US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
I see it as a stopgap pending availability of the new missile solution and more applicable to a 'target of opportunity" scenario likely against a non-state actor. Peer foes will merit a more robust approach.
Ok, but in this this scenario I think the USN would likely turn to other platforms such as its SSN's or carrier air power if we're talking about engaging peer surface combatants at range (as other have already pointed out). The USN does not expect it's DDG's and CG's to sit and trade shots with rival surface combatants... it's important to remember that the USN fights differently than most navies and therefore doesn't require it's surface ships to be the multi role fighters that you see in other modern navies IMO.
Agreed 100%. But despite that after the collapse of the Soviet Union and 10-12 years of pounding caves from CVNs the USN has let its near peers begun to close the gap in surface warfare. THe CNO's new doctrine of distribute lethality merits distribution of offensive weapons beyond the CSG and SSNs.
Agree with B41 the SM6 could be a VL stopgap until,the LRASM reaches IOC.
Just curious but do you think Boeing could leverage some technology and/or design features from the SLAM-ER series of missiles to help their cause for a new surface-launch Harpoon variant? I'm not really proposing it seriously but like I said I am curious if there's any system components that could help their chances. Not sure if it could fit a Mk. 41 but with an ASROC booster you could potentially have quite a decent anti-ship missile with slightly more emphasis on signature management than the original Harpoon missile (at least if I remember correctly and aren't getting my missiles mixed up).
Personally I expect, as I've said, primary anti-ship capability to be provided via carrier air and submarines until a new missile is selected. I think the missile capability is most important for the LCS but the Burkes and Ticos could soldier on with SM-2ER and Harpoon installations here and there for a while yet I think.
Just buy NSM (or pay for a surface-launch JSM, which you'll be purchasing for F-35 anyway) and be done with it...
Agreed with the NSM.
Provides off the shelf, stealthy standoff today. I believe the Harpoons are only on Burke flights I and II and not available to later build so even that cannot be currently fielded in all the DDG51s.
I was very pleased to hear the two LCS deploying to PACCOM in 2016 will be OTH AShM equipped, I would assume the NDM as the USN conducted live comparability test last June/July on LCS.
Still need to increase long range stand off IMo for SAGs so the USN doesn't HAVE to rely on the CSGs for sea control and.
Last edited:
Overall, doubt it.
Some stuff from SLAM-ER could carry over. The pop out wings for example should provide better L/D coefficient over any other range gains made, though there would probably have to be studies to compare its RCS vs the baseline missile.
The seeker, maybe. It's a pretty old IR seeker with not the best resolution, so it'd probably be better to go with a newer design.
Honestly, there are pros and cons of radar seeker vs IIR which make it a little tougher to call.
USN looking at more forward basing
The US CNO is looking to forward base more ships to help meets its growing needs with fewer ships. 15-20% of the fleets time is transit times between home ports and areas of operations. Forward basing would alleviate this
More Ships Can’t Save Overworked Navy; Basing Ships Abroad Can: CSBA « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
The US CNO is looking to forward base more ships to help meets its growing needs with fewer ships. 15-20% of the fleets time is transit times between home ports and areas of operations. Forward basing would alleviate this
More Ships Can’t Save Overworked Navy; Basing Ships Abroad Can: CSBA « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Perth would make sense though it would require a massive investment in infrastructure, including a desalination plant for the city. If GD were to buy a controlling stake in ASC they could even establish secure maintenance facilities for SSNs and AEGIS ships in Adelaide as well. This was suggested back pre GFC but discussion died after Gillard and Abbott both led governments that were quite light on strategic and foreign affairs planning.
Adding a forward deployed CSG to PACOM would be ideal. 15-20 day transit to and from would be eased. Initially they suggested Yokasuka but with the DF20/21 I would think Gaum would be a better choice
Ah I see, I thought there might be certain advantages to SLAM-ER that might make it a more desirable baseline airframe (possible range/RCS advantages, etc). As far as pros and cons regarding radar versus IIR targeting, would this possibly be related to a wider range of frequencies for active radar as opposed to greater difficulty in jamming IIR seekers? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?
I was thinking more along the lines of search volume/area. Radar energy travels much better through the atmosphere in all weather conditions than the IR wavelength, so it tends to give better sensor range. Though obviously you're emitting EM energy which isn't ideal. And of course, there's always the challenge of programming in adequate ECCM.
IR obviously can give a better passive approach sneak attack, but it's going to be weather limited, more dependent on up to date target position data, and of course is potentially vulnerable to DIRCM laser jammers.
Last edited:
There is some concern how effective DIRCM is against new Imaging IR seekers and their smarter algorithms. The anwwer may be to bump up the power of the laser to increase it's "dazzle" or perhaps even cause damage to the seeker.
IR imaging seekers may be very resistant to laser jamming | SPIE Newsroom: SPIE
IR imaging seekers may be very resistant to laser jamming
IR-seeking missiles guided by imaging systems can locate targets even under laser dazzle, enabling them to track and pose a threat to aircraft...
There are two effects of dazzle that make it ineffective against an imaging seeker. First, the angular extent of a laser on the focal plane does not totally fill the FOV. If there are any target features still visible under dazzle, image processing algorithms can identify these as the target.
The second effect of dazzle is that the signal amplitude across the high-intensity region is not constant, but falls off rapidly with radial distance from the center. A simple signal gradient calculation indicates the location of the target within this region. It is not possible for an aircraft to hold the jamming beam on the seeker and exit the FOV at the same time, so the missile continues to close on the target.
IR imaging seekers may be very resistant to laser jamming | SPIE Newsroom: SPIE
IR imaging seekers may be very resistant to laser jamming
IR-seeking missiles guided by imaging systems can locate targets even under laser dazzle, enabling them to track and pose a threat to aircraft...
There are two effects of dazzle that make it ineffective against an imaging seeker. First, the angular extent of a laser on the focal plane does not totally fill the FOV. If there are any target features still visible under dazzle, image processing algorithms can identify these as the target.
The second effect of dazzle is that the signal amplitude across the high-intensity region is not constant, but falls off rapidly with radial distance from the center. A simple signal gradient calculation indicates the location of the target within this region. It is not possible for an aircraft to hold the jamming beam on the seeker and exit the FOV at the same time, so the missile continues to close on the target.
Honestly, I don't know of any shipboard DIRCM's. For some reason, it's not been as widespread as on aircraft.
However, if one were to go that route, as the author of that article points out, I'd expect something more like a DEW...achieving something in the <100kW range isn't too much of a stretch for ships, and cooking seekers is easier than missiles.
On another track entirely, it looks like the DIRCM beam spot on the seeker is not large enough to encompass the entire FPA. This may be what was needed to achieve the irradiance level required to effectively blind those seeker pixels. Bumping up the power would also allow for a larger spot size while maintaining required irradiance.
However, if one were to go that route, as the author of that article points out, I'd expect something more like a DEW...achieving something in the <100kW range isn't too much of a stretch for ships, and cooking seekers is easier than missiles.
On another track entirely, it looks like the DIRCM beam spot on the seeker is not large enough to encompass the entire FPA. This may be what was needed to achieve the irradiance level required to effectively blind those seeker pixels. Bumping up the power would also allow for a larger spot size while maintaining required irradiance.
Probably not worth giving up deck space when you could install a RAM launcher instead may be the reasoning?
the concerned
Active Member
Does the jassm and jassm-er have a maritime strike capability. if so could the p-8 be adapted to carry it
ultimately its a certification issues
if you can launch a MK54 at height (eg HAAWC) and ALA then JASSM and her ilk are unlikely to be a problem
http://static.progressivemediagroup.com/uploads/imagelibrary/P-8A_Poseidon_Naval_ii.jpg
its a buss and certification issue - not a capability issue
JASSM no. LRASM however does and as it is a development of the JASSM with the same mass and outer mould line, it shouldn't take much more work to integrate JASSM/ER if LRASM is integrated.
This is an interesting development then, with JSM being enhanced with a passive RF capability to complement it's IIR seeker. Still the emphasis on a stealthy approach to target.
Norway, Australia sign agreement on passive RF seeker development for JSM | IHS Jane's 360
Last edited:
USN Harpoon upgrade tests
IMO good, but the need for a stop gap with greater standoff prior to the availability of the LRASM is crucial. My choice would still be the NSM.
The US Navy (USN) has successfully completed a first free-flight test of the network-enabled AGM-84N Harpoon Block II+ air-launched anti-ship missile in a test on the Point Mugu sea range off the California coast.
A modification of the existing AGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C missile, the Block II+ weapon is being developed as a rapid-capability enhancement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet for introduction in late fiscal year 2017 (FY 2017). Block II+ introduces a GPS guidance kit, a new datalink interface that enables in-flight updates, improved target selectivity, an abort option, and enhanced resistance to electronic countermeasures to confer the Harpoon weapon with the ability to receive in-flight updates that improve the targeting and engagement of moving maritime targets.
IMO good, but the need for a stop gap with greater standoff prior to the availability of the LRASM is crucial. My choice would still be the NSM.
The US Navy (USN) has successfully completed a first free-flight test of the network-enabled AGM-84N Harpoon Block II+ air-launched anti-ship missile in a test on the Point Mugu sea range off the California coast.
A modification of the existing AGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C missile, the Block II+ weapon is being developed as a rapid-capability enhancement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet for introduction in late fiscal year 2017 (FY 2017). Block II+ introduces a GPS guidance kit, a new datalink interface that enables in-flight updates, improved target selectivity, an abort option, and enhanced resistance to electronic countermeasures to confer the Harpoon weapon with the ability to receive in-flight updates that improve the targeting and engagement of moving maritime targets.