Boeing Awarded Contract For Next-Generation Harpoon Block III Missile

Kerryn Offord wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Kerryn Offord wrote:
:
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : wrote:
: :
: : :See:
: : :
: : :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Boei...ssile_999.html
: : :
: : :How much longer will the Navy keep upgrading Harpoon before
: : :switching to a newer, possibly supersonic, weapon?
: : :
: :
: : This one seems to fall into the "if it works, don't **** with it"
: : category.
: :
: : What do you want a newer weapon to do that would work better than
: : what's already there and in the development plan?
: :
: :
: :I thought you said you worked for a military contractor?
: :
:
: I do, but what does that have to do with anything?
:
:
:A military contractor questioning the value of the government investing
:untold millions to develop a totally new weapons system to do the job
:that the existing system already does more than adequately...
:

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

"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

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

"scott s." wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
m:
:
: "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.
..

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

I'll simply note you dodge the question.

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

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

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

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

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

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


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

"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

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

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


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

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

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.