USAF considers new anti-ship weapon.

Guy Alcala wrote:
Kevin Brooks wrote:

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

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

Probably for the same reason that Exocet has been carried by Super Frelons,
Sea Kings and Cougars for years. Sure beats closing into retaliation range
with your skimmer. Of course, the USN is a lot better equipped with fixed-wing
air than other navies, but that didn't stop them integrating Penguin and
Hellfire on their SH-60s.

Guy

Since Harpoon can't be fired from a VLS cell, the Helo-launched
Penguin and Hellfire, as well as Standard SAM's fired in anti-surface
mode
(can Evolved Sea Sparrow be fired in anti-surface mode?) may be the
only
anti-ship missile capability some modern USN surface combatants have.

Considering that ship-launched Harpoons were used in the Gulf Of
Sidra incident and during Opering Preying Mantis (not sure about
Operation Desert Storm), is the above-listed capability enough?

Perhaps the cheapest way to have a limited land attack capability for
smaller navies that operate mid-sized helicopters from frigates.

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

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

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

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

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

Sure beats closing into retaliation range

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

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

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

Brooks


Guy

"KDR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Perhaps the cheapest way to have a limited land attack capability for
smaller navies that operate mid-sized helicopters from frigates.

Not sure that many such opportunities would exist; most of the nations that
operate smaller combat vessels are not all that interested in using them as
platforms to conduct land attack missions. AFAIK only two countries outside
the US have thus far expressed any interest in acquiring SLAM-ER--the ROK,
which is having them integrated onto their F-15K's (and would therefore be
unlikely to want to fire them from helos), and IIRC Australia was
considering them as a possible arming option for their own fixed wing
assets.

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure beats closing into retaliation range

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

Again, _we_ don't.

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

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

Might be difficult size-wise (I'd have to scale it from a photo) on an SH-60,
but power and weight-wise an SH-60 has the same or more as a Sea King or
Cougar. Penguin isn't exactly small -- Gunston gives 10' 5.25" long x 11"
diameter, so Harpoon/SLAM is at least in the ballpark. Missile weight isn't an
issue-- carrying a pair of Penguins adds 1,766 lb, so a single SLAM-ER is
certainly doable with fuel internal fuel (4,012lb. for an "International Sea
Hawk" per Sikorsky's tech specs, and giving up an appropriate amount of internal
fuel would allow carriage of two. The ESSS on the Blackhawk is able to carry a
pair of 230 gal. tanks each side, so it doesn't appear that getting a pylon to
carry the weight of SLAM-ER would be a major problem. And there's a fair number
of naval users of the Sea Hawk, who might well want a true helo-launched
stand-off ASSM capability, as opposed to just an anti-FPB/sub capability.
Whether Boeing chooses to do this is a separate issue, but there's seems
adequate reason for someone to want to do it.

Guy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sure beats closing into retaliation range

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

Again, _we_ don't.

Do you really think the ROK's are?


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

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

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

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

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

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

Brooks


Guy

"Joe Delphi" wrote in message
news:6yOVe.240305$E95.101677@fed1read01...
wrote in message
oups.com...

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


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

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


JD




The Russians, French and Chinese have a system similar to CIWS.... how
effective they are remains to be seen.

In article ,
Peter Skelton wrote:

Think harder.

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

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

If I recall correctly, the harpoon anti-shipping missile was sort of a happy
accident. In that it was much more useful than merely allowing a P-3 Orion
to engage a surfaced submarine, before it had already launched all of the
cruise missiles and dived.

"Richard Bell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Skelton wrote:

Think harder.

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

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

If I recall correctly, the harpoon anti-shipping missile was sort of a
happy
accident. In that it was much more useful than merely allowing a P-3
Orion
to engage a surfaced submarine, before it had already launched all of the
cruise missiles and dived.

Not quite. While the initial thought back in the mid-sixties was to develop
a missile aimed primarily at surfaced subs, that soon changed to give
primacy to the anti-ship attack role (the loss of the Eilat in '67
apparently being something of an impetus). When development formally began
in '68 the goal was already aimed at the anti-shipping role, and the first
version developed and fielded was the surface launched variant. You can get
the actual history at:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html

That site has proven to be pretty reliable when it comes to missile systems.

Brooks

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

Kevin Brooks wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure beats closing into retaliation range

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

Again, _we_ don't.

Do you really think the ROK's are?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guy