Boeing Awarded Contract For Next-Generation Harpoon Block III Missile

"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.

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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.

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/m...05/ai_n9021027

OK thanks.

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.