Jump to content

Land Attack Standard Missile and Harpoon Block II


ross.browne

Recommended Posts

227155[/snapback]

 

 

 

do you know any details about the LAM warhead? Unless they are going with something like the multipurpose warhead of the Locaas (and probably even then) I suspect it would take a LOT of them to disable anything bigger than an FAC, and probably more than one even for that.

 

If it is some kind of Heat DP with a fragmentation/incendiary sleeve like the Combined effects Munition, I suppose it would be better for the multiple target types I foresee.

 

I kind of like the Netfires idea, though if they follow through with the idea of leaving boxes scattered around and being controlled by data link I foresee some PROBLEMS.

 

I just don't trust unattended weapons to still be there and functional when needed. Not to mention could they be "compromised"?

 

I don't know.

 

I suspect a heavier missile incorporated into basically the same package (like the ATACMS in the mlrs) might be a good idea, because I strongly suspect sometimes MORE HE will be wanted. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

do you know any details about the LAM warhead?  Unless they are going with something like the multipurpose warhead of the Locaas (and probably even then)  I suspect it would take a LOT of them to disable anything bigger than an FAC, and probably more than one even for that. 

 

The beauty of a system like NETFIRES is that you can have the missile (or its EFPs) not just hit the ship but a particular part thereof.  Obvious aimpoints might include sensors and weapons.

 

PAM has a 'multimode' warhead. I assume they mean it can be fuzed to function in variious ways - not just that it has secondary frag and perhaps incendiary elements.  If anyone has any more info on this, could they please post it?

 

LAM has a 'Multiple Explosively Formed Penetrator (MEFP)' warhead (presumably like the one on LOCAAS as you suspected).  MEFPs fired downward into the ship would stand a good chance of disabling weapons and critical electronics, power generation and propulsion systems - perhaps even of penetrating the bottom of the hull (if RIM-7 frags can do that with a WW-2 destroyer I can't see why MEFPs wouldn't).

 

Regardless of damage actually caused, these missiles aren't something an enemy warship could ignore. They would thus have to try to shoot them down from as far away as possible, using up precious SAMs and CIWS ammunition.  You could thus use them like TIALDs for roll-back attacks to prep an enemy TF for attack with larger weapons.

 

I suspect a heavier missile incorporated into basically the  same package (like the  ATACMS in the  mlrs) might be a good idea, because I strongly suspect sometimes MORE HE will be wanted.  ;)

 

I too am dubious about the 'unattended' mode for NETFIRES, but it's just one of many options.  AFAIK, conventional artillery (tube and MLRS) will be retained way int othe future. Both will give you the ability to put a lot of HE (and other payloads not catered for by NETFIRES) on a target.  It will be interesting to see if GMLRS will take advantage of DGPS like the new SDB.  That would open up a lot of possiblities - particularly for the unitary version.  As I understand it, all indirect fire assests and much else besides will be integrated into essentially the same system, as is the case today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a stupid question but here it goes:-

 

 

I understand Harpoon has an active radar seeker. Can this radar seeker be used for checking altitude and also for profiling the surroundings to make it home on a particualar building / feature for land attack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand Harpoon has an active radar seeker. Can this radar seeker be used for checking altitude and also for profiling the surroundings to make it home on a particualar building / feature for land attack?

227827[/snapback]

Radars on planes are used for terrain avoidance and mapping, so that's not impossible, but the Harpoon seeker and processing electronics aren't particularly designed for that. An X band seeker like that doesn't directly resolve a precise enough image of a complex background, though processing electronics as on strike a/c radars (synthetic aperture techniques) can resolve literal "pictures". But in general even starting from scratch Western land attack missiles don't seem to favor radar seekers as an economical/capable solution compared to electro-optical or IR image matching terminal guidance. Millimeter wave radar seekers though are beginning to appear in scene/signature matching applications to attack specific land targets.

 

The Russian 3M-14 land attack member of the "Club" system of naval missiles uses a radar seeker for land attack terminal guidance however, the ARGS-14. The ship attack member 3M-54-1 uses basically the same seeker described as high frequnecy end of centimetric band (meaning maybe upper X or K bands?, presumably higher resolution than Harpoon's). But it's said to be limited to comparatively high radar contrast land targets.

 

Anyway for a very high contrast land target, something almost as distinct from its background as a ship is from the sea, and not too close to other distinct things you didn't want to hit, you might use the Harpoon's seeker, as is, to increase accuracy having put it in the close ballpark with GPS of the Block II.

 

Joe

Edited by JOE BRENNAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what method the Harpoon uses for altitude; it could be the radar. It does fly a very specific profile and altitude. That said I'm almost sure it doesn't have any kind of terrain mapping capabilities. This could perhaps be added but again, I don't see why you'd want to and it would take a total redesign of the weapon. I'm not sure of the seeker on the weapon is even suitable for this kind of purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always considered LA Standard missile a USN fraud to reinforce AAW launchers, and pointy-enders, along with ideas like putting VLS on the LSD-41 class for cooperative engagement. It surfaced in the mid/late 1980s and was a simple way for the USN to take a check-off on the USMC requirement for a NSFS capable of reaching/exceeding 60 nm ISO the OTH amphib doctrine. Whatever they did to the airframe, the warhead was bound to be negligible at the delivery end. SLAM was also touted a year or so later. Only the advent of GPS targeting has made them at all relevant, but the funds are never there in any case. It looks like Tomahawks forever, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what method the Harpoon uses for altitude; it could be the radar.

 

227885[/snapback]

It's a seperate radar altimeter which is typical. When the position of the target is known, the seeker will be programmed to switch on only when the missile gets pretty close, to minimize passive detection of the seeker before the missile is detected. Altimeter emissions could potentially be detected but it's obviously harder. If fired down a bearing range unknown, then of course the seeker has to turn on soon, and generally sooner or later depending on the degree of uncertainty of target position by the time the missile arrives in its vicinity. But one aspect of the Blk II development, besides land attack, is working on the problem of realistic ROE's v. active radar ASM's, firing down bearings wouldn't be acceptable in most realistic cases. GPS helps better define small engagement zones and no attack zones after the seeker is on, v. just INS. ROE issues of over horizon firing in realistic cases, besides relative diminution in potential targets and money relative to other priorities, are among the reasons for Harpoon de-emphasis in the USN.

 

Joe

Edited by JOE BRENNAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unless there is a full datalink, how will the LAM know what precise points to attack?

227939[/snapback]

 

LAM has (or will have) a two way datalink.

 

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that the weapon uses target algorythms(sp!) which can be loaded prior to the mission and switched (or perhaps even loaded) in flight. Presumably (and I admit I'm reaching here) given a large target, the system can be set to explode the warhead to put the MEFP pattern on a desired part of the target.

 

I don't think this article is specifically referreing to PAM but it explains what I mean:

 

http://www.defense-update.com/products/l/ladar.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always considered LA Standard missile a USN fraud to reinforce AAW launchers, and pointy-enders, along with ideas like putting VLS on the LSD-41 class for cooperative engagement. It surfaced in the mid/late 1980s and was a simple way for the USN to take a check-off on the USMC requirement for a NSFS capable of reaching/exceeding 60 nm ISO the OTH amphib doctrine. Whatever they did to the airframe, the warhead was bound to be negligible at the delivery end. SLAM was also touted a year or so later. Only the advent of GPS targeting has made them at all relevant, but the funds are never there in any case. It looks like Tomahawks forever, really.

227897[/snapback]

 

To save cost the production version of LASM would have retained the standard 125lb blast-frag warhead, albiet with enhancements for use against ground targets.

 

Hardly miniscule, particularly when one considers the sorts of targets it was designed for.

 

Other options existed though. The Standard airframe is capable of accomodating the 250lb Bullpup warhead for example.

 

There was also a proposal for a DPICM version which would have accomodated some 700 bomblets IIRC.

 

Then there were even plans to dual-pack the weapon in a Mk 41 cannister to increase the loadout.

 

LASM was always meant as an interim weapon anyway with a modest production run of 700 to no more than about 2,000 - all converted from redundant old-version SM-2 missiles. ALAM was the real solution to the requirement, but Bush/Rumsfeld canned that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with its unitary warhead, LASM would have made an excellent and highly cost-effective air defence suppression weapon. Integration of DGPS (if possible) and a new warhead would have given the system a capability against protected point targets. However, by the time that happened, other systems would probably have replaced it. There were already too many other, more versatile, systems either available or coming on line that could do what LASM could do - albeit none as well as LASM. It was also looking less and less likely that the USN would get to fight anyone with a credible air defence system. I guess those in charge decided there was too much overlap and that something had to go. Some of the PowerPoint presentations from the LASM era might have undermined its credibility - showing LASM used against an infantry section wasn't going to enhance the cost-effectiveness argument for the weapon IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with its unitary warhead, LASM would have made an excellent and highly cost-effective air defence suppression weapon.  Integration of DGPS (if possible) and a new warhead would have given the system a capability against protected point targets.  However, by the time that happened, other systems would probably have replaced it.  There were already too many other, more versatile, systems either available or coming on line that could do what LASM could do - albeit none as well as LASM.  It was also looking less and less likely that the USN would get to fight anyone with a credible air defence system.  I guess those in charge decided there was too much overlap and that something had to go.  Some of the PowerPoint presentations from the LASM era might have undermined its credibility - showing LASM used against an infantry section wasn't going to enhance the cost-effectiveness argument for the weapon IMO.

228121[/snapback]

 

Well, if LASM was optimized for SEAD, it would surely be a loser programatically. The USN already has enough systems for its own scarce enemies. But if the idea was to provide NSFS for other forces that did fight real enemies, some of which still had USSR doctrinal air defense systems [ask 16th Aviation Bde about Iraqi AD in Mar03], then it had best be responsive to more than static AD radars, etc. The unitary warhead [with enhancements?¿] would scarcely do the job compared to a navalized ATACMS, which the USMC had urged and at one point [in the fat days of 1993] Adm 'RMA' Owens himself was promising to test and bring on line. But these things prove to be USN smoke & mirrors, except when the USN is worried about the budget leaving them adrift, thus reviving interest in littoral warfare, whatever that is professed to be at a given moment. Shore bombardment is a traditional naval mission from the age of sail, but even the 600 ship fantasy USN program included nothing for NSFS except Tomahawk D and enhanced 16" programs, both problematic in the end. Too bad nobody wants to take out an infantry section at 100 nm, as that would be tactically useful. But a coast defense cruise missile site....we're on it like right away.

Edited by Ken Estes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any opinions on the Affordable Weapon from Titan Corp. ?

 

Specs below :

 

Length (w/o booster) : 3.32 m (10 ft 11 in)

Diameter : 34.3 cm (13.5 in)

Weight : 334 kg (737 lb)

Speed : 400 km/h (250 mph)

Ceiling : 4570 m (15000 ft)

Range : > 1560 km (840 nm)

Propulsion : SWB Turbines SWB-65 turbojet

 

from : http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/a...ble-weapon.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any opinions on the Affordable Weapon from Titan Corp. ?

 

Specs below :

 

Length (w/o booster) : 3.32 m (10 ft 11 in)

Diameter : 34.3 cm (13.5 in)

Weight : 334 kg (737 lb)

Speed : 400 km/h (250 mph)

Ceiling : 4570 m (15000 ft)

Range : > 1560 km (840 nm)

Propulsion : SWB Turbines SWB-65 turbojet

 

from : http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/a...ble-weapon.html

228339[/snapback]

 

Speed would need to increased to at least 500mph for an operational missile.

 

Range seems a little unrealistic for a missile of that size, 400nm would be suficient & more realistic I think.

 

IIRC, the majority of current US development in this area is in Mach 3+ fast reactment missiles.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ons/rattlrs.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NTACMS was a competitor for the contract eventually won my LASM and also proposed for ALAM.  It lost out in both cases.

 

There must be a reason for it.

228418[/snapback]

Well, like I said, it did not contribute to more VLS spots useful for Standard AAM. That was and probably remains the essential criterion for the USN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LAM has (or will have) a two way datalink.

 

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that the weapon uses target algorythms(sp!) which can be loaded prior to the mission and switched (or perhaps even loaded) in flight.  Presumably (and I admit I'm reaching here) given a large target, the system can be set to explode the warhead to put the MEFP pattern on a desired part of the target.

 

I don't think this article is specifically referreing to PAM but it explains what I mean:

 

http://www.defense-update.com/products/l/ladar.htm

227948[/snapback]

 

 

 

Perhaps if they can flash load target parameters before launch or en route, that will work.

 

If they try to program all the various kinds of targets and all the aimpoints on them, then the missiles will cost more than Tomahawks. :(

 

I wonder if they will use the laser radar from Locaas? I should have a lot of those "aimpoint" capabilities.

 

I'll check out the article next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any opinions on the Affordable Weapon from Titan Corp. ?

 

Specs below :

 

Length (w/o booster) : 3.32 m (10 ft 11 in)

Diameter : 34.3 cm (13.5 in)

Weight : 334 kg (737 lb)

Speed : 400 km/h (250 mph)

Ceiling : 4570 m (15000 ft)

Range : > 1560 km (840 nm)

Propulsion : SWB Turbines SWB-65 turbojet

 

from : http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/a...ble-weapon.html

228339[/snapback]

 

 

It is an interesting idea, imo, though ONLY usable in permissive air environments. (did I say that right? ;))

 

I think it might be pretty useful. It depends on how cheeply it can be made. Kind of like a modern loon? Cheap bombardment, but with a lot more accuracy.

 

 

I still think a boosted SDB might be a great advantage. You could pack 3 or 4 into a VLS, and I suspect a 100 mile range would be easy to get. Then you have the penetration OR airburst of the SDB and the so far extreme accuracy.

 

 

I just looked at the affordable weapon page. It might be more useful than I thought, since it can apparently loiter in an area and be re-directed to a target by data link.

 

It can also apparently carry sensor/recon modules instead of warhead.

 

at a 200 lb warhead, it won't bust huge bunkers, but...

 

The article mentioned increasing size for payload, if it could be upped to carry a 300 lb warhead, the SDB might be able to be mated to it for a relatively simple penetrator capability. otoh, warhead for this category of weapon should be pretty easy to design. HMM 13.5 inch multiple EFP or HEDP? :)

Edited by gewing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, like I said, it did not contribute to more VLS spots useful for Standard AAM. That was and probably remains the essential criterion for the USN.

228599[/snapback]

 

I don't follow, since chosing LASM over NTACMS doesn't change that one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at a 200 lb warhead, it won't bust huge bunkers, but...

 

Size isn't everything! :) 200lbs gives you scope for a heat warhead wth a follow through projectile - something like BROACH. If the weapon is truly affordable, or the target is very valuable, you can tunnel into a (non deeply-buried) structure by hitting the same aimpoint with a series of weapons. Really deeply buried structures are always going to require really large (possibly nuclear) ordnance and/or luck in finding exits, ventilator shafts etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's also true of NTACMS.  That would not be a deciding factor in chosing either weapon.

229307[/snapback]

 

Yes but an ATACMS is a lot more expensive than a LASM.

 

The whole idea behind the LASM is that the US has approximately 1200 surplus SM-2 missiles that can be easily & inexpensively retrofited to LASM & provide a 150nm inland strike capability to any warship with a Mk41 VLS without modification to the ships themselves (IIRC only a software update is required).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but an ATACMS is a lot more expensive than a LASM.

 

The whole idea behind the LASM is that the US has approximately 1200 surplus SM-2 missiles that can be easily & inexpensively retrofited to LASM & provide a 150nm inland strike capability to any warship with a Mk41 VLS without modification to the ships themselves (IIRC only a software update is required).

229346[/snapback]

 

We really don't want to go there again, but that 'software update' involved replacing the SARH seeker with a GPS/INS guidance unit and the MK 125 warhead (used by the SM-2MR Block III A) in a new low-drag nose. The USNFSA (in an article that was cautiously pro LASM) claimed this would cost $291,000 per round (about the same as 12 JDAMs). This is the vanilla version - submunition warheads would have added to the price - they even tested a BLU-108 version which would have overcome the 'it won't kill tanks' argument with nine SADARM submunitions:

 

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/lasm.html

 

ATACMS (with the BAT submunition) cost about $1.5M and the bomblet versions about $800k (it's hard to get at a true price when most sources quote those screwey FYXX dollars). Against that, you can argue there 0% chance of losing an expensive attack aircraft/helicopter and its aircrew. The cost of one attack aircraft will buy you more ATACMS than were expended in ODS (32 vs 22 targets). 456 were expended during OIF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We really don't want to go there again, but that 'software update' involved replacing the SARH seeker with a GPS/INS guidance unit and the MK 125 warhead (used by the SM-2MR Block III A) in a new low-drag nose.  The USNFSA (in an article that was cautiously pro LASM) claimed this would cost $291,000 per round (about the same as 12 JDAMs).  This is the vanilla version - submunition warheads would have added to the price - they even tested a BLU-108 version which would have overcome the 'it won't kill tanks' argument with nine SADARM submunitions:

 

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/lasm.html

 

ATACMS (with the BAT submunition) cost about $1.5M and the bomblet versions about $800k (it's hard to get at a true price when most sources quote those screwey FYXX dollars).  Against that, you can argue there 0% chance of losing an expensive attack aircraft/helicopter and its aircrew.  The cost of one attack aircraft will buy you more ATACMS than were expended in ODS (32 vs 22 targets). 456 were expended during OIF.

229466[/snapback]

 

You misunderstood my post.

 

What I said is the only change to the warship is a software update.

 

Assuming your quoted costs are correct, you get 3 LASM for the cost of 1 ATACMS.

 

Plus a ATACMS is overkill for many targets. Great for attacking numbers of massed units but would be a complete waist against a single artillery emplacement or shore based anti-ship missile launcher.

 

Again, the idea behind the LASM is to use some of the ~1200 surplus SM-2 missiles to provide warships with land strike capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...