tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post1098097482062020021..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: New Anti-Ship MissilesComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10524438781499525032022-03-29T12:59:06.844-07:002022-03-29T12:59:06.844-07:00Might want to revisit this procurement disaster, n...Might want to revisit this procurement disaster, now that it's ten years later and none of this junk really worked out:<br /><br /> * LRASM-B was cancelled almost immediately; according to some sources it was in fact cancelled before this post was made!<br /><br /> * ArcLight was cancelled almost immediately, about a month after this post was made.<br /><br /> * LRASM-A (eventually designated AGM-158C), a derivative of the existing AGM-158B JASSM-ER, took over five years to even reach the part of its test plan where it was dumb-dropped (not fired at a target) from a Super Hornet, and five years after that is still in LRIP after some sort of abbreviated test plan if I'm not mistaken. Compare this to the development of the AIM-54C, itself troubled by the standards of the time, and cry! Also, no plans for a ship- or sub-launched version.<br /><br /> * So far as I can tell, ArcLight's more-or-less replacement (Prompt Global Strike) is not intended to target ships, and in any case the glide body and the booster have so far only been tested separately so it's still far from ready for a real test program much less operational use.<br /><br /> * The Naval Strike Missile, a simple procurement of an existing Norwegian system, took forever to get. In its ship-launched version, it offers an increase in range compared to the last blocks of Harpoons (~100 nm vs ~75 nm) but a substantial decrease in warhead size (276 lbs vs 488 lbs).<br /><br /> * the SM-6 now has an anti-ship mode. Reports of the useful range vary from ~130 nm to north of 250 nm, but in any case this must be with the missile fired in a ballistic arc (it has an SM-3's rocket motor as its sole means of propulsion) meaning the target will have ample opportunities to try to shoot it down. The warhead is all of 140 lbs. Obviously launching an SM-6 at a ship means the firing platform now has one less SM-6 to use for air defense.cheezithttp://google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37255308136645444602016-05-30T14:46:47.718-07:002016-05-30T14:46:47.718-07:00So the German navy's subs were all sunk by Ame...So the German navy's subs were all sunk by American and British subs?Muzzlehatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14702624915252718623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44487914847636102262013-05-14T15:07:10.662-07:002013-05-14T15:07:10.662-07:00Couple major mistakes you made there. The Harpoon...Couple major mistakes you made there. The Harpoon is not the only ship launches ASM out there in the Navy's magazines. The SM-2, SM-6, and ESSM all can engage surface ships. So can the Tomahawk, if GPS is good and the ship isn't doing all that much. (Like tied to a pier or something similar). <br /><br />And when has the USN ever really faced a large naval fleet and had to rely solely on ASM's? In the Cold War against the USSR's Navy, we had our aircraft carriers. Now, we still have CVN's, the Cyclone class, and a lot more Arleigh Burkes. Weapons have changed also. The sea whiz can engage boghammers, and our point defense systems also. Combined with Aegis to defend USN ships, we've got some pretty potent capabilities. <br /><br />And it's a major intelligence failure if a USN SAG has to go up against an enemy fleet without carrier or SSN support. A major failure like every satellite going down. It just doesn't happen, and won't happen. <br /><br />And we've got a lot of subs, even if some are getting long in the tooth. We can't see them, but wherever our ships are, there's a sub there also. And subs, as history has well shown, are to ships like a sniper is to a blind man with an assault rifle, or just about. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55650345406089162932012-11-22T02:09:18.727-08:002012-11-22T02:09:18.727-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.arumugamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474668921039249230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2076905862595190322012-08-20T07:08:51.557-07:002012-08-20T07:08:51.557-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46949419366514867172012-08-14T17:05:57.782-07:002012-08-14T17:05:57.782-07:00Well, if you can guarantee that you have subs and ...Well, if you can guarantee that you have subs and naval air support always instantly available then you're correct that there's no need to have an anti-ship missile. However, on the off chance that your sub is tied up doing something like ASW or simply can't be communicated with (underwater comm is still a difficult proposition) and there are no carriers in the area, then a capable anti-ship missile would kind of come in handy.<br /><br />The carrier fleet is steadily declining. We're going to be down to 9 when Enterprise retires. Naval air wings are getting steadily smaller. In short, the likelihood of having naval air cover when needed is steadily decreasing.<br /><br />In the end, if you're on a ship and have to engage another ship do you really want to depend on "chances are"? Because, if it turns out that "chances are not", you're going on a quick trip to the bottom of the ocean.<br /><br />I'm not sure what you're saying by characterizing the LRASM as a niche capability. If you're suggesting that it would be more flexible if it also had a land attack capability then I'd agree 100% and, in fact, reports suggest that that's exactly what the Navy is looking at doing along with making an air launched version.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83287514506848523292012-08-14T15:17:20.446-07:002012-08-14T15:17:20.446-07:00If you're on a ship and have to engage another...If you're on a ship and have to engage another ship - chances are you are backed by naval air and submarines. Both of which already have pretty robust SUW capabilities. Why do we need to invest in a niche LRASM capability? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-453041159775577592012-08-13T09:28:55.461-07:002012-08-13T09:28:55.461-07:00Well, if you believe the AirSea Battle concept, th...Well, if you believe the AirSea Battle concept, there's no set responsibility. All ships, subs, planes, etc. can carry out all missions. Who executes the mission depends on who's best situated at the moment.<br /><br />Seriously, subs are wonderful for ship killing but if you're on a ship and an enemy ship is a threat, you'd better be prepared to kill it! Our subs are going to be busy launching land attack missiles, conducting surveillance, providing targeting, conducting ASW, etc.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52971232542281732922012-08-13T08:17:48.966-07:002012-08-13T08:17:48.966-07:00Isnt ship killing considered the purview of the su...Isnt ship killing considered the purview of the submarine fleet nowadays?TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4182122922239047482012-08-07T16:15:51.220-07:002012-08-07T16:15:51.220-07:00The TASM is back:
US Navy looks to modified Tomah...The TASM is back:<br /><br />US Navy looks to modified Tomahawk to meet interim Offensive ASuW need<br />The US Navy (USN) and Raytheon Missile Systems are advancing plans to develop a maritime interdiction modification package for the Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile to meet an urgent USN requirement for a so-called Interim Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) missile. Known as Multi-Mission Tomahawk (MMT), the projected near-term anti-ship weapon will be created by adding a new moving target seeker and upgraded datalink to the existing Block IV system baseline, creating a semi-autonomous weapon capable of detection, discrimination and terminal guidance to a moving maritime target<br /><br />[first posted to http://jmr.janes.com - 02 August 2012]JKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18171287662161295070noreply@blogger.com