tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7297412985990152738..comments2024-03-27T23:12:59.746-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: LCS Harpoon FailureComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28617553188436597522016-08-06T15:35:03.749-07:002016-08-06T15:35:03.749-07:00It's highly unlikely that the standard loadout...It's highly unlikely that the standard loadout of anti-ship missiles will be 4. That sounds like a developmental load. The standard Harpoon load on every US Navy ship that carries Harpoon is 8. There is no reason to believe the LCS will be different. From a salvo density perspective, 4 missiles is too little to do anything other sink a patrol boat. Again, 8 would be a minimum load, I would think.<br /><br />Having said all that, this is still the LCS program and they continue to make one idiotic decision after another, so who knows?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55134150818567079242016-08-06T14:30:34.008-07:002016-08-06T14:30:34.008-07:00The standard RGM-84 load for an LCS is to be four ...The standard RGM-84 load for an LCS is to be four missiles:<br /><br />"Once Coronado returns to Pearl Harbor, [it] will be outfitted with four Harpoon missiles prior to deploying to the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility."<br /><br />http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/us-navy-to-install-harpoon-anti-ship-missile-on-littoral-combat-ship/<br /><br />That article also says:<br /><br />"The U.S. Navy intends to equip its fleet of LCSs with both the RGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C and the fifth-generation over-the-horizon Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM)."<br /><br /><br />Another source also describes the limited nature of these installations. One ship gets Harpoon and one gets NSM.<br /><br />"Both the NSM and the Boeing-built Harpoon will be installed on deployed LCSs, the first of which is the Coronado. The LCS Freedom will be fitted with the NSM by the time it deploys this winter to the Western Pacific."<br /><br />http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2016/07/20/lcs-harpoon-missile-rimpac-coronado/87371686/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78154372920135572016-08-05T05:05:51.294-07:002016-08-05T05:05:51.294-07:00A TOW is almost a bullet, in terms of complexity. ...A TOW is almost a bullet, in terms of complexity. It's not even remotely in the realm of the Tomahawk, Standard, and Harpoon.<br /><br />I've explained why I discount the IDF data.<br /><br />So, I'm left with my original data and conclusions and nothing I've seen yet changes that.<br /><br />Also, you appear to be looking at hit rates which is not at all what I'm concerned with. The post was about failure to guide - those types of failure that prevented the missile from guiding and having a chance to hit something. Hit rates are another issue and are dependent on targeting data quality, ECM, enemy maneuvering, defensive measures, etc. The missile can perform its job perfectly and still be shot down, for example. I'm looking at a 10-15% fail to enter guide mode, as stated in the post.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36994778098800319742016-08-04T20:02:22.336-07:002016-08-04T20:02:22.336-07:00thats kind of my point bud,
If you read a little d...thats kind of my point bud,<br />If you read a little deeper, its a volley of 2 missiles per target when 1 inbounds detected, and an over shoot of 15% interceptors to targets.<br />What we see is what we're fed.not what is, if you noticed in my first post, i said, if you could manage to get IDF to release its figures.<br /><br />Anecdotally, i can tell you that TOW2's we fired in training, (many dozens) had a little over 80% success rate. <br />the dozen war shots were 100% successful.<br />Again, not dogmatic, as, one soldiers experience, and cheaper simpler missiles, but you see my point i think?<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72847439312258666292016-08-04T17:52:57.076-07:002016-08-04T17:52:57.076-07:00"They must be truly random tests too in condi..."They must be truly random tests too in conditions resembling combat."<br /><br />Exactly right! A missile might launch and guide 100% of the time in benign test conditions but fail every time in an ECM environment. The US WWII torpedo example is instructive and yet we ignore the lesson.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90916812611877959462016-08-04T17:42:38.856-07:002016-08-04T17:42:38.856-07:00The USN needs to test a large enough sample size t...The USN needs to test a large enough sample size to get an acceptable confidence level on the reliability of Harpoons.<br /><br />They must be truly random tests too in conditions resembling combat.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35884134091273691692016-08-04T12:15:10.221-07:002016-08-04T12:15:10.221-07:00This is an unproductive discussion. This is an unproductive discussion. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37826732202620914652016-08-04T10:23:33.129-07:002016-08-04T10:23:33.129-07:001. Car and missile are different. If there is pro...1. Car and missile are different. If there is problem with the car, I can pull over and have it diagnosed and fixed. A missile is gone, whether it works or not. <br /><br />2. And perhaps we interpret the word 'test' from different angle. I translate it as 'data gathering and analysis'; perhaps you translate it as 'validation'. <br /><br />3. Pretend I'm a missile mfg engineer, the admiral asks me: would it work near end of its shelf life? All I can say is: I got a 10yr old cal sheets says it would 97% of time new, and statistical prediction of 90% at its expiration. We shot the missile in an exercise (not war). If it worked, I won't learn anything new. If it didn't, it will be very difficult for me to find out why. Now, let's look at two different options for follow up<br /><br />3a. We take another 24 missiles. Shoot them all. And lo and behold, your nightmare of 70% failed. The sensible follow up after this is to take another 24 missiles, de-construct them, and find out what subcomponent(s) failed. <br /><br />3b. Instead of shooting off 24 missiles. I de-construct the first 24 and find out what (can) failed. I believe the diagnosis result, between 3a and 3b, will have correlated findings. You use 48 missiles to find out; I only use 24.<br /><br />4. As for 'whether the entire package will stand up to *****'. It is physics and non-destructive validation procedure. If the engineer do a good job of translating and de-constructing 'firework' to various QA procedures. Then the end-result should (and will) work, even without the firework. If it doesn't, then we go back to (3). Now, if the engineer is honest, and honestly real good, and he tells the admiral: there is that '10-15% failure' beyond my realm of knowledge and fix. Then, its up to the admiral how to solve that issue: buy more, or shoot more?<br /><br /><br />Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90204036562957352702016-08-04T05:44:09.020-07:002016-08-04T05:44:09.020-07:00I've seen the Israeli data and I have severe d...I've seen the Israeli data and I have severe doubts about it. I've seen reports that suggest a much lower success rate (40%-70%). The Israeli public data, I suspect, is a public relations point to reassure the populace.<br /><br />The Israeli data also seems to be highly qualified meaning that it is only considering the missiles that actually guided (a "dud" that failed to even launch wouldn't be counted in the data). Further, it seems to be grouped meaning that if three missiles were fired at a given object and only one hit, that would be considered a one "shot" success (100%) rather than a one out of three (33%).<br /><br />I presume you're not so naive as to believe government/military claims at face value? Every claim the US military makes is "spun" to look good. Israel is no different. I know that you, as an astute observer and keen analyst, dig deeper into military claims and would not simply parrot public relations claims in an effort to try to prove me wrong about something, right?<br /><br />You'll recall that immediately after Desert Storm, the military was aglow with claims of 95+% accuracy with laser guided bombs and Tomahawks? Later, more careful and objective analysis pegged the LGB performance at numbers around 70% and Tomahawks at 85% or so, depending on what source you want to use. Similarly, Israel is almost certainly putting out public relations claims to justify their investment and reassure the public. It's up to us, the objective observers, to recognize it for what it is and attempt to analyze it rather than blindly accept it.<br /><br />So, lacking a detailed analysis of the Israeli data, I'm simply discounting it until better data is provided (probably never will be - they're not quite as free with their military data as we are).<br /><br />Of course, it doesn't matter what Israeli performance is, good or bad. For us, the only thing that matters is US Tomahawk, Standard, and Harpoon missile performance.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52178758113232941132016-08-04T05:18:17.866-07:002016-08-04T05:18:17.866-07:00Tim, I honestly don't know if you're being...Tim, I honestly don't know if you're being obtuse or you really don't grasp some of the basics, here. There's nothing wrong with disassembling and testing individual components but the only test the ultimately matters, and the one that must be done, is actual performance testing. The only test of an automobile that matters is to drive it and see if it works when it heats up and starts getting bounced around and stressed. The same is true of missiles. All the component and shelf tests in the world won't tell you whether the entire package will stand up to ignition, acceleration, g-force, heat, electromagnetic interference, etc. I'm pretty sure you understand this so I'm left to wonder what you're really asking and why?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90049469255825585042016-08-04T00:16:19.213-07:002016-08-04T00:16:19.213-07:00Sure thing CNO
IDF sources sighted in the 2014 ga...Sure thing CNO<br /><br />IDF sources sighted in the 2014 gaza conflict, that Iron Dome Tamir interceptors were at or above 94% hit rate. <br />So, Israeli missiles, sure, but, more realistically, these are the result of US missile defence design and manufacturing. <br /><br />So, there, a western missile system, recently tested, using new built missiles, punching at well above 90%.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34267256489370704472016-08-03T17:23:49.994-07:002016-08-03T17:23:49.994-07:00Why not torps?Why not torps?Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67231976446205841862016-08-03T15:48:27.695-07:002016-08-03T15:48:27.695-07:00I'm not military. How does Navy test its miss...I'm not military. How does Navy test its missile? (As in firework destructive test on the whole package, or de-construct a missile to re-evaluate subsystems/components?)<br /><br />I would favor the 2nd approach: take several missiles out of each lot by year. Send them back to missile maker. Ask them to disassemble (to reasonable subsystem/component). Send to each part's OEM. Re-calibrate as is, and arrive the statistic on each's longevity. Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30971619276745354682016-08-03T13:40:30.567-07:002016-08-03T13:40:30.567-07:00Seriously, read the post! I addressed your "...Seriously, read the post! I addressed your "what does it tell me" question and "nothing much" answer when I said, "Solitary live fire tests such as this one demonstrate nothing." I then went on to say, "Without a statistical test, we don’t know – and that’s both the danger and the point of this post."<br /><br />I also addressed the cost issue in the last paragraph. Read it!<br /><br />Do not make another comment until you read the post and then compare your comment to the post to see if whatever you want to say has already been addressed. I expect better of my readers.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78172288714495326792016-08-03T12:25:49.495-07:002016-08-03T12:25:49.495-07:00My background is control engineering. A missile/pl...My background is control engineering. A missile/plane/or you/me basically is a feedback (or other fancier control algorithm) loop of sensor/control/actuator. when I read your 'testing' I automatically break the whole thing down to decouple the modules, build testing/calibrating firmware around each module, pass-or-fail them, then reconnect them back together. With this type of testing, module-to-module interface is always the big deal. For example: if the missile sensor only has to interface to missile brain, it is easier than if the same sensor has to have two interfaces build in: to missile brain, and to engineer's bench (i.e. added electronics firmware, footprint, size & weight, and more places to fail). If you split every hair, you'll get a 100% success (from component to subsystem to whole missile), but how much do you want to pay?<br /><br />Now back to the missile test. If it was done during the same test shooting at USS Thach, I believe, there were other Harpoon hits (3 success hit?), so if you added this failed one. What does it (or all 3-4 launches) tell me? Nothing much, because the sample size is too small. They can all hit, all miss, or half-and-half, I'd still fall back to your first statement of statistical result of '85-90% success rate'.<br /><br />As an engineer, I fully agree with you on testing. However, if I'm the admiral bean counter, I'd ask me (the engineer) $how much$. And the 4-star accountant is going to weight my $testing proposal$ vs. 'extra 10-15% missiles made" to solve essential the same issue: how to shoot enough missiles to complete the mission.<br /><br />That's all I'm saying.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47283859507702966112016-08-03T11:01:42.549-07:002016-08-03T11:01:42.549-07:00The Navy is looking at all options including the N...The Navy is looking at all options including the NSM and others.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57409451291610466132016-08-03T10:58:42.298-07:002016-08-03T10:58:42.298-07:00Did you actually read the post? The purpose of te...Did you actually read the post? The purpose of testing was explained to be to understand the actual failure rate so that we could compensate and to monitor the change in failure rate over time as weapons and systems age and their failure rate presumably increases.<br /><br />Where in the post did I say that a given failure rate was unacceptable and that the point of testing was to lower the failure rate? The answer is nowhere, because I didn't say or even imply that. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite, that a given failure rate was fine as long as know what it is - HENCE THE TESTING.<br /><br />I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.<br /><br />Feel free to comment but first read the post carefully.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32885045348177121122016-08-03T10:30:58.766-07:002016-08-03T10:30:58.766-07:00I thought they were looking at the Improved Harpoo...I thought they were looking at the Improved Harpoon? So, theoretically, all those would be new? JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19280487469209311422016-08-03T09:46:57.610-07:002016-08-03T09:46:57.610-07:00" For what it’s worth, my overall assessment ..." For what it’s worth, my overall assessment of Tomahawk/Standard/Harpoon missiles is that 10%-15% will fail to guide. That’s fine, as long as we have a realistic understanding of the failure rate and compensate for it by having and launching a few extra missiles."<br /><br />"So, what’s the point of this post? It’s testing, of course."<br /><br />CNO, excuse me. But your two statements actually don't mesh. You're first statement already gave a solution (i.e. shoot 10-15% more missiles to cover that aspect of failure problem).<br /><br />Your 2nd statement means "10-15% failure is not acceptable and nor is shooting 10-15% more"; hence the testing. Your 2nd statement only makes sense, if your goal is to knock that 10-15% down to something below.<br /><br />Hence, you already provide one solution (with known extra expenditure). Your 2nd statement is to propose another solution with unknown 'scope of work and $$'. Different? yes. Better? don't know.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50209835148401103642016-08-03T08:28:00.878-07:002016-08-03T08:28:00.878-07:00For a practical use, the various failures can be c...For a practical use, the various failures can be considered multiple independent events. Could there be failure relationships? Of course. A circuit board may have a higher failure rate when subjected to acceleration, for example. However, for general discussion purposes, multiple independent events describes the situation well enough. Besides, no one has any data on failure relationships!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55157577540339718222016-08-03T07:55:58.366-07:002016-08-03T07:55:58.366-07:00That is assuming that the mission kill failures ar...That is assuming that the mission kill failures are independent events when in reality Bayesian probability could be more appropriate.<br /><br />When we retire the harpoon or if we are about to deactivate specific harpoons at the end of their service life, it would cost almost nothing to test the failure rate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72278913780127060082016-08-03T06:54:42.653-07:002016-08-03T06:54:42.653-07:00Bear in mind that the Harpoon has not yet been off...Bear in mind that the Harpoon has not yet been officially selected, as far as I know.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42382415089834688932016-08-03T06:51:00.893-07:002016-08-03T06:51:00.893-07:00How many Harpoon missiles does the Navy plan to eq...How many Harpoon missiles does the Navy plan to equip each LCS? Eight is typical, but the LCS is anything but typical.Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39519729048219209672016-08-03T04:54:52.658-07:002016-08-03T04:54:52.658-07:00I think Russia's Syrian cruise missile strike ...I think Russia's Syrian cruise missile strike had a failure rate of a little over 10%<br /><br />And that just counts the missiles that were found to have ditched in neighbouring lands.TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87361774772621140922016-08-03T04:34:33.850-07:002016-08-03T04:34:33.850-07:00Anyone remember the MK14 torpedo failures of WW2. ...Anyone remember the MK14 torpedo failures of WW2. One could almost predict the same problems here due to a lack of testingHowdypartnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14995152060704851499noreply@blogger.com