Land Attack Standard Missile and Harpoon Block II

[ross.browne]

Couple of questions relating to Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM and Harpoon Block II:

 

1 - What is the current status of LASM? I have seen conflicting reports of its current development status.

 

2 - Harpoon Block II has a land attack capability. Is this a 'serious' capability, or is it more designed to hit stationary ships in port?

 

3 - Harpoon Block II was also listed as having a growth path for intergration with the Mk41 VLS. Is this still on the cards?

[Josh]

Couple of questions relating to Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM and Harpoon Block II:

 

1 - What is the current status of LASM? I have seen conflicting reports of its current development status.

 

2 - Harpoon Block II has a land attack capability. Is this a 'serious' capability, or is it more designed to hit stationary ships in port?

 

3 - Harpoon Block II was also listed as having a growth path for intergration with the Mk41 VLS. Is this still on the cards?

225611[/snapback]

 

LASM I believe was cancelled.

 

Harpoon Block II wasn't even purchsed by the USN though it was bought by the JMSDF--I've no idea if they are funding a VLS variant.

 

Block II has a land attack capability AFAIK only in that it has partial GPS guidance, so if you want you can send it to a specific location in space sans use of the ARH terminal homing seeker head. As such I imagine it's a relatively serious land attack capability in that it would be a 500lb warhead moving at 500mph+ with a CEP of (guessing) around 10-40 feet. That said its probably a waste of a Harpoon to use it that way if any cheeper alternative is available.

[FITZ]

Couple of questions relating to Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM and Harpoon Block II:

 

1 - What is the current status of LASM? I have seen conflicting reports of its current development status.

 

2 - Harpoon Block II has a land attack capability. Is this a 'serious' capability, or is it more designed to hit stationary ships in port?

 

3 - Harpoon Block II was also listed as having a growth path for intergration with the Mk41 VLS. Is this still on the cards?

225611[/snapback]

 

 

LASM was "de-funded" in 2002. I don't know that it was ever officially cancelled but its just as dead either way.

 

The USN has no requirement for Harpoon Block II until at least FY08 last I heard, this due to the abundance of Harpoon weapons already in the inventory. The land attack capability is residual - an artifact of efforts to improve the weapons ability to attack seaborne targets in coastal areas. Land attack seems to mostly be restricted to targets in the coastal region so far as I can tell. The weapon seems to lack the overland terrain avoidance features of say, a TLAM type weapon. Block II is certainly not a first choice in land attack cruise missiles.

[ross.browne]

Australia is in the process of fitting Block II to its Anzac class frigates, along with the new enhanced Harpoon control system.

 

I know LASM achieved some successful test firings, but how far down the process did it stop? Was the program stoped just short of production, or did it die in the development phase?

[Chris Werb]

The weapon seems to lack the overland terrain avoidance features of say, a TLAM type weapon. 

 

I'm curious about this.

 

You're right that the weapon is pitched at 'littoral' targets, but I can't help but wonder if that's more a factor of the weapon's range than its terrain avoidance capabilities vs Tomahawk.

 

Harpoon can't follow terrain as such (AFAIK), but, as I understand it, it can fly between a set of preprgrammed GPS waypoints. As long as those waypoints are sufficiently above/away from terrain, it should be OK. Correct me if I'm wrong FITZ but I don't think Tomahawk or Storm Shadow (for instance) have any forward facing terrain avoidance sensors. They too could run into an uncharted MESA, electricity pylon or building.

 

I agree that the level of accuracy of conventional GPS, coupled with the relatively small warhead are a significant limitation - integration with DGPS could make it a lot more accurate and I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen in the not too distant future.

[Josh]

I'm curious about this.

 

You're right that the weapon is pitched at 'littoral' targets, but I can't help but wonder if that's more a factor of the weapon's range than its terrain avoidance capabilities vs Tomahawk.

 

Harpoon can't follow terrain as such (AFAIK), but, as I understand it, it can fly between a set of preprgrammed GPS waypoints.  As long as those waypoints are sufficiently above/away from terrain, it should be OK.  Correct me if I'm wrong FITZ but I don't think Tomahawk or Storm Shadow (for instance) have any forward facing terrain avoidance sensors.  They too could run into an uncharted MESA, electricity pylon or building. 

 

I agree that the level of accuracy of conventional GPS, coupled with the relatively small warhead are a significant limitation - integration with DGPS could make it a lot more accurate and I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen in the not too distant future.

226229[/snapback]

 

The range of the most recent models is something approaching 100nm I think, which puts a wide range of coastal targets in view even with an OTH shot. that said I believe the GPS guidance on harpoon is to much more stringently control where the warhead is going to go bang rather than have a missile miss a target and then go into a clover pattern to annihilate the first red/blue/white target it comes across in a heavily trafficed littoral area.

 

Tomohawk does use radar to map the terrain--the original weapon used inertial guidance in place of GPS and terrain matching of geographical features to update this. It also had a radar altimeter to avoid terrain; it specifically was designed to fly NOE. In addition it had a visual terminal mode that allowed it to travel a thousand miles then fly 'between two goal posts'. So to say the Harpoon with a GPS is anything like the Tomohawk is untrue; it just so happens that if you wanted to program a Harpoon to go to a specific point in space and gave it a high enough fight path that it didn't 'intersect the terrain' (love that phrase) it could hit a target with some accuracy--enough for a soft target that you might use a 1000-2000 lb bomb on. That said its hardlly idea for this use as it is both far more expensive than other types of ordnance that have the accuracy and power to kill a soft target while at the same time being far less accurate and effective than BGM-109 which is already fielded in strength, and follow on models will have the ability to change targets in flight I believe ('tac tom'). Harpoon will likely *not* be improved to have a greater land attack capability; it would be extremely redundant and make it much more expensive than it already is for such a relatively short ranged weapon compared to tomohawk.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Harpoon can't follow terrain as such (AFAIK), but, as I understand it, it can fly between a set of preprgrammed GPS waypoints.  As long as those waypoints are sufficiently above/away from terrain, it should be OK. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Tomahawk or Storm Shadow (for instance) have any forward facing terrain avoidance sensors.  They too could run into an uncharted MESA, electricity pylon or building. 

226229[/snapback]

On first seems right; going back to the original Tomahawk guidance (tercom, later blocks use GPS) it's based on knowing where you are by the height of the terrain, therefore what the terrain is going to do as you travel, and just flying higher before you reach the obstacle, if it's charted, rather than having to look fwd separately and see it. For a GPS only like Harpoon Blk 2 I don't know if the mission planning system would include that info in the database (terrain height), but I don't see why not (give the info in the average car GPS system now). Because as was mentioned the main idea is to better attack sea targets in constricted waters (even in port) amd/or constricted ROE's. So you might have to fly over or around an island to do that too. Denmark is another Harpoon Blk 2 buyer with this sort of consideration presumably in mind.

 

A friend of mine used to work on a program at one of the defense houses on a fwd looking sensor for CM's to avoid uncharted obstacles like power lines etc. I don't know if that was a study or what; and this was almost 20yrs ago. Public stuff doesn't seem to mention such sensors.

 

Joe

[tankerwanabe]

Anyone knows whether these missiles have back-up navigation systems in case their GPS goes down or gets jammed?

[Josh]

Anyone knows whether these missiles have back-up navigation systems in case their GPS goes down or gets jammed?

226484[/snapback]

 

Off the top of my head I don't know for sure, but I'd bet the farm on it. Both existed before GPS. Tomohawk used the TERCOM guidance mentioned above with inertial guidance with some kind of optical terminal guidance mode--GPS was just a late add on to later blocks almost a decade after the fact I believe. Earlier marks of Harpoon used a simple auto pilot with radar homing sans GPS and AFAIK this is still what the USN has in inventory now. So I would assume that when GPS was added to both missiles it was a cheap enhancement of existing capability but that the original guidance modes would take over in the event of a failure, the same way that GPS guided bombs are actually INS/GPS *aided* and would resort to pure inertial guidance in a failure or electronically stressed environment AFAIK.

 

EDIT: if new marks of BGM-109 actually use GPS *in place* of TERCOM then that is obviously wrong; the missile would have to revert to inertial guidance which would probably adversely affect it to say the least. But I had thought that GPS was just an add on, not a replacement as implied above.

Edited September 23, 2005 by jua

[JOE BRENNAN]

if new marks of BGM-109 actually use GPS *in place* of TERCOM then that is obviously wrong; the missile would have to revert to inertial guidance which would probably adversely affect it to say the least. But I had thought that GPS was just an add on, not a replacement as implied above.

226497[/snapback]

Tomahawks with GPS still have TERCOM but one of the reasons for GPS is to avoid having to transfer to the launch platform, or necessary have at all, the TERCOM data for everyplace you'd ever attack. Originally way back that had to be put on board, a tape, for each target, later transmitted but still a bandwidth issue. So GPS only, or GPS plus digital scene mapping at the end, is commonly how they would be (Block III's have been) fired. Tactical Tomahawks can be programmed for multiple (GPS) targets and be told which one to attack after they get to the general area and establish an orbit.

 

We often touch on GPS jamming, it strikes me somewhat the same as what if your radars could be consistently jammed. Then most modern military forces would be in big trouble. But that point is seldom made to warn against general reliance on radar. A thread a while ago had some papers I dredged up, the physics of making GPS spoofing/jamming much more difficult than it is the easiest cases (on cheap as possible totally non ECCM GPS receivers) doesn't seem itself terribly difficult. While on the tangent, cutting off UAV communication links is in the same rhetorical category. Most accept (or don't think about) the fact that command links to SAM's are generally accepted as so hard to jam that few if any ECM systems work that way anymore, but somehow links to UAV's would be easy to jam (aside from fact a workable UAV would be much more autonomous than a SAM, able take care of itself for awhile if the link was temporary jammed). Back to GPS it's an ECM/ECCM seesaw that it's very important to remain on the upside of, and not the only one. Same goes for even extending it to situations where space superiority itself was lost; there's no good outcome from that, much larger issue than GPS.

 

Joe

Edited September 23, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Chris Werb]

My understanding is that nuclear Tomahawk used a TERCOM aided INS. The conventional versions added DSMAC - Digital Scene Matching and Area Correlation. This didn't look forward to avoid obstacles or home in on targets as such. What it did was compare a picture taken (the missile even had a photo flash capability for the camera to work at night) with a stock photo to determine very closely how far away from a known point the missile was at an exact point in time - the info would then be used to update the INS. This method was surprisingly accurate - when it worked. As late as 2003 at least some Tomahawks were using TERCOM and or DSMAC as they had to fly over areas that were distinct from the surrounding terrain to provide fixes. One such waypoint was an RAF GR4 base in Saudi where flying operations had to stop during Tomahawk overflights (according to the UK MoD).

 

I'm way behind the tech curve now. Do the very latest (non strategic) cruise missiles with GPS aided INS (TACTOM) still have TERCOM and/or DSMAC capability? Presumably the strategic ones still use TERCOM as GPS availability might be problematic during an all-out nuclear exchange.

[ross.browne]

Harpoon will likely *not* be improved to have a greater land attack capability; it would be extremely redundant and make it much more expensive than it already is for such a relatively short ranged weapon compared to tomohawk.

226423[/snapback]

 

I suspect that might wel be the case if it was a capability developed for exclusive use by the United States. Where I was getting to with all of this is that both LASM and Harpoon Block II provide i land attack capability for much smaller platforms that destroyers and cruisers. Tomahawk has only one export customer, and no customers for the surface launched versions. With the likleyhood that the United States will field a FFG7 replacement at some stage in the future, a capability to strike land targets from smaller ships would be, IMHO, useful. There would also be a serious potential for export, with countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Singapoore, etc. all being potential customers. Thoughts?

[Chris Werb]

Thoughts?

226623[/snapback]

 

Agreed on all points bar one. I thought the LCS was actually getting a navalised version of the NETFIRES (LAM+PAM) system. IIRC LAM has a range of 125 miles if no loitering is required. If that's the case, most targets that could be dealt with by a Block II Harpoon could presumably be handled by a combination of LAMs and/or PAMs which would be less hard hitting but much more accurate.

[ross.browne]

Agreed on all points bar one.  I thought the LCS was actually getting a navalised version of the NETFIRES (LAM+PAM) system. IIRC LAM has a range of 125 miles if no loitering is required.  If that's the case, most targets that could be dealt with by a Block II Harpoon could presumably be handled by a combination of LAMs and/or PAMs which would be less hard hitting but much more accurate.

226626[/snapback]

 

As I understand it, and I may be wrong, both of the systems you mentioned have comparativley short range. What is the likleyhood of these new systems being released to foreign customers?

 

As an aside, is Tomahawk cleared for export, or was the UK treated as a special case?

[gewing]

The range of the most recent models is something approaching 100nm I think, which puts a wide range of coastal targets in view even with an OTH shot. that said I believe the GPS guidance on harpoon is to much more stringently control where the warhead is going to go bang rather than have a missile miss a target and then go into a clover pattern to annihilate the first red/blue/white target it comes across in a heavily trafficed littoral area.

 

Tomohawk does use radar to map the terrain--the original weapon used inertial guidance in place of GPS and terrain matching of geographical features to update this. It also had a radar altimeter to avoid terrain; it specifically was designed to fly NOE. In addition it had a visual terminal mode that allowed it to travel a thousand miles then fly 'between two goal posts'. So to say the Harpoon with a GPS is anything like the Tomohawk is untrue; it just so happens that if you wanted to program a Harpoon to go to a specific point in space and gave it a high enough fight path that it didn't 'intersect the terrain' (love that phrase) it could hit a target with some accuracy--enough for a soft target that you might use a 1000-2000 lb bomb on. That said its hardlly idea for this use as it is both far more expensive than other types of ordnance that have the accuracy and power to kill a soft target while at the same time being far less accurate and effective than BGM-109 which is already fielded in strength, and follow on models will have the ability to change targets in flight I believe ('tac tom'). Harpoon will likely *not* be improved to have a greater land attack capability; it would be extremely redundant and make it much more expensive than it already is for such a relatively short ranged weapon compared to tomohawk.

226423[/snapback]

 

 

 

I've been wondering if the gps guidance features are to help it avoid decoys and mor e likely to improve its capabilities against ships in harbor, etc.

[gewing]

Has anyone heard any current info on Locaas? I would think that the seeker from it would be pretty easy to integrate into other systems. With a GPS to get it into the right area...

 

 

And I suspect there will always be targets that PAM/LAM will be too small to effectively destroy, so the land attack capabilities of Harpoon might be useful.

[Guest pfcem]

Agreed on all points bar one.  I thought the LCS was actually getting a navalised version of the NETFIRES (LAM+PAM) system. IIRC LAM has a range of 125 miles if no loitering is required.  If that's the case, most targets that could be dealt with by a Block II Harpoon could presumably be handled by a combination of LAMs and/or PAMs which would be less hard hitting but much more accurate.

226626[/snapback]

 

Aside from the potential range, there is no real comparison between the Harpoon II & the Loitering Attack Missile (LAM). The LAM is a much smaller missile with a much smaller warhead.

 

Here are a couple of websites with info on the LAM.

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/netfires.html

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...s/net-fires.htm

[Chris Werb]

Given the choice between having NETFIRES (NLOS-LS or whatever it's called this week) or Block II Harpoon for littoral interdiction, I'd definitely choose the former.

 

LAM is slated as having a 125 mile range (if it's loiter facility isn't employed) - IIRC that's about the same, maybe more, than the latest Harpoons. FITZ?

 

Remember that Block II harpoon is not a particularly precise weapon - nor does it have a huge warhead (only 500lbs IIRC). It's utility against hardened point targets is therefore highly questionable. Taking a well constructed HAS as a potential hardened target, even a hit, anywhere but the doors, from a 500lb bomb isn't going to kill it. That would be a very lucky hit with a vanilla flavour GPS/INS. PAM/LAM* can presumably be guided to hit the doors and has a HEAT warhead which will penetrate, hopefully killing whatever is inside.

 

If you exclude hardened targets, there aren't many things that you could take out with a Block II Harpoon that a LAM or PAM wouldn't take out with a direct hit - in fact a 500lb warhead lacking precision could be a liability in certain circumstances. Not only are LAM/PAM far more precise but you can carry far more of them than Harpoons. The combined image seeking/SALH guidance in PAM also gives you a lot more options than Harpoon - particularly from a platform that carries designating/imagery gathering U©AVs, as will LCS. The two-way datalink not only allows for retargeting in flight, but BDA and even (expensive) recon of protected targets.

 

*Assuming the ATR in LAM can be programmed to recognise a HAS.

[Josh]

The LCS's role is not as a major anti surface platform in any case. Anything frigate sized and up would be engaged by a/c, SSN's, or at least a Burk/Tico. Its role is for small boats, patrol craft, and FAC's that make up 90% of the worlds navies and potentially hostile craft. Similarly the LCS is not intended for land strike, and given the huge number of Mk 41 launchers available plus VLS on subs.

 

I still feel Harpoon won't have much a land attack role because any terminal seeker put on the front of it would probably have to replace the ARM seeker head or else be crushed in with it.

[Guest pfcem]

I think the point is that the Harpoon Block II is still primarily an anti-ship weapon but can be used to strike land tagets should the situation call for it.

 

For land strike missions, a ship-launched SLAM-ER would be nice. Still a little too expensive to be used in large numbers but it would be a good stop-gap weapon untill a (hopefully) less costly dedicated land strike missile could be fielded.

 

An ER version of the LASM could aslo be deployed as a stop-gap weapon. It would be fairly inexpensive but would still lack the precision to be used against some targets.

[gewing]

Given the choice between having NETFIRES (NLOS-LS or whatever it's called this week) or Block II Harpoon for littoral interdiction, I'd definitely choose the former.

 

LAM is slated as having a 125 mile range (if it's loiter facility isn't employed)  - IIRC that's about the same, maybe more, than the latest Harpoons. FITZ?

 

Remember that Block II harpoon is not a particularly precise weapon - nor does it have a huge warhead (only 500lbs IIRC).  It's utility against hardened point targets is therefore highly questionable.  Taking a well constructed HAS as a potential hardened target, even a hit, anywhere but the doors, from a 500lb bomb isn't going to kill it.  That would be a very lucky hit with a vanilla flavour GPS/INS.  PAM/LAM* can presumably be guided to hit the doors and has a HEAT warhead which will penetrate, hopefully killing whatever is inside.

 

If you exclude hardened targets, there aren't many things that you could take out with a Block II Harpoon that a LAM or PAM wouldn't take out with a direct hit - in fact a 500lb warhead lacking precision could be a liability in certain circumstances.  Not only are LAM/PAM far more precise but you can carry far more of them than Harpoons.  The combined image seeking/SALH guidance in PAM also gives you a lot more options than Harpoon - particularly from a platform that carries designating/imagery gathering U©AVs, as will LCS.  The two-way datalink not only allows for retargeting in flight, but BDA and even (expensive) recon of protected targets.

 

*Assuming the ATR in LAM can be programmed to recognise a HAS.

226753[/snapback]

 

 

 

But for a dual purpose weapon, Harpoon is imo FAR more likely to take a ship out than a LAM.

 

You have to accept tradeoffs in limitations in any weapon system.

 

Personally I think LAM will be great, as long as you can get by with maybe a 20 lb HEAT warhead.

[ross.browne]

But for a dual purpose weapon, Harpoon is imo FAR more likely to take a ship out than a LAM.

 

You have to accept tradeoffs in limitations in any weapon system.

 

Personally I think LAM will be great, as long as you can get by with maybe a 20 lb HEAT warhead.

226948[/snapback]

 

I think this is possibly the most important issue. Frigates simpy don't have the spare VLS capacity to carry the variety of weapons being envisaged. A land attack capability for Harpoon would give ships with as few as 8 VLS cells a capability to engage a wide range of targets close to shore.

[Chris Werb]

But for a dual purpose weapon, Harpoon is imo FAR more likely to take a ship out than a LAM.

 

You have to accept tradeoffs in limitations in any weapon system.

 

Personally I think LAM will be great, as long as you can get by with maybe a 20 lb HEAT warhead.

226948[/snapback]

 

A hit from a Harpoon will literally sink a decent sized ship. However, multiple hits from smaller weapons, directed precisely will mission kill the ship (look what an RIM-7 did to that Turkish destroyer/minelayer a few years back). You also have to ask yourself how likely it is that a surface combatant will have to take out another in this day and age - let alone rely on OTH SSMs to do so. Smaller weapons will also allow you to saturate enemy point defences.

 

NETFIRES/NLOS-LS does not take up much space. I have seen pics of three modules with a total of 45 missiles on a 5 ton Stewart & Stevenson truck. One Harpoon in its cannister weighs 1385lb. The weight of NLOS-LS missiles has crept up - I think to around 120lb each - but (if weight is the only constraint) you should be able to have at least ten for the weight of a single Harpoon. There is no such thing as a VLS Harpoon BTW, more's the pity. It will probably happen someday though as those quad launchers are looking ever more incongrous on modern warships.

[FITZ]

A hit from a Harpoon will literally sink a decent sized ship. 

 

There is no such thing as a VLS Harpoon BTW, more's the pity.  It will probably happen someday though as those quad launchers are looking ever more incongrous on modern warships.

227091[/snapback]

 

 

Harpoon isn't designed to sink ships and is unlikely to sink anything above a FAC-sized vessel with just a single shot. Burn it out to a hulk yes, but sink.. probably not. If you look at test shots of Harpoon and Harpoon-class weapons (Exocet, Kormoran etc) you find the test ships are invariably still afloat after the tests. Sinking requires letting water in. Harpoon just doesn't do that.

 

VL Harpoon has been done BTW (I have a photo somewhere of the test shot) but there is no requirement for it so little chance of procurement.

[Chris Werb]

Harpoon isn't designed to sink ships and is unlikely to sink anything above a FAC-sized vessel with just a single shot.  Burn it out to a hulk yes, but sink.. probably not.  If you look at test shots of Harpoon and Harpoon-class weapons (Exocet, Kormoran etc) you find the test ships are invariably still afloat after the tests.  Sinking requires letting water in.  Harpoon just doesn't do that. 

 

I take your point about compartmentalisation.  A Harpoon can take a Fletcher class DD (smaller than most modern FFs) sized target down to waterline level.  A ship that badly hit will indeed probably stay afloat, but would most likely snap in two in any kind of sea.  To be fair, I think a lot of the torpedo SINKEX targets would likewise stay 'afloat' (alebeit in several pieces) if the watertight doors weren't deliberately left open.  You don't want to leave big chunks of metal floating around in the ocean unattended.

 

Here is a picture of an ex US DD or DDG hit above the waterline by a Harpoon (warning, 700k download). 

 

http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_serv...on%20damage.jpg

 

This shot may be atypical - some of the others I have seen, particularly where the ships have larger superstructures, have the missile hitting much higher up.

 

VL Harpoon has been done BTW (I have a photo somewhere of the test shot) but there is no requirement for it so little chance of procurement.

 

I've seen those shots (or ones like them) too.  AFAIK VLS version was never made available for production - if it was, given the number of ships with VLS out there, someone other than the US would have bought it (for example, Block II has had foreign sales despite the USN's not buying it).  A surface launch (but not VLS) SLAM was also tested - whilst that too could be implemented if it was ever wanted, it likewise (AFAIK) isn't available.