ASM missles in 2000 campaign?

The Bandit · 06-18-18, 01:23 AM

Quote:

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.

C-Wolf · 06-21-18, 05:32 PM

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

GravityWave · 06-29-18, 10:10 AM

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.

I dunno · 07-01-18, 02:22 PM

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.

Delgard · 07-01-18, 08:39 PM

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.

06-21-18, 05:32 PM	#2
C-Wolf Watch Join Date: Dec 2017 Location: New England Posts: 30 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	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!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-29-18, 10:10 AM	#3
GravityWave Mate Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 58 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	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.

07-01-18, 02:22 PM	#4
I dunno Swabbie Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 9 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	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.

07-01-18, 08:39 PM	#5
Delgard Captain Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	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.