Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

Keep or remove harpoon launchers now?

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,253 posts
6,734 battles

The USN has selected the NSM as it’s new ASM if I’m not mistaken it’s VLS compatible so older ships with harpoon launchers, keep them and keep harpoons as an extra 8 missiles or get rid of them and put something else there?

an extra mk38 or two there to help with small boat protection?

Edited by JohnPJones
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HINON]
Members
2,258 posts
6,309 battles
33 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

The USN has selected the NSM as it’s new ASM if I’m not mistaken it’s VLS compatible so older ships with harpoon launchers, keep them and keep harpoons as an extra 8 missiles or get rid of them and put something else there?

an extra mk38 or two there to help with small boat protection?

Depends on the placement of the cannisters too (e.g ANZAC class Frigates having them placed directly in front of the bridge and aft of the 5in gun mount), I think a lot of older and current classes will keep Harpoon cannisters as they are and resesign their future classes to either include more VLS for the new missile without sacrificing the number of other VLS missiles carried or use it in a cannister too while using VLS for SAMs, VL-ARSOC or land attack missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
599 posts

Keep - As long as serviceable. Many targets will lack countermeasures to defeat the Harpoon.  Ship launched land attack version might be a popular and more useful upgrade for some navies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,253 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, 212thAttackBattalion said:

Depends on the placement of the cannisters too (e.g ANZAC class Frigates having them placed directly in front of the bridge and aft of the 5in gun mount), I think a lot of older and current classes will keep Harpoon cannisters as they are and resesign their future classes to either include more VLS for the new missile without sacrificing the number of other VLS missiles carried or use it in a cannister too while using VLS for SAMs, VL-ARSOC or land attack missiles.

I did very clearly specify this was about the USN...

harpoons on US ships are placed in fairly awkward places but mk38s and may be one or two other systems may fit well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HINON]
Members
2,258 posts
6,309 battles
43 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

I did very clearly specify this was about the USN...

harpoons on US ships are placed in fairly awkward places but mk38s and may be one or two other systems may fit well

true, but it will want to export it to friendly countries who use US equipment and regularly integrate into US battlegroups... so my comment is still very valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts

USN can either export remaining stocks to allies or convert them to SLAMs for the USAF and USN air wings to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,253 posts
6,734 battles

Ok so export or convert just leave the space they occupy empty or place something else there to get a net increase in capability even if it is only a small increase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,089 posts

 

No need to remove the MK 141 launchers.  (No not confusing it with Mk. 41, Mk. 141 is the designation for the slant launchers.)  You can just adapt them for NSM.  NSM also works on this launch mode.  

 

Harpoons will be a hard sell even for export, as the Europeans themselves are moving to either to the NSM or the Exocet.   Harpoon may have lost a potential order to Finland when that country went with Gabriel.  Japan, Taiwan, and S. Korea makes their own indigenous anti ship missiles.   Turkey is on the road to doing so.  That still leaves you with a few nations, Egypt, Thailand, the Philippines, as potential buyers.  Maybe Canada, Australia and New Zealand too?  Again, there is some threat to Europe and with other countries looking to sell their own ASMs.

 

Many retired missiles end their life being used as target drones.  

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
21 posts
3,577 battles

Replace them with NSM launchers. There's no reason to clog up valuable VLS space when you already have the deck room to mount a dedicated launcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,253 posts
6,734 battles
On 7/10/2018 at 8:24 PM, totallyaverage said:

Replace them with NSM launchers. There's no reason to clog up valuable VLS space when you already have the deck room to mount a dedicated launcher.

VLS is valuable for its flexibility.

personally I think the biggest flaw in the design of the Burkes and Ticos is that when they were originally designed few foresaw the rise of small vessels whether suicide boats or swarms of small craft and as a result they lack the firepower to take the wind out of the sails of such an attack before it can make its effect known.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts
4 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

VLS is valuable for its flexibility.

personally I think the biggest flaw in the design of the Burkes and Ticos is that when they were originally designed few foresaw the rise of small vessels whether suicide boats or swarms of small craft and as a result they lack the firepower to take the wind out of the sails of such an attack before it can make its effect known.

Well, as previously stated, the NSM can be put in the same tubes that the Harpoon packs use. But Soviet missile boats/FACs have always been on the USN's threat radar, that's why we had OHPs to screen the fleet. Once we get frigates back in the fleet, capital ship survivability should jump up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,089 posts
5 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

VLS is valuable for its flexibility.

personally I think the biggest flaw in the design of the Burkes and Ticos is that when they were originally designed few foresaw the rise of small vessels whether suicide boats or swarms of small craft and as a result they lack the firepower to take the wind out of the sails of such an attack before it can make its effect known.

 

OHPs were meant for this work.  When they were retired it left a gap that the LCS, among their unreliability issues, were intended but unable to fulfill.   Its not clear whether FFG(X) could fulfill this, given that first a bigger and still potentially undependable LCS isn't going to solve that problem, and second, Euro-frigates are more like scaled down destroyers with a stronger focus on ASW, crew automation and living conditions.  

 

I won't consider suicide boat swarms to be that much of a problem anymore, the new threat is more peer to peer rivalry with states like China and Russia, so the original purposes of the AB, Ticos and even the Euro-frigates, which were meant to counter the Russian fleet, remain pretty much valid.

 

Ironically, the much maligned German F125 frigates might be intended for the kind of missions you speak of, as its got the guns and can host special forces and such.  Even water hoses.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden-Württemberg-class_frigate

 

I would have thought that the rejected Thyssenkrupp offering for the FFG(X) based on the South African Valour class could have done this well, and militarized versions of HII's Legend class cutter, which they are marketing as the Patrol Frigate.

 

For piracy work like in the Gulf of Aden, frigates have shown they can do the job nicely.   They are big enough to host marines and special forces that you may need to board vessels, helicopters to spot pirate ships, and has the facilities you can use to evacuate and medically treat crew, along with keeping prisoners.  As shown in the cases of Turkey, China, Pakistan and India, frigates were used to mass evacuate their civilians when things got hot in Libya and Yemen, using marines to cover and support the evacuation.     

 

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,253 posts
6,734 battles
17 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

 

OHPs were meant for this work.  When they were retired it left a gap that the LCS, among their unreliability issues, were intended but unable to fulfill.   Its not clear whether FFG(X) could fulfill this, given that first a bigger and still potentially undependable LCS isn't going to solve that problem, and second, Euro-frigates are more like scaled down destroyers with a stronger focus on ASW, crew automation and living conditions.  

 

I won't consider suicide boat swarms to be that much of a problem anymore, the new threat is more peer to peer rivalry with states like China and Russia, so the original purposes of the AB, Ticos and even the Euro-frigates, which were meant to counter the Russian fleet, remain pretty much valid.

 

Ironically, the much maligned German F125 frigates might be intended for the kind of missions you speak of, as its got the guns and can host special forces and such.  Even water hoses.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden-Württemberg-class_frigate

 

I would have thought that the rejected Thyssenkrupp offering for the FFG(X) based on the South African Valour class could have done this well, and militarized versions of HII's Legend class cutter, which they are marketing as the Patrol Frigate.

 

For piracy work like in the Gulf of Aden, frigates have shown they can do the job nicely.   They are big enough to host marines and special forces that you may need to board vessels, helicopters to spot pirate ships, and has the facilities you can use to evacuate and medically treat crew, along with keeping prisoners.  As shown in the cases of Turkey, China, Pakistan and India, frigates were used to mass evacuate their civilians when things got hot in Libya and Yemen, using marines to cover and support the evacuation.     

 

The biggest threat of boat swarms has pretty much always been Iran, and while the VBIED suicide boat threat isn’t believed to be as high as it used to be, Iran is still a rogue nation and once again making big threats to close the SoH to prevent US allies from exporting oil, so the threat of FAC/FIAC swarms I think is still as looming as it was in the recent past, and the resurgence of major hostile navies is behind my idea for a heavy escort frigate that could focus on MIO tasking, escorting through the SoH but also capable of limited engagement of other vessels corvette and up.

 

anyway that’s why I think of the deck launchers do get removed they should be replaced by mk38 (still not a super great system for that, but 2 per side wouldn’t be a bad thing.)

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts
3 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

The biggest threat of boat swarms has pretty much always been Iran, and while the VBIED suicide boat threat isn’t believed to be as high as it used to be, Iran is still a rogue nation and once again making big threats to close the SoH to prevent US allies from exporting oil, so the threat of FAC/FIAC swarms I think is still as looming as it was in the recent past, and the resurgence of major hostile navies is behind my idea for a heavy escort frigate that could focus on MIO tasking, escorting through the SoH but also capable of limited engagement of other vessels corvette and up.

 

anyway that’s why I think of the deck launchers do get removed they should be replaced by mk38 (still not a super great system for that, but 2 per side wouldn’t be a bad thing.)

Why not replace with arm launchers and a vertical mag for Hellfires like on the STRB-90? The wiring is already there for power and guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,253 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, TornadoADV said:

Why not replace with arm launchers and a vertical mag for Hellfires like on the STRB-90? The wiring is already there for power and guidance.

Googled STRB-90 and the vessel coming up in the results has a different designation and Wikipedia doesn’t list hellfires on it so do you have a link?

 

otherwise, I’m not totally against it, but I was thinking that with mk38 it would be quick and easy since the only deck penetration required is just for some cables.

otherwise not completely against an idea like that but what about something more like being able to pop hydra pods on a launcher? If I’m not mistaken they now have guided versions and might be cheaper per round.

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,089 posts
7 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

The biggest threat of boat swarms has pretty much always been Iran, and while the VBIED suicide boat threat isn’t believed to be as high as it used to be, Iran is still a rogue nation and once again making big threats to close the SoH to prevent US allies from exporting oil, so the threat of FAC/FIAC swarms I think is still as looming as it was in the recent past, and the resurgence of major hostile navies is behind my idea for a heavy escort frigate that could focus on MIO tasking, escorting through the SoH but also capable of limited engagement of other vessels corvette and up.

 

anyway that’s why I think of the deck launchers do get removed they should be replaced by mk38 (still not a super great system for that, but 2 per side wouldn’t be a bad thing.)

 

With regards to the LCS, they don't have VLS, so the missiles have to be deck mounted.  This is an addition to existing systems, as both classes of LCS lack any form of ASM launcher, though the Saudi version have them.  Come to think of it, the Saudis should buy out some of the Harpoon stock for their LCS variant.  

 

Both classes of LCS already field Mk 44s on both sides.

 

Flight IIA Burkes don't have space for deck launchers and are all VLS.  They already have two Mk. 38s on each side.

 

So that leaves you with the Flight I and II Burkes, which have slightly less VLS than the IIA (90 vs 96), and have the deck launchers for Harpoons.     I don't think what you are proposing would be a bad idea for these ships.

 

As for frigates, when you only have 32 launchers on the VLS, which has to be divided further for SAMs, cruise missiles and ASROCs, I am not sure if going all VLS on the ASMs would be a good idea unless you have specific VLS for the ASMs, like some Russian frigates.  You can utilize the deck space for ASMs, deck launchers don't need to dig deep into the ship's hull like VLS can, so it frees what's underneath the deck for other purposes.  But a number of frigate designs like FREMM for example, which have the deck launchers, and still have two remote guns on each side so no such sacrifice needs to take place to put guns in the middle.   Some frigates position their CIWS on each side, not on the front or rear, so that makes it easier to cover both sides simultaneously, and have the targets in front of them rather than turning around.  

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts
3 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

Googled STRB-90 and the vessel coming up in the results has a different designation and Wikipedia doesn’t list hellfires on it so do you have a link?

 

otherwise, I’m not totally against it, but I was thinking that with mk38 it would be quick and easy since the only deck penetration required is just for some cables.

otherwise not completely against an idea like that but what about something more like being able to pop hydra pods on a launcher? If I’m not mistaken they now have guided versions and might be cheaper per round.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB90-class_fast_assault_craft#Versions

Thay are the same thing, STRB 90 literally means CB 90 in English. Stridsbåt 90 H(alv) = Combat Boat 90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,253 posts
6,734 battles
On 7/13/2018 at 10:20 PM, Eisennagel said:

 

With regards to the LCS, they don't have VLS, so the missiles have to be deck mounted.  This is an addition to existing systems, as both classes of LCS lack any form of ASM launcher, though the Saudi version have them.  Come to think of it, the Saudis should buy out some of the Harpoon stock for their LCS variant.  

 

Both classes of LCS already field Mk 44s on both sides.

 

Flight IIA Burkes don't have space for deck launchers and are all VLS.  They already have two Mk. 38s on each side.

 

So that leaves you with the Flight I and II Burkes, which have slightly less VLS than the IIA (90 vs 96), and have the deck launchers for Harpoons.     I don't think what you are proposing would be a bad idea for these ships.

 

As for frigates, when you only have 32 launchers on the VLS, which has to be divided further for SAMs, cruise missiles and ASROCs, I am not sure if going all VLS on the ASMs would be a good idea unless you have specific VLS for the ASMs, like some Russian frigates.  You can utilize the deck space for ASMs, deck launchers don't need to dig deep into the ship's hull like VLS can, so it frees what's underneath the deck for other purposes.  But a number of frigate designs like FREMM for example, which have the deck launchers, and still have two remote guns on each side so no such sacrifice needs to take place to put guns in the middle.   Some frigates position their CIWS on each side, not on the front or rear, so that makes it easier to cover both sides simultaneously, and have the targets in front of them rather than turning around.  

I thought I stated for older ships or something similar in the original post and I know I did specify USN which doesn’t currently have any ASMs

but ya obviously not taking something that was never on a ship off to replace it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,253 posts
6,734 battles
On 7/13/2018 at 11:10 PM, TornadoADV said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB90-class_fast_assault_craft#Versions

Thay are the same thing, STRB 90 literally means CB 90 in English. Stridsbåt 90 H(alv) = Combat Boat 90.

Ya didn’t see anything about hellfires for them, but like I said if we’re going that way then maybe the guided hydras would be better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts
3 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

Ya didn’t see anything about hellfires for them, but like I said if we’re going that way then maybe the guided hydras would be better?

Did you...did you actually read the link? Or did you just miss the paragraph at the bottom?

Quote

In 2004, the Royal Norwegian Navy conducted tests (including a live fire exercise) to evaluate the effectiveness of the SB90N as an aiming and launching platform for the Hellfire missile. One SB90N was equipped with stabilized Hellfire-launcher based on the Protector (RWS), and its machine gun was replaced with a gimbal-mounted sensor package containing visible-light and infrared cameras and a laser designator. Although the tests were successful, there is currently no indication that the Royal Norwegian Navy will actually deploy SB90Ns armed with Hellfire missiles in regular service. The Hellfire can still be carried on the boats without launching platforms and be fired from shore with the Portable Ground Launch System.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,253 posts
6,734 battles
16 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

Did you...did you actually read the link? Or did you just miss the paragraph at the bottom?

I looked at the armaments section, so ya I guess I missed that.

but it seems like you’re focusing on the wrong point here. 

Which would be better for stopping  small boats? Guided hydras or hellfire?

i don’t know the cost per round, but the hydras bring more rounds at a time if I’m not mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts
2 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

I looked at the armaments section, so ya I guess I missed that.

but it seems like you’re focusing on the wrong point here. 

Which would be better for stopping  small boats? Guided hydras or hellfire?

i don’t know the cost per round, but the hydras bring more rounds at a time if I’m not mistaken.

Hellfires would be better, considering that rocket pods are never designed to be fired laterally at ground level, they have almost no range if used that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,253 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, TornadoADV said:

Hellfires would be better, considering that rocket pods are never designed to be fired laterally at ground level, they have almost no range if used that way.

Wiki shows the hydras as 4.9 miles compared to hellfires at 5 miles.

is that wrong?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

it also shows the hydra having some warheads that are comparable to the hellfire’s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts
8 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

Wiki shows the hydras as 4.9 miles compared to hellfires at 5 miles.

is that wrong?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

it also shows the hydra having some warheads that are comparable to the hellfire’s

Hellfire's range is based on it's burn motor time, since it is a missile. Rockets are based on how far they travel at predicted use height. A ground based Hydra system would have a range of around 2.6 miles, assuming no manuevering. At that point, you're better off just using a Mark 54 launcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,253 posts
6,734 battles
6 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

Hellfire's range is based on it's burn motor time, since it is a missile. Rockets are based on how far they travel at predicted use height. A ground based Hydra system would have a range of around 2.6 miles, assuming no manuevering. At that point, you're better off just using a Mark 54 launcher.

Except you’d be way more limited in ammo, but ok if the hydra range is based on use at altitudes higher than 15ft above sea level ok.

any other options that would possibly be cheaper but could provide more rounds before reload with comparable warheads?

i was thinking spike ER/NLOS but it seems like the most you can get before reloading is still 4, but NLOS shows a 25km range at least 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×