Why no Harps & TASM's in fleet?

[PhilM]

SC say's that these anti - ship missiles aren't in the US
sub fleet anymore.

Why is this? I thought they were great weapons!

[tippership]

Originally Posted by PhilM

SC say's that these anti - ship missiles aren't in the US
sub fleet anymore.

Why is this? I thought they were great weapons!

thin they got old..

i now dislike harpoons for having such a LIGHT warhead compared to TASMs...

i you know, whenther sub command , o fleet command, i see that those missiles are easily beaten by SHIPWRECKS...or KITCHENS from aircraft...

the only anti ship missile we hav e that's supersonicf in the game is HARM ,which isnt purely ASUW...

i guess ,out missiles coundn't kee pup.. .which sucks, because if the USa developed a supersonic ASUW missile....

[Frame57]

I have been out of the fleet now for 17 years or so, so i do not know what the load outs consist of. But I would like to see them carry SUBROC with nukes in the game because we had back in the 70's.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by PhilM

SC say's that these anti - ship missiles aren't in the US
sub fleet anymore.

Why is this? I thought they were great weapons!

TASM's were reconfigured into the Land Attack version as the requirements for the
Navy changed. After the Soviet Navy was put to the pier to rust, what other Navy out there was there for us to need long range anti-ship missiles? I believe that was the thinking anyways. I do believe that with China building their fleet, and the Russians making a new and potential hostile presence, we should again reconsider the long range anti-ship missile needs again.

Harpoon is still used and has been improved in many aspects. But from what I know, the submarines do not carry them. I'm sure that will be changed if requirements dictate in the future as they all do keep the capability to fire them if they need to. IMO these are both great weapons, but I'm hoping for a renewed effort by the USN into this area.

[sonar732]

Originally Posted by Frame57

I have been out of the fleet now for 17 years or so, so i do not know what the load outs consist of. But I would like to see them carry SUBROC with nukes in the game because we had back in the 70's.

I don't know if the SCX team created a SUBROC missile system for the NATO countries, but feel it would be a great addition.

[MBot]

In relation to the topic but a bit on a broader level, I would like to ask another question. What was the ASuW doctrin of the USN during the cold war? Let's keep the periode about the cold war for the moment, as surface engagements between larger warships are less likely today.

It seems the anti-ship capability of the USN surface fleet relied mostly on the Harpoon, which frankly I don't realy understand. The Harpoon is certainly a capable weapon against small crafts like missile boats and corvettes (used with great effect by the Iranian Navy in the Iran-Iraq war), but I wonder about its effectiveness against warships. How many Harpoons would be needed to take out a Sovremenny destroyer, or even larger ships suchs as a Kirov CGN or Kiev aviation cruiser?

The other anti-ship missile of the USN was the TASM. Was the TASM a sub-launched weapon only or was it also fielded on ships? Some USN ships had Tomahawk launch containers fitted during the cold war, but I don't know if they were for TLAM or TASM.

The third ASM on USN warships would be the Standard SAM used in anti-surface mode. Would this weapon have played a significant role in a larger surface battle?


Of course it can be argued that the primary offensive element of the USN are the carrier and its aircraft. But ironicaly, the primary anti-ship weapon of the aircraft would also be the Harpoon. While the Falklands war has shown that modern warships can be successfully attacked with bombs, I think that such a attack against a soviet warship would have been a lot harder.

It seems to me that the USN ASuW doctrine intended submarine launched torpedos to be the primary weapon to destroy the soviet surface fleet. Carrier launched aircraft would be the second option, either with a mass-attack of Harpoons or a very risky bombing raid. The USN cruisers and destroyers themselfe were not expected to enter combat with a simmilar force. Is this assessment correct or is there a flaw in my logic?

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by MBot

In relation to the topic but a bit on a broader level, I would like to ask another question. What was the ASuW doctrin of the USN during the cold war? Let's keep the periode about the cold war for the moment, as surface engagements between larger warships are less likely today.

It seems the anti-ship capability of the USN surface fleet relied mostly on the Harpoon, which frankly I don't realy understand. The Harpoon is certainly a capable weapon against small crafts like missile boats and corvettes (used with great effect by the Iranian Navy in the Iran-Iraq war), but I wonder about its effectiveness against warships. How many Harpoons would be needed to take out a Sovremenny destroyer, or even larger ships suchs as a Kirov CGN or Kiev aviation cruiser?

The other anti-ship missile of the USN was the TASM. Was the TASM a sub-launched weapon only or was it also fielded on ships? Some USN ships had Tomahawk launch containers fitted during the cold war, but I don't know if they were for TLAM or TASM.

The third ASM on USN warships would be the Standard SAM used in anti-surface mode. Would this weapon have played a significant role in a larger surface battle?


Of course it can be argued that the primary offensive element of the USN are the carrier and its aircraft. But ironicaly, the primary anti-ship weapon of the aircraft would also be the Harpoon. While the Falklands war has shown that modern warships can be successfully attacked with bombs, I think that such a attack against a soviet warship would have been a lot harder.

It seems to me that the USN ASuW doctrine intended submarine launched torpedos to be the primary weapon to destroy the soviet surface fleet. Carrier launched aircraft would be the second option, either with a mass-attack of Harpoons or a very risky bombing raid. The USN cruisers and destroyers themselfe were not expected to enter combat with a simmilar force. Is this assessment correct or is there a flaw in my logic?

Not 100% on this but I think we had ASROCS and the idea was to basically nuke the russians. Also what you see in the game is not really accurate with regards to the MK 48 ADCAP. A single 48 will literally break a destroyer sized ship in two. I do not recall us carrying nuclear torpedoes, but I have heard of it in our fleet.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by sonar732

I don't know if the SCX team created a SUBROC missile system for the NATO countries, but feel it would be a great addition.

I have SUBROCS in SC with SCX but the RTE does not work. Also they only have conventional warheads.

[PhilM]

Originally Posted by MBot

How many Harpoons would be needed to take out a Sovremenny destroyer, or even larger ships suchs as a Kirov CGN or Kiev aviation cruiser?

I think I'm starting to get the picture

I just consolted my Harpoon II, official strat guide, and it
says the harpoon hit rate against a modern AAW-capable warship would be 22:2.
That is, you would need to fire 22 harps to get 2 hits.
And this would have to be on mass, or none would get through.

Also, 37 TASMs have little chance of surviving
a red task forces defensive SAMs and CIWS.

Obviously ludicrous for a Sub to make such an attack.

And I don't think sub's are out there to chase small fry ships.
Plenty else in the fleet to take care of them.

Think I see why they're not in the US Sub fleet now.

[Frame57]

I bet we get back to the idea of higher yield tipped torpedoes because of this. Else we need to have some way of cloaking a TASM or Poon.