ASM missles in 2000 campaign?

[GravityWave]

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"RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile (TAS-M) – active radar homing anti-ship missile variant; withdrawn from service in the 1990s."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

[The Bandit]

Originally Posted by GravityWave

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"RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile (TAS-M) – active radar homing anti-ship missile variant; withdrawn from service in the 1990s."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

[tsotha]

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

[The Bandit]

Originally Posted by tsotha

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!!!!).

[tsotha]

Originally Posted by The Bandit

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.

[The Bandit]

Originally Posted by tsotha

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.