Thank You
My understanding of the TLAM AShM is a proposal to add a new seeker that has yet to be deployed, and yes, SM-6 with that new capability is a quasi game changer IMHO
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
My understanding of the TLAM AShM is a proposal to add a new seeker that has yet to be deployed, and yes, SM-6 with that new capability is a quasi game changer IMHO
Another account of a networked Tomahawk test, this one launched from the USS Gridley. The missile employed a 2-way satcom data link.
US Navy, Raytheon demonstrate network-enabled Tomahawk cruise missiles in flight -- SAN NICOLAS ISLAND, Calif., Oct. 5, 2015 /PRNewswire/ --
There is a proposal to add an additional seeker to Tomahawk to increase it's anti-shipping capability, but that video is of a live fire exercise demonstrating TacTom Block IV's capability in that domain, right now...
Raytheon have a number of planned upgrades to the TacTom platform and are going all out to demonstrate it's capability as the 'weapon of choice' for any role you might need a long ranged missile for...
These demonstrations I believe are aimed directly at the LRASM program and are intended to say 'hey, don't forget about us. We can already do this mission, with a weapon that is at sea, right now...'
Zumwalt heads to sea for first time in December
The new USS Zumwalt will head out for a 7 day sea trial in early December barring any further setbacks
New Destroyer Aims to Go to Sea Next Month
The new USS Zumwalt will head out for a 7 day sea trial in early December barring any further setbacks
New Destroyer Aims to Go to Sea Next Month
ACTUV is another intriguing platform that will begin sea trials Q1 next year. Designed as a robot stalker to counter the growing SSK threat, it may have potential as MCM platform down the road. The economic case for future specialized robot fleets is just too compelling.
http://science.dodlive.mil/2015/11/09/actuv-sea-trials-set-for-early-2016/
“The Navy is considering using this [the ACTUV] for a variety of missions,” Littlefield said, including mine countermeasures.
He said using the ACTUV would cost about $15,000 to $20,000 per day, compared with a destroyer that costs about $700,000 per day to operate. He said that other advantages of the ACTUV concept include greater payload and endurance than a ship-launched unmanned surface vehicle, the ability to launch from and recover at a pier, and the elimination of the need to integrate the system with a ship.
http://science.dodlive.mil/2015/11/09/actuv-sea-trials-set-for-early-2016/
“The Navy is considering using this [the ACTUV] for a variety of missions,” Littlefield said, including mine countermeasures.
He said using the ACTUV would cost about $15,000 to $20,000 per day, compared with a destroyer that costs about $700,000 per day to operate. He said that other advantages of the ACTUV concept include greater payload and endurance than a ship-launched unmanned surface vehicle, the ability to launch from and recover at a pier, and the elimination of the need to integrate the system with a ship.
Agreed, concerns about TacTom IMO are survivability in high threat environments whereas the LRASM is designing to be stealthy and even avoid rpthreats along its route. Still a VLS launched stopgap capability would be a good move
Agreed, should be a good project to watch. Interesting it sports a quasi tumbledown hull similar to the Zumwalts.
My concern for the system is self defense. Once a sub driver gets tired of being tailed there's not much stopping it from sinking it. One would assume the ACTUV would be optionally armed for ASW in wartime but what about self defense especially given its nature to run autonomously. That said, what would prevent the PLAN from grabbing it out of the water and reverse engineering it
As previously mentioned regarding the LCS I think the Kongsberg NSM is in with a shot (no pun intended), perhaps not so much as a "stopgap" measure but certainly a more effective capability than Harpoon. Kongsberg I think are making a play for the LRASM contract but even outside of that the NSM is certainly mature and effective enough to be a real option outside of that particular program. I don't believe it's compatible with Mk. 41 VLS, however. Still if I were the USN I'd be paying very close attention to that particular weapon. And an anti-shipping mode for SM-6, as you mentioned, would be particularly useful considering the numbers in which they could be launched by a surface action group.
In addition though there is of course the extremely substantial anti-shipping capabilities of a USN carrier air group...
NSM is already under serious consideration for the LCS OTH missile. Its only competitor is a seriously modified Harpoon.
Curious to see what happens with SM-6. Main concerns there would be its relatively small production run (at least for now), and how well its seeker can be adapted to a very different application and environment.
CB, thanks for the input, as always it's appreciated. I must confess a fair amount of enthusiasm for the NSM, given its current place in the landscape. Would it be fair to say that a Harpoon derivative would require a relatively high amount of money and development to bring it up to a similar level of capability?
And thanks for the info on the SM-6, I had assumed that given the SM-2's secondary anti-shipping capability, a similar capability for SM-6 would be a walk in the park. But now that I think about it, the fire and forget capability would logically be more difficult to adapt to the anti-shipping role compared to the SM-2's guidance system and fusing.
I suppose the missile's warhead is relatively small, but I had assumed the missile's impact speed and (to my mind) volley size would make up for it. If however the cost becomes a factor as you mentioned, along with the needs for its primary defensive role, and perhaps the suitability for anti-shipping drops. But if we're talking about total missiles carried by a surface action group or a carrier escort group rather than individual ships, I think a sizeable salvo could still be mustered. And as I mentioned in my last post, that's in addition to the anti-shipping capabilities afforded by the carrier air group itself, along with any embarked helos (admittedly the Penguin isn't a world beater, though) and escorting SSNs. Nothing in the USN is going to fight in a vaccuum, after all.
If you're interested in the history of the Standard missile, see if you can dig up some information on the proposed land attack variant, it would have made for an interesting capability (assuming you haven't already read about it, of course).
Thanks for the info on the missile price, good information to know.
Konsberg is working on a VL variant of the JSM, integrated with L-M assistance into the Mk-41 VLS system. NSM having a slightly different airframe configuration isn't compatible with the MK-41 VLS system.
I'd say it is quite a few years away from entering service however.
Kongsberg’s NSM/JSM Anti-Ship & Strike Missile Attempts Fit Small F-35 Stealth Bay
Here's info on Boeing proposals to retrofit Harpoons in Navy inventory to achieve a longer range at the expense of a smaller warhead. Also a proposed Next Generation Harpoon. The projected costs may appeal to the Navy which is in a real money squeeze going forward.
Navy League 2015: Boeing developing kit to upgrade Harpoon missiles for extended range | IHS Jane's 360
Navy League 2015: Boeing developing kit to upgrade Harpoon missiles for extended range | IHS Jane's 360
Last edited:
Boeing actually seems to be willing to front some of the development costs to get this thing up and running (and I think the engine ground test was done on their own dime). Most of the stuff they're talking about is more or less off the shelf, and will probably integrate well. The only major change from a $$$ perspective is going to be a smaller newer warhead to get the same bang for less weight.
Yeah, SM-2 was fine for anti surface because semi-active off an illuminator lighting up a ship when designed to light up air contacts way out there is easy. SM-6 going over the horizon basically has to do it all with just an AMRAAM radar. Under ideal conditions, should be easy. Under less ideal conditions, especially with heavy jamming, I'd want to see some more serious testing done first.
IMO, first company to figure out how to make either Harpoon Next Gen or NSM Mk41 capable, along with another boost in range without breaking the bank seals the deal.
That still doesn't address the LCS/Frigate which does not use the MK-41. Not a problem though for the Saudis whose MultiMissiom Combatant does.
Add - or USN could just install box launchers on LCS/Frigate.
LCS/FF is already almost a done deal...it's going to be a topside launcher, and the only thing up in the air is which missile goes on.
There's also plenty of interest in a VLS antiship missile. If you can put it into a VLS compatible configuration, it would make a lot of those users, many who don't have or need Tomahawk very happy.
Out of the net the Last 36 hrs.
Boeing has supposedly fronted initial testing of Harpoon Next Gen taking range from 67nm to 134nm but, as stated, reducing the warhead to 300lbs. 2018 min IOC
I too am a fan of the NSM even though it will be canister launched only until,approved for VLS, maybe the quickest and best option for the LCS especially given the CNO requirement the next two LCS deploying to PACCOM are AShM equipped on 2016
The SM6 AShM is intriguing, CNO on,y announced that "software upgrades" would give the system added capabilities. Most of us assume SSM
Sounds like Kongsberg is well on their way to making a mk 41 compatible NSM/JSM which is also being touted as a possible competitor to LRASM. What I'm curious to know is what size this mk41 missile will be; if they can keep the length down it's possible that these missiles would fit in "tactical length" mk41 cells (vs LRASM and TLAM which require strike length). Or perhaps they may make 2 versions for each cell size with the strike length version having a larger booster for longer range ect.
Exclusive: New Details on the Kongsberg Vertical Launch Joint Strike Missile (VL JSM)
Either way I agree that there would be a big market for a VLS missile like the NSM especially if it doesn't require strike length cells as not every navy needs a missile with the range and size of TLAM or LRASM.
Also with regards to the SM-6 I don't think there will be a big rush by the USN to develop the surface targeting capability; the SM-2 arsenal is by no means obsolete and will likely continued to be carried by the USN for the next 15 years I imagine.... no point wasting a SM-6 on a corvette/FAC when one of the many SM-2 will do.