JA Boomer

On a related note, does anyone have any information about the Harpoon missile as carried by the Burke class. I was under the impression that early ships had the two Mk 141 launchers placed just aft of the rear Phalanx system. Ships were then produced with the launchers in place but were deployed without missiles. Last I had heard the lastest Flight were being completed without the launchers, but with the ability for the launchers to be added on, and with the ability for the Harpoon to be launched.

Anyone have any idea what is what with regards to this? What Flights have what, and why the Navy decided that one of their primary surface-to-surface platforms doesn't need surface-to-surface missiles? (yes, I know the Tomahawks are there)

Thx, Boomer

kato

Flight IIA doesn't have the launchers, "for weight reasons" (to accomodate helos).

And the Tomahawk anti-ship version hasn't been carried in ... years, and was sublaunched.

rickusn

Cost issues precluded harpoon installation on the Burke IIAs.

Weight and space have been reserved for harpoon installation on the Burke IIAs.

But it is unlikely to ever be fitted.

There are a # of reasons why this is so but listing them would open up a can of worms that I simply dont care to deal with.

Sorry.

JA Boomer

Nice tease!

JA Boomer

I see, well I have a couple of missile questions then...

1) I was under the understanding that the Tomahawk and indeed the newest Tactical Tomahawk came in two basic versions. A land-attack version and another which was a dedicated anti-ship version of the missile. Is this true? If so, why do they no longer deploy the anti-ship version, and why was it only developed in a submarine tube-launched variant, why wasn't it fitted for the Mk 41 VLS?

2) Has any thought been given throughout the years to making the Harpoon compatible with the Mk 41 VLS Launcher? This would eliminate some of the problems with having some of the Burke's not carrying the missile or the launchers, and I noticed that the number of Mk 141 launchers on the Tico's has been reduced as well. It would allow for the Mk 141 launcher to be removed from all ships, and surface warships would then only require one launcher, the Mk 41 VLS. It would allow for more diverse weapon loadouts and increased capabilities. Also, if the Harpoon was made compatible in this way, the SLAM-ER missile would also be able to be carried, giving a ship a less expensive option to taking out a target than using a Tomahawk, which in some cases may be overkill. Basically just wondering if this idea has ever been thought of or tried?

3) Also, I know the Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia class Attack Submarines have vertical launch missile tubes. Are these missile launchers identical or a modification of the Mk 41 VLS used on surface warships?

kato

Tactical Tomahawk is Tomahawk Block IV TLAM-E. Stationary targets only.
TASM, the anti-ship missile variant of basic Tomahawk Block I, had an active radar seeker to engage mobile targets (ships). All TASM were deactivated in the early 90s and remanufactured into TLAM, reason lack of targets post-Cold War.

Correction of myself above: TASM does come in a ship-launched variant, BGM-109B-1 aka RGM-109B (as opposed to sublaunched BGM-109B-2 aka UGM-109B). Don't know if they ever fit it in a Mk14 canister for Mk41 though.

Sure. Harpoon Block III/IV. Before you ask, money of course.

Not identical, iirc the Mk45 VLS on the subs has larger-diameter tubes.

JA Boomer

Thanks Kato! Interesting…

Wow, so is it just me or does it seem that the current surface warships (Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga classes) in the US Navy are dreadfully lacking in the surface-to-surface warfare role. TASM Tomahawks are no longer carried, and the Harpoon is carried in fewer numbers or not at all. So it would seem that much of the surface force is currently deploying without any dedicated anti-ship missiles at all. I'm sure that TLAM's are able to target ships, and I know that the SM-2's have the ability to attack ships as well. But these missiles are not dedicated to this role, and no doubt are not as effective as the TASM and Harpoon. Does anyone else think this is a concern, and that the current surface fleet is seriously lacking in this very important area?

gunnut

I don't think this is a problem. Anything within the horizon can be engaged by SM-2 and gun fire. Anything beyond will be bombed to submission by carrier borne fighters. SM-2 is supersonic. Even if it carries a smaller warhead, the momentum can kill smaller ships just as well. And if we're talking about within the horizon, the unspent rocket fuel is a bigger killer.

This leads to a question. Do we have Harpoons deployed from carrier borne fighters?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

kato

Sure. From F/A-18 C/D, E/F and S-3B. Though new production is only for SLAM for those platforms.

Galrahn

Couple notes.

FY 07 had funding for Tactom and Harpoon Block III, FY08 continues funding for both.

The Fy07 TACTOM work includes modifications that includes targeting ships. The work is actually specific to the TACTOM Control system as the missile can already support it. As I understand it, targetting is based on imagery and data link based guidance uploaded from the control stations.

Harpoon Block III enters year 2 of 3 of R&D in FY08. Some reports claim modifications include VLS launch capability. I haven't seen conclusive evidence of this, although DID does mention it.

JA Boomer

I see, so it is actually likely that the US surface fleet will regain a significant dedicated anti-surface capability in the near future...so I guess someone other than myself sees the current surface-to-surface situation as a problem. Thanks Galrahn!

Transient

Well, the USN will get another dedicated anti-ship missile as well. The JSOW Block III.

I've got another question about the ABs, this might be a bit harder to answer though. Which of the ABs have the Phalanx Block IB upgrades so far? All I know is that DDG-83 Howard is the first with 2 Block 1Bs, and as stated here DDG-84 is the last with Phalanx. So were any (and how many) of the earlier ABs retrofitted?

dundonrl

that's the Momsen, (in the photo) when we were testing the RMS (remote minehunting system) off the coast of Florida a few miles from Panama City. We were the only Arleigh Burke to carry the actual RMS, but during testing there were problems with the actuator and we had to bring it back onboard, after only one brief excursion in the water with it. Talking with some of the Sonar Tech's that were running it from civilian ships before we sailed from Bath Maine, it worked perfectly and found the mines that were planted in a mock mine field with ease.

Since then, all the Arleigh Burkes that received the RMS shelter (DDG 91-96Pinckney, Momsen, Chung Hoon, Nitze, James E. Williams and Bainbridge) have had a steel plate bolted over it, and the equipment put into layup..

Dreadnought

The last Arleigh Burke is in building at Bath as we speak. DDG112 has not been named yet but will join the fleet in approx 4 years. The last of a breed IMO excellent ships.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Dreadnought

Read the other day to find out 13 of the Burke's will need refit in the bow sections. And yes this number inludes some of the newer ships.