. McCall]

Clark > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:
:> Clark > wrote:
:>
:>:"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:
:>:
:>:> In message >, Clark
:>:> > writes
:>:>>On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
:>:>>> In message >, Clark
:>:>>> > writes
:>:>>>>Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with Aegis.
:>:>>>
:>:>>> GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6 and
:>:>>> SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose designation
:>:>>> I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit. Vertically Launched Sea
:>:>>> Sparrow.
:>:>>>
:>:>>> There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
:>:>>> vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
:>:>>>
:>:>>
:>:>>In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We were
:>:>>typing about Standard missiles.
:>:>
:>:> No, you weren't - unless you can show me a submarine firing Standards...
:>:
:>:What? All I have mentioned is Standards. I specifically excluded submarine
:>:VLS. Are you having a bad day?
:>:
:>
:> And why would you do that if you were only referring to Standards,
:> which any fool knows are not fired from submarines?
:>
:Because I know that you are a fool.

And yet you're the one saying all the egregiously stupid things.

:>:
:>:>
:>:> Even letting that pass, turn your eyes to the Canadian Tribal-class
:>:> destroyers, and their Mark 41 VLS systems, the Standard missiles
:>:> therein, and their remarkable lack of AEGIS. Or the Australian Adelaides
:>:> after their VLS modification, ditto. Or the German Sachsens....
:>:>
:>:> Plenty of VLS systems launching Standard that still have no AEGIS
:>:> involved on the ship.
:>:>
:>:
:>:And none of them US. Fine. There are other non-US Standard VLS systems
:>:without Aegis. Are there are any US VLS systems without Aegis?
:>:
:>
:> Yes. I already told you that.
:>
:
:No you didn't. You went off on tangents.

Yes, I did. Your inability to read is YOUR problem.

And your problem is obvious...


--
"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

[Fred J. McCall]

Clark > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:
:> Clark > wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:>:
:>:> Clark > wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
:>:>:
:>:>:> In message >, Clark
:>:>:> > writes
:>:>:>>Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with
:>:>:>>Aegis.
:>:>:>
:>:>:> GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6 and
:>:>:> SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose
:>:>:> designation I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit.
:>:>:> Vertically Launched Sea Sparrow.
:>:>:>
:>:>:> There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
:>:>:> vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
:>:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We
:>:>:were typing about Standard missiles.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> No, we weren't. You insisted that "AEGIS" was identically "VLS".
:>:
:>:Read it again dimwit. I noted that Aegis and vls went together and they
:>:do.
:>:
:>
:> Read it again, dumbass. You insisted that "AEGIS" and "VLS" meant the
:> same thing. They don't. They also don't always go together. There
:> have been AEGIS ships without VLS and VLS ships without AEGIS.
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:> You're wrong. It's not.
:>:
:>:Show me an Aegis that doesn't have VLS.
:>:>
:>:> That's not even true for Standard-capable launchers (Mk 41 VLS), since
:>:> the new LPDs will have Mk 41 launchers and no AEGIS system. Some of
:>:> the Spruance class (all those currently left in commission) have Mk 41
:>:> VLS and no AEGIS system.
:>:
:>:There are no Sprucans left in commission. Last one was decommissioned in
:>:05.
:>:
:>
:> So what? You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS. You then
:> revised to there being no VLS firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice
:> versa).
:
:And you tried to use Sprucans as an example of VLS w/o Aegis. So sorry that
:they don't exist.
:

Except they do exist. You're just now trying to further revise your
original remark to achieve some form of correctness. So far:

1) You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS and vice versa, saying
that saying AEGIS when you meant VLS was the same statement.

2) You then revised to there being no VLS capable of firing Standard
without AEGIS (and vice versa).

3) You then revised to there being no *US* VLS capable of firing
Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).

4) You're now at there being no *US* VLS on ships currently in
commission capable of firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).

And you're still wrong.

:
:>
:> You're still wrong. There have been AEGIS ships without VLS and there
:> have been VLS ships, firing both Standard and other missiles, without
:> AEGIS.
:
:That wasn't what I stated. Go back and read it again. Get someone to help
:you understand.
:

That was precisely what you stated and your ill-mannered behaviour at
this point doesn't erase it. Let us once again enumerate the
evolution of your claim:

1) You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS and vice versa, saying
that saying AEGIS when you meant VLS was the same statement.

2) You then revised to there being no VLS capable of firing Standard
without AEGIS (and vice versa).

3) You then revised to there being no *US* VLS capable of firing
Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).

4) You're now at there being no *US* VLS on ships currently in
commission capable of firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).

And you're still wrong.

:
:>
:>:>
:>:> Now, would you like to wriggle some more, or shall you just admit you
:>:> didn't know what you were talking about and move on?
:>:>
:>:Get real. You are the arrogant clueless one here. You really need a
:>:reality check...and some parental guidance.
:>:
:>
:> Both my parents are dead, you stupid ****e. My mother just died a few
:> weeks ago.
:>
:> And you're not only ignorant and stupid, you're apparently also
:> ill-mannered and insensitive.
:
:And I'm insensitive because of....what? Now, if you had previously
:published that your mother had passed on and it was known to all then
:perhaps I would be insensitive.
:

Uh, I don't know how to break it to you, dumbass, but that's precisely
what happened. Ask around.

As we've seen from your other expositions in ignorance, YOU not
knowing is not the same as "not known to all".

:
:Your bull**** on the other hand is highly
:suspect because you've already made other *documented* false statements
:(see Sprucans).
:

And just what did I say that was false? Have you now moved to "the
Spruance class never existed" in your litany of idiocy?

:
:In other words, your mother didn't just pass and you are
:trying for the sympathy play. Good luck with that.
:

Why would anyone want 'sympathy' from a gormless twit like you? And
do you seriously think anyone would bother to tell such a lie just to
'win' a point? Unlikely. After all, most people aren't like you.

:
:>
:> Sort of a Renaissance ****head.
:>
:Well, the ****head part describes you perfectly. Try real hard to deal with
:the world as it exists rather than the one you want to spin. Good luck!
:

Yeah. Now that's you've achieved maximal stupidity, you should
probably run away.


--
"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

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Clark
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
>> Plenty of VLS systems launching Standard that still have no AEGIS
>> involved on the ship.
>>
>And none of them US. Fine. There are other non-US Standard VLS systems
>without Aegis. Are there are any US VLS systems without Aegis?

Not since the Spruances retired, that I can think of offhand.

--
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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Fred J. McCall]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

:In message >, Clark
> writes
:>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:>> Plenty of VLS systems launching Standard that still have no AEGIS
:>> involved on the ship.
:>>
:>And none of them US. Fine. There are other non-US Standard VLS systems
:>without Aegis. Are there are any US VLS systems without Aegis?
:
:Not since the Spruances retired, that I can think of offhand.
:

I believe the 4th ship of the LPD-17 class and subsequent are supposed
to get a 16-cell Mk 41 launcher.

[The first 3 didn't get it due to budgetary constraints and will
probably find it being added when they hit their first major
overhaul.]

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

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

<snip of nonsense>

> :>:Show me an Aegis that doesn't have VLS.

<again snip of nonsense>

Easy reply: what I call the "early Tico":

CG-47 USS Ticonderoga
CG-48 USS Yorktown
CG-49 USS Vincennes (aka "robocruiser")
CG-50 USS Valley Forge
CG-51 USS Thomas S. Gates

all five have two Mk26 twin launcher, and was stricken from Aug.30 2004
(USS Valley Forge) to dec.15 2005 (USS Thomas S. Gates)

So instead of wasting time on wording, please stuck to the topic ;)

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Fred J. McCall]

Lack of content noted.

Poor Clarkie has been way too stupid for way to long.

Take a 30 day 'time out' sonny.

<plonk>


Clark > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:
:> Clark > wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:>:
:>:> Clark > wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:
:>:>:
:>:>:> Clark > wrote:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:> In message >, Clark
:>:>:>:> > writes
:>:>:>:>>Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with
:>:>:>:>>Aegis.
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:> GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles).
:>:>:>:> SA-N-6 and SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system
:>:>:>:> whose designation I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit.
:>:>:>:> Vertically Launched Sea Sparrow.
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:> There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users
:>:>:>:> like vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We
:>:>:>:were typing about Standard missiles.
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> No, we weren't. You insisted that "AEGIS" was identically "VLS".
:>:>:
:>:>:Read it again dimwit. I noted that Aegis and vls went together and
:>:>:they do.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> Read it again, dumbass. You insisted that "AEGIS" and "VLS" meant the
:>:> same thing. They don't. They also don't always go together. There
:>:> have been AEGIS ships without VLS and VLS ships without AEGIS.
:>:>
:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> You're wrong. It's not.
:>:>:
:>:>:Show me an Aegis that doesn't have VLS.
:>:>:>
:>:>:> That's not even true for Standard-capable launchers (Mk 41 VLS),
:>:>:> since the new LPDs will have Mk 41 launchers and no AEGIS system.
:>:>:> Some of the Spruance class (all those currently left in commission)
:>:>:> have Mk 41 VLS and no AEGIS system.
:>:>:
:>:>:There are no Sprucans left in commission. Last one was decommissioned
:>:>:in 05.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> So what? You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS. You then
:>:> revised to there being no VLS firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice
:>:> versa).
:>:
:>:And you tried to use Sprucans as an example of VLS w/o Aegis. So sorry
:>:that they don't exist.
:>:
:>
:> Except they do exist. You're just now trying to further revise your
:> original remark to achieve some form of correctness. So far:
:>
:> 1) You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS and vice versa, saying
:> that saying AEGIS when you meant VLS was the same statement.
:>
:> 2) You then revised to there being no VLS capable of firing Standard
:> without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:>
:> 3) You then revised to there being no *US* VLS capable of firing
:> Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:>
:> 4) You're now at there being no *US* VLS on ships currently in
:> commission capable of firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:>
:> And you're still wrong.
:
:Nope. You've got it wrong boy. You try to twist the words but they just
:don't work. Sorry 'bout that.
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:> You're still wrong. There have been AEGIS ships without VLS and there
:>:> have been VLS ships, firing both Standard and other missiles, without
:>:> AEGIS.
:>:
:>:That wasn't what I stated. Go back and read it again. Get someone to
:>:help you understand.
:>:
:>
:> That was precisely what you stated and your ill-mannered behaviour at
:> this point doesn't erase it. Let us once again enumerate the
:> evolution of your claim:
:>
:> 1) You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS and vice versa, saying
:> that saying AEGIS when you meant VLS was the same statement.
:
:Nope. Sure didn't. Go back and read it again. Get some help to understand
:the big words. Try hard.
:>
:> 2) You then revised to there being no VLS capable of firing Standard
:> without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:>
:> 3) You then revised to there being no *US* VLS capable of firing
:> Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:>
:> 4) You're now at there being no *US* VLS on ships currently in
:> commission capable of firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
:>
:> And you're still wrong.
:
:Nope. You've got it wrong boy. You try to twist the words but they just
:don't work. Sorry 'bout that.
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:>:>
:>:>:> Now, would you like to wriggle some more, or shall you just admit
:>:>:> you didn't know what you were talking about and move on?
:>:>:>
:>:>:Get real. You are the arrogant clueless one here. You really need a
:>:>:reality check...and some parental guidance.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:> Both my parents are dead, you stupid ****e. My mother just died a few
:>:> weeks ago.
:>:>
:>:> And you're not only ignorant and stupid, you're apparently also
:>:> ill-mannered and insensitive.
:>:
:>:And I'm insensitive because of....what? Now, if you had previously
:>:published that your mother had passed on and it was known to all then
:>:perhaps I would be insensitive.
:>:
:>
:> Uh, I don't know how to break it to you, dumbass, but that's precisely
:> what happened. Ask around.
:
:Nope. Didn't happen. You're making more false claims just like your
:reference to Spruances. Sorry boy but you're busted on this one. Move on.
:>
:> As we've seen from your other expositions in ignorance, YOU not
:> knowing is not the same as "not known to all".
:>
:>:
:>:Your bull**** on the other hand is highly
:>:suspect because you've already made other *documented* false statements
:>:(see Sprucans).
:>:
:>
:> And just what did I say that was false? Have you now moved to "the
:> Spruance class never existed" in your litany of idiocy?
:
:Have you forgotten that you used the Sprucans as a reference even though
:they are long gone?
:>
:>:
:>:In other words, your mother didn't just pass and you are
:>:trying for the sympathy play. Good luck with that.
:>:
:>
:> Why would anyone want 'sympathy' from a gormless twit like you? And
:> do you seriously think anyone would bother to tell such a lie just to
:> 'win' a point? Unlikely. After all, most people aren't like you.
:>
:>:
:>:>
:>:> Sort of a Renaissance ****head.
:>:>
:>:Well, the ****head part describes you perfectly. Try real hard to deal
:>:with the world as it exists rather than the one you want to spin. Good
:>:luck!
:>:
:>
:> Yeah. Now that's you've achieved maximal stupidity, you should
:> probably run away.
:>
:Any you shouldn't even have posted in the first place parrot boy. It's time
:for you to admit your errors Freddie. Give up now and perhaps you will be
:forgiven. Otherwise, drown in you own bull****. HTH & HAND.
:
:ps. maybe his grandmother will die next...

[AirRaid[_2_]]

On Feb 1, 11:54 pm, wrote:
> See:
>
> http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boeing_Awarded_Contract_For_Next_Gene...
>
> How much longer will the Navy keep upgrading Harpoon before
> switching to a newer, possibly supersonic, weapon?


Russia already has supersonic anti-ship missiles, so why not leapfrog
them by developing hypersonic weapons?