SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Current crop of subsims & naval games > COLD WATERS
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-10-18, 12:18 PM   #1
GravityWave
Mate
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 58
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
Default ASM missles in 2000 campaign?

I'm surprised to learn that the US doesn't really have a sub launched anti-ship missile anymore. Maybe they just aren't telling us.


"The UGM-84A undersea-launched Harpoon version was retired from U.S. Navy service in 1997, leaving the U.S. submarine force without an anti-ship missile, a capability that isn't planned to be reintroduced until the Block IV Tomahawk is modified with a moving target maritime attack feature in 2021.[20]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)

"RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile (TAS-M) – active radar homing anti-ship missile variant; withdrawn from service in the 1990s."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

Now, don't take my VLS away. They are way too much fun.
GravityWave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-18, 04:06 PM   #2
The Bandit
Sonar Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 395
Downloads: 39
Uploads: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GravityWave View Post
I'm surprised to learn that the US doesn't really have a sub launched anti-ship missile anymore. Maybe they just aren't telling us.


"The UGM-84A undersea-launched Harpoon version was retired from U.S. Navy service in 1997, leaving the U.S. submarine force without an anti-ship missile, a capability that isn't planned to be reintroduced until the Block IV Tomahawk is modified with a moving target maritime attack feature in 2021.[20]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)

"RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile (TAS-M) – active radar homing anti-ship missile variant; withdrawn from service in the 1990s."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

Now, don't take my VLS away. They are way too much fun.
All things considered, with Harpoon and TASM there were more cons (completely revealing your position) than pros, especially if you're shooting them at targets with modern air-defense systems and CIWS.

Anti-ship capability being added back to the Tomahawk as I understand it is more about flexibility (you could use the exact same missile against land or ship targets) and cost savings (you're refitting weapons already in inventory vs. designing and procuring totally new albeit probably more capable weapons) than anything else.
__________________
The Bandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-18, 06:18 PM   #3
tsotha
Watch
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 17
Downloads: 19
Uploads: 0
Default

Yeah, TASM is coming back as a software upgrade instead of a separate missile. TASM's reason for existence was retired, i.e. it was deployed specifically to sink Kirov battlecruisers, which analysts decided had enough armor to require Tomahawk's larger warhead. When the Russians retired the last Kirov (along with much of the Soviet fleet), the US didn't see any reason to keep TASM around. The remaining inventory was converted to TLAM-C to replace missiles expended on ground targets in Iraq.

Now the Russians have reactivated a Kirov and plan to refurbish (maybe) two more, so I guess that's the reason for the upgrade.

I talked to a Navy Cmdr in the late '90s as Harpoon was being withdrawn from submarines, and he said the big problem with sub-launched anti-ship missiles is the range at which they're safe to launch is farther than the sub can reliably identify targets. Nobody wants to be his generation's Fritz-Julius Lemp.

The US is developing a stealthy anti-ship missile (AGM-158C LRASM) with a lot of gee-whiz technology like autonomous ship identification and in-flight satellite data links. Right now it's only air and ship launched, and they're still trying to decide whether to deploy it to subs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
tsotha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-18, 10:43 PM   #4
The Bandit
Sonar Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 395
Downloads: 39
Uploads: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsotha View Post
Yeah, TASM is coming back as a software upgrade instead of a separate missile. TASM's reason for existence was retired, i.e. it was deployed specifically to sink Kirov battlecruisers, which analysts decided had enough armor to require Tomahawk's larger warhead. When the Russians retired the last Kirov (along with much of the Soviet fleet), the US didn't see any reason to keep TASM around. The remaining inventory was converted to TLAM-C to replace missiles expended on ground targets in Iraq.

Now the Russians have reactivated a Kirov and plan to refurbish (maybe) two more, so I guess that's the reason for the upgrade.

I talked to a Navy Cmdr in the late '90s as Harpoon was being withdrawn from submarines, and he said the big problem with sub-launched anti-ship missiles is the range at which they're safe to launch is farther than the sub can reliably identify targets. Nobody wants to be his generation's Fritz-Julius Lemp.

The US is developing a stealthy anti-ship missile (AGM-158C LRASM) with a lot of gee-whiz technology like autonomous ship identification and in-flight satellite data links. Right now it's only air and ship launched, and they're still trying to decide whether to deploy it to subs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
Interesting, I think it will be more than just software though for the Tomahawk, would have to have some kind of terminal radar seeker, don't think the TERCOM can do that. My understanding is that when its fielded, all missiles (or at least all that are upgraded to the ASM standard) will be able to engage both land and ship targets.

Going to be interesting to see what happens with the TLAM and how it effects some of the other procurement programs going on. I think they've done work on a launch canister for LRASM but I think that's more about what they could do vs. what's for sure going to happen. I would say its more likely the LRASM program is related to this "Project Sea Dragon" leak we've been hearing about vs. the SM-6 variation people seem to be bandying about which I'm guessing is little more than dot-connecting (Sea Dragon is a super-sonic submarine-launched anti-ship missile with an intent to make use of parts already in stock, SM-6 is a super-sonic missile with anti-ship capability that's already in service so Sea Dragon = SM-6!!!!).
__________________
The Bandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-18, 12:55 AM   #5
tsotha
Watch
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 17
Downloads: 19
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bandit View Post
Interesting, I think it will be more than just software though for the Tomahawk, would have to have some kind of terminal radar seeker, don't think the TERCOM can do that. My understanding is that when its fielded, all missiles (or at least all that are upgraded to the ASM standard) will be able to engage both land and ship targets.

Going to be interesting to see what happens with the TLAM and how it effects some of the other procurement programs going on. I think they've done work on a launch canister for LRASM but I think that's more about what they could do vs. what's for sure going to happen. I would say its more likely the LRASM program is related to this "Project Sea Dragon" leak we've been hearing about vs. the SM-6 variation people seem to be bandying about which I'm guessing is little more than dot-connecting (Sea Dragon is a super-sonic submarine-launched anti-ship missile with an intent to make use of parts already in stock, SM-6 is a super-sonic missile with anti-ship capability that's already in service so Sea Dragon = SM-6!!!!).
Maybe. AA missiles typically have pretty small warheads, though, and SM-6 doesn't deviate from the norm - only 140 pounds. I guess they'd be depending on the kinetic energy for most of the damage. LRASM makes a lot more sense to me if it's stealthy enough.
tsotha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-18, 01:23 AM   #6
The Bandit
Sonar Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 395
Downloads: 39
Uploads: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsotha View Post
Maybe. AA missiles typically have pretty small warheads, though, and SM-6 doesn't deviate from the norm - only 140 pounds. I guess they'd be depending on the kinetic energy for most of the damage. LRASM makes a lot more sense to me if it's stealthy enough.
Quite true as well although you can read a little into the new acquisition of the NSM to equip the LCS / Frigate / whatever they're calling the Freedom & Independence class these days. While still twice the weight of the SM-6s warhead, NSM's is little over half the weight of what the Harpoon carries (although I think for the newer Harpoon that didn't get picked up they were planning on going lighter with the warhead as well). Interested to see if the NSM becomes the deck-mounted replacement for Harpoon and how that effects LRASM.

People have also raised the point that despite how weak it would seem, with the way things would work today vs. modern air-defense systems you're never going to shoot just one so you may as well not count on just one missile being able to take a combatant out of the fight. No doubt too, despite weight they have probably made some interesting advancements in blast/frag and penetration warheads over the past 40 or so years since Harpoon was developed. Still, for all that I just don't see anything SM-6 based being able to scale up to the extended range + heavier warhead requirements you would think a AShM would demand.
__________________
The Bandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-18, 05:32 PM   #7
C-Wolf
Watch
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New England
Posts: 30
Downloads: 2
Uploads: 0
Default

The cornerstone for the future of Area Denial anti-ship warfare naval warfare will be networked "Lookers" and "Shooters". The F-35 will begin taking this capability (way beyond the Link systems in use now) to a new level. Hypersonic weapons in development will be able to hit targets further and faster than ever before.

It will be to a submarine's advantage to fire extended range LRASMs far from the target using position cues provided by an aircraft, (or robotic ship/drone). A TASM would also be effective with some modifications, --though not as stealthy.

An R&D contract was signed this week to explore an extended range, high-efficiency engine for the MK-48, allowing a submarine to fire from over the horizon, (and out of its sonar range) without giving away its position or entering the defensive weapons employment range of a surface ship.

Networked battle commanders will be able to pick and choose which ships provide the weapons with the least probability of counter-detection, using swarm tactics (when appropriate) to overwhelm an enemy's defenses. This capability exists (in a limited way) now, but will become more prevalent as persistent unmanned sensors begin to fill the battlespace.

CCC
__________________


Sagire, Classis, Destructum!
C-Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-18, 10:10 AM   #8
GravityWave
Mate
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 58
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
Default

I was guessing that anti-ship missions were just passed off to air support, particularly in a networked environment. But they are handy in game for cleanups.
GravityWave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-18, 02:22 PM   #9
I dunno
Swabbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 9
Downloads: 1
Uploads: 0
Default

In today's CIWS-infested world, sub-Harpoon makes very little sense for a submarine, particularly for the USN who have the ADCAP. The ADCAP is more than capable of chasing down and sinking practically any ship within proper identification range, with much less exposure of the firing platform, greater lethality, and greater survivability than the Harpoon.
This effectively means you've got far more stowed kills with a torpedo room full of ADCAPs, with less chance of being counter-detected to boot.
TASM was always a problematic weapon, being a Tomahawk with a Harpoon seeker and pattern-seach ability. The weapon far outranged the sub's sensors, and with the end of the Soviet threat was useless and therefore retired to replace TLAMs as already mentioned ITT.
IIRC the new Blk IV Tomahawks are supposed to have IIR target seekers for better pinpoint targeting, on which the ASM mission will be piggybacked. The ability to redirect in flight as a networked weapon and target recognition solve many of the problems with the original TASM, though CIWS remains an issue and it will probably be limited to engaging softer targets (AO/AOR/AOE/LST/LKA/LPD). CIWS-equipped ships will need more modern missiles, such as the NSM (which is having a sub-launched version developed) or the LRASM; or, of course, torpedoes.
I dunno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-18, 08:39 PM   #10
Delgard
Skipper
 
Delgard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: AZ & DC
Posts: 487
Downloads: 48
Uploads: 0
Default

I still don't see very many neutrals in the north Atlantic campaign. If it smells like a warship, it is dead.

Running across a Norwegian sub among the ruskies would be an eye-opener. The ruskies would have to not target them, though.

The SCS seems to have more commercial neutrals.
Delgard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.