Future US Navy Anti ship capability

[mikeCK]

I understand that the upcoming Zumwalt class destroyers carry no anti ship missiles and rely solely on guns for that capability. seeing as how they were original,y intended to replace the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the Zumwalt cruiser has been cancelled....what US navy ship will carry significant loads of harpoon missiles??

The navy can't be relying on rail guns and standards for that .

[mikmykWS]

Harpoon mounts on Zumwalt highly unlikely.

Nothing has been set in stone yet but likely candidates are

LRASM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range ... ip_Missile

and/or possbily an upgraded Tomahawk BLK IV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... qLnwzIoPtE


Course the issue is these weapons are obviously worth it against high value units but in terms of missile boats etc. the Navy probably needs to find something a little more suitable and economical

[MR_BURNS2]

According to this they stopped Zumwalt production and restarted Arleigh Burke production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer#Production_restarted_and_further_development

[mikeCK]

Yes. The Zumwalt cruiser is dead and the destroyer will be limited. The harpoon is old and needs a replacement . I understand that the LRASM will be operational in 2015 but that's 2 more years of relying on a 1970s weapon. Just seems that the navy is "all in" on fleet anti missle defense with little concern about offense. If the US Navy was tasked with attacking and destroying and enemy blue water task force, I wonder how they do it? harpoons are slow, un-stealthy and not particularly powerful.

Why did the navy move away from the TASM? It obviously could be launched from VLS systems, was powerful and packed a punch.

I would hate to think that (seeing as how the harpoons are only deployed sparingly even on ships that carry them...4-8) the US ships would have to close to Asroc mark 48 distance to attack

[hellfish6]

Standard missiles can (and have) been used in the anti-ship role.

I think a loiter-attack missile would be the most useful for attacking frigate-sized ships and smaller.

[Rudd]

I'm still wondering what the LCSs' bring to the table. They seem poorly armed (all of the modules). A cool looking SOF delivery ship with a couple of MH-60s. The best part are the MH-60s and their capabilities.

[hellfish6]

ORIGINAL: Rudd

I'm still wondering what the LCSs' bring to the table. They seem poorly armed (all of the modules). A cool looking SOF delivery ship with a couple of MH-60s. The best part are the MH-60s and their capabilities.

That is the million (or, rather, several billion) dollar question. Last I heard, they were going to end up being very fast minesweepers. Presumably because the mine hunting package is the only module that looks to be fielded in the foreseeable future. Unless, of course, those fearsome 30mm guns and 6km-range Griffin missiles become the pinnacle of US surface warfare capabilities beyond 2020. And as I understand it, the ASW module will be MH-60R helicopters, rather than anything on-board.

But this is all rumor mill stuff right now.

To bad the NLOS never made it.

[Primarchx]

The Navy has counted on airpower and subs to kill ships for quite a while. Just now looks like our ships might actually get some anti-shipping punch.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Yes. The Zumwalt cruiser is dead and the destroyer will be limited. The harpoon is old and needs a replacement . I understand that the LRASM will be operational in 2015 but that's 2 more years of relying on a 1970s weapon. Just seems that the navy is "all in" on fleet anti missle defense with little concern about offense. If the US Navy was tasked with attacking and destroying and enemy blue water task force, I wonder how they do it? harpoons are slow, un-stealthy and not particularly powerful.

They will rely on carrier aviation. Any Harpoon player like you probably realized long ago that Harpoons are short-legged and/or too slow against anything top-notch the red team can put against it. Carrier aviation will provide the lacking edge as a mobile and forward firing platform.

In any case, I just can't imagine any blue-water battle scenario (i.e. against China or India) where America doesn't plan on involving one or more carriers. Any brown-water battle can be met by contemporary DDGs.

Why did the navy move away from the TASM? It obviously could be launched from VLS systems, was powerful and packed a punch.

New-age TASM is coming back! (see in the posts above)

But old TASM was also old and an overkill for its use in the 1990s. By then ships needed room for better TALMs considering the geopolitics.

I would hate to think that (seeing as how the harpoons are only deployed sparingly even on ships that carry them...4-8) the US ships would have to close to Asroc mark 48 distance to attack

As said earlier, the new generation of surface-able tomahawks should address that. Until then, other options like land-based air or hellfire-fitted choppers are still there (while Ticos, Arleigh Burkes & a few OHPs are still around).

[jtoatoktoe]

I believe the old TASM just wasn't as good as they hoped.
As for smaller boats and the future, everything at least close in will probably be targeted with laser weapons for the platforms that will be able to get enough power for them, which means Ford's and probably Zumwalt Destroyers. LRASM will probably be a good candidate since DARPA is involved, though if the Tomahawk can get it down right, that would be better in terms of maintenance and such with the other Tomahawks in the fleet.

Would be almost pointless having two weapons that fly basically the same speed and probably similar warheads, which is why its a tad disappointing the LRASM-B was cancelled as it would have given a high speed weapon which I have always hated the slower speeds on the U.S. Harpoon and Tomahawks compared to the Soviet/Russian style.

[Primarchx]

A problem with TASM was it's long range was wasted without quality OTH targeting data and enemy ships holding to a steady course.

[mikeCK]

Well, carriers are great assuming one is nearby. But if I'm a frigate commander or a destroyer captain operating outside of a task force, I want an ASM for sure. And a real one ... Not a converted AAM. I guess LRASM AND TASM are the future. Harpoon is long overdue for retirement

[Primarchx]

Completely agree. I for one really dislike the weapons fit on the newer Burkes - no Mk141/Harpoon and no CIWS.

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Well, carriers are great assuming one is nearby. But if I'm a frigate commander or a destroyer captain operating outside of a task force, I want an ASM for sure. And a real one ... Not a converted AAM. I guess LRASM AND TASM are the future. Harpoon is long overdue for retirement

[ComDev]

Have updated the database so that you can add the LRASM to any 29, 32, 61 and 64-cell Mk41, and 40 and 64-cell Mk57 PVLS.

[decaf]

There is no doubt, the OTH targeting problem for ASM combat
is formidable. It's even worse when one considers that
naval battles may be in littoral areas, with noncombatant
ships in the vicinity. Given that the TASM Tomahawk was of
1976 vintage, one can imagine a reluctance to use it OTH.

There was an additional pressure on TASM. The land-attack
Tomahawk was immensely successful. Friedman, 5th Ed., describes
that Tomahawk has been used so much, stocks have been run down.
Of about 4000 made, about 1940 were fired in combat.

So, Tomahawks were put into a program of upgrades and conversion
Into the land attack configuration. This remanufacturing
included TASM as well as the strategic ALCM.

In essence, that land attack mission dominated the anti-ship
mission. No doubt, the Pentagon "whiz kids" decided the
rebuilding program was most cost effective. Of course, this
leaves the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA with just the VLS array
and no Harpoon mount. It now becomes one of the classical
guided missile "picket" destroyers (but with a land punch).
This makes the third phase of the third Command tutorial
far more challenging than one might suspect. [8D] Swap in a
Burke Flight I or II and see the difference.

I think having ASM is important, and the two links at the
top of this thread show some short term alternatives.
The LRASM-B (supersonic) was cancelled in 2012. The LRASM-A
is still alive, but it is being developed along a DARPA track.
And that development path is problematic. See the Sep 18, 2013
link:

www dot defenseindustrydaily dot com slash
lrasm-missiles-reaching-for-a-long-reach-punch-06752 slash

"LRASM Missiles: Reaching for a Long-Range Punch"

[Juramentado]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Have updated the database so that you can add the LRASM to any 29, 32, 61 and 64-cell Mk41, and 40 and 64-cell Mk57 PVLS.

Thanks Emsoy! What version is this in please?

[Rudd]

If the LRASM-A program fizzles out, I like the Norwegian NSM, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile

[Primarchx]

NSM is already cleared for F-35 use, IIRC.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: MR_BURNS2

According to this they stopped Zumwalt production and restarted Arleigh Burke production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer#Production_restarted_and_further_development

I think 2-3 is as far as this class is going. Be interesting to see how useful they end up being.

Mike

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Juramentado

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Have updated the database so that you can add the LRASM to any 29, 32, 61 and 64-cell Mk41, and 40 and 64-cell Mk57 PVLS.

Thanks Emsoy! What version is this in please?

I'm hoping to release the updated db later this week [8D]