Author Topic: RCN conducts first ever land attack with a Block II Harpoon missile  (Read 36970 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,585
Interesting.  Story and video at link below.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-navy-precision-missile-1.3527532

Reading the comment section is quite soul destroying. Mainly because these are the types of people the current government wants to hear from.  :facepalm:

Offline Hungover_cat

  • New Member
  • **
  • 160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 38
Haven't you heard? You should NEVER read the comments section of anything on the Internet. Ever. Unless you're looking for a reason to drink.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,640
Reading the comment section is quite soul destroying. Mainly because these are the types of people the current government wants to hear from.  :facepalm:

Just think of them as a target rich environment, then imagine a half dozen FFG heading up the St Lawrence within striking range of said targets...

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,640
Can the ESSM not hit a land target? I seem to recall the USN used the SM2 in a SSM role in the Persian gulf for low profile targets that the Harpoon Blk1 could not lock onto.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 22,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 700
I know you guys warned us, about the comments section...

But, being childish like I am, it only made me want to go read it more.  And I did.    :facepalm:


How can these people honestly not understand that having a warship, in the navy, that can actually fire weapons, DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY translate into some kind of paranoid NWO bullcrap?
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 908,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,918
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Because our education system reinforces them to challenge authority, so they see a conspiracy in every news article.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,640
I would be happy if these were high school students asking these questions or making these statements, for they can be corrected (mostly).  But something tells me these are not high school students.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,640
Can the ESSM not hit a land target? I seem to recall the USN used the SM2 in a SSM role in the Persian gulf for low profile targets that the Harpoon Blk1 could not lock onto.

Does anyone have an answer for this? I know there is a big difference between SM2 and ESSM, but Im just asking the question- can an ESSM be directed against a fixed land target?

Offline winnipegoo7

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 227
Does anyone have an answer for this? I know there is a big difference between SM2 and ESSM, but Im just asking the question- can an ESSM be directed against a fixed land target?

You're confused. Check Wikipedia.

The harpoon wasn't used against land targets during combat ever. And while the sm2 and essm can physically hit land, they can't effectively be used to engage landbased targets.


Offline Occam

    Go RRRRRRRREDBLACKS!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 92,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,004
Does anyone have an answer for this? I know there is a big difference between SM2 and ESSM, but Im just asking the question- can an ESSM be directed against a fixed land target?

I did a little looking around, and the publicly-available product literature for the ESSM does describe a "surface mode".  A lot of the discussion online seems to describe that an ESSM target has to be illuminated by the ship's radar for mid-course guidance, and since you get a lot of backscatter over land, the performance is probably questionable.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Because our education system reinforces them to challenge authority, so they see a conspiracy in every news article.

Well, the article is on the CBC website, so there is a conspiracy at work there, just not the one they are thinking of !  [:D

Does anyone have an answer for this? I know there is a big difference between SM2 and ESSM, but Im just asking the question- can an ESSM be directed against a fixed land target?

The answer, W601, is no. ESSM's or SM2's cannot be used against specific land targets. You can shoot them at land if you want, and you will hit, but without any control whatever as to where it would hit.

It's all in the brains of the missiles. Tomahawk and Harpoon II in land mode have onboard guidance systems that let them receive specific coordinates input and self-guide to those very specific coordinates. They don't need to even know what is at this given coordinates: they will simply hit the given location. Hence, you can call in a land strike if need be.

The SM2 and ESSM, on the other hand, as anti-air missiles, have brains meant to deal with highly kinetic targets. They are not meant to go to a specific location, but to go to a general area and, once there, use their onboard various sensors to guide themselves to their target and detonate in front of it or on it. These sensors, radar, infra-red, ESM systems, look for a clear individual target and for lots of movement in it. It's bit like the Jurassic Park movie thing: T-Rex looks for movement, so don't move and he can't see you  [:). Thus a fixed land target doesn't work for them: when they get there, they would have a hard time distinguishing the target from the background (one house in a village, for instance) and the lack of movement would deprive them of targeting information to act on.

The reason they can be used less effectively and as a secondary measure for surface attack is that getting near, they would still see only one target (a ship or a boat) on a generally empty background and it has some, albeit slow, movement. The info is not as developed or crisp as what the missiles are used to, but absent anything else, they can try. Their drawback is that coming from well above (unlike anti-surface missiles like the Harpoon or Exocets that come in horizontally), they may or may not find something on the surface within their "search" cone to guide themselves to it.

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 320,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,667
    • The Regimental Rogue
How can these people honestly not understand that having a warship, in the navy, that can actually fire weapons, DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY translate into some kind of paranoid NWO bullcrap?

Because if that's the only narrative in your head, everything must be made to fit it.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 201,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,317
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Because our education system reinforces them to challenge authority, so they see a conspiracy in every news article.

I have a great idea.  Lets pack them all up and ship them to Hit, Al Quaim, Mosul or some other lovely place in Africa currently in a SHTF state.

They can wave their hands around and be the Social Warrior Commando's there, in the real world, instead of from their tablets at their coffee shops and cottages.

Nothing like a good shot of 'the real world beyond our borders' to shock them into reality outside the relative safety of their pampered lives...

I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 201,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,317
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
You're confused. Check Wikipedia.

 :rofl:

At the very least, log into JANES from a DWAN computer and check there...
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Drop them off and leave them there.

Offline winnipegoo7

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 227
:rofl:

At the very least, log into JANES from a DWAN computer and check there...

Janes is overrated and often wrong.  In many cases Wikipedia is a better source as it will give links to references. Additionally, Wikipedia is better in this case as Wikipedia has links to the respective guidance methods for the missiles. This way the op can learn how the missiles work.



jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Janes is overrated and often wrong.  In many cases Wikipedia is a better source as it will give links to references. Additionally, Wikipedia is better in this case as Wikipedia has links to the respective guidance methods for the missiles. This way the op can learn how the missiles work.

The op, as in me, doesn't give a crap how they work.  Not my part ship.

Offline RomeoJuliet

  • Donor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 7,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 386
I have a great idea.  Lets pack them all up and ship them to Hit, Al Quaim, Mosul or some other lovely place in Africa currently in a SHTF state.

They can wave their hands around and be the Social Warrior Commando's there, in the real world, instead of from their tablets at their coffee shops and cottages.

Nothing like a good shot of 'the real world beyond our borders' to shock them into reality outside the relative safety of their pampered lives...


Well that was a disgusting photo to have pop up on my feed whilst I was eating breakfast and drinking my coffee.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 201,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,317
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Janes is overrated and often wrong.  In many cases Wikipedia is a better source as it will give links to references. Additionally, Wikipedia is better in this case as Wikipedia has links to the respective guidance methods for the missiles. This way the op can learn how the missiles work.

ROFL.  Yup, Wiki is better than low-side Janes!   :rofl:
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 201,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,317
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Well that was a disgusting photo to have pop up on my feed whilst I was eating breakfast and drinking my coffee.

The world isn't all puppies and butterflies.  Like I said...reality of the real world out there.
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline RomeoJuliet

  • Donor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 7,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 386
The world isn't all puppies and butterflies.  Like I said...reality of the real world out there.
Agreed.  I'm sure many of us that have served or are serving have seen corpses before. Just a wee wake up this am. Have a good one.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 434,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,575
  • Crewman
The world isn't all puppies and butterflies.  Like I said...reality of the real world out there.

Unfortunately, their perception of reality, is not the same as yours.   [:D
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 212,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,331
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Good news!

Does this open the door to exploring other weird and wonderful innovations like, you know, naval gunfire support? :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,640
Operation Praying Mantis:

"Action continued to escalate. Joshan, an Iranian Combattante II Kaman-class fast attack craft, challenged USS Wainwright and Surface Action Group Charlie. The commanding officer of Wainwright directed a final warning (of a series of warnings) stating that Joshan was to "stop your engines, abandon ship, I intend to sink you". Joshan responded by firing a Harpoon missile at them.[6] The missile was successfully lured away by chaff.[7] Simpson responded to the challenge by firing four Standard missiles, while Wainwright followed with one Standard missile.[8] All missiles hit and destroyed the Iranian ship's superstructure but did not immediately sink it, so Bagley fired a Harpoon of its own; the missile did not find the target. SAG Charlie closed on Joshan, with Simpson, then Bagley and Wainwright firing guns to sink the crippled Iranian ship.[6]"

Now these are surface actions, not land attacks. But it does go to show the lengths to which even the USN has to fight with what it has....and the Harpoon back then was apparently less than stellar compared it's modern equivalent.
It does appears that the new software updates to the SM-6 Missile permit it to strike surface targets beyond the range of the harpoon, and with great accuracy:

From the National Interest Magazine:

"The U.S. Navy and Raytheon recently demonstrated that the company’s Standard SM-6 missile could destroy an enemy warship for the first time. During the test, USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53)—an Arleigh Burke-class—destroyer sank the decommissioned Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate USS Reuben James (FFG 57) with a SM-6 missile.

“This test event demonstrated Raytheon's decades of continued technological development and partnership with the U.S. Navy,” said Dr. Taylor Lawrence, president of Raytheon’s missile systems division, in a statement released on [4] March 7. “The ability to leverage the Standard Missile Family and the legacy AWS [Aegis Weapon System] in newly fielded systems brings additional warfighting capability to the U.S. Fleet.”

Until last month—when U. S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter disclosed the closely [5] held secret that the SM-6 is capable of engaging surface targets—most analysts believed that the U.S. Navy lacked any meaningful capability to attack enemy warships. With the revelation that the SM-6 does have anti-surface capability, it is now known that the U.S. Navy does have a long-range supersonic anti-ship missile at its disposal. This capability would be essential should any serious conflict arise with the Chinese or Russian navies, for example.

According to Raytheon, the recent test was a demonstration of the Navy’s “distributed lethality” concept where firepower is dispersed amongst a multitude of warships. It also showcased the SM-6’s expanded mission capabilities—which include anti-air warfare, sea-based terminal missile defense and anti-surface warfare.

The SM-6—which incorporates an active radar seeker and networking—was designed to engage targets beyond a ship’s radar horizon. Using the Naval Integrated Fire Control (NIFC) battle network, an Aegis warship could engage over-the-horizon targets—including aircraft and missiles—by using targeting data from a Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.

The physical radar horizon for a S-band radar such as the Aegis SPY-1D is about 250 nautical miles for a target flying at about 30,000 feet. For target flying at lower altitudes, the radar detection range would be shorter—which is where the E-2D comes in. While the range for the SM-6 is classified, the weapon’s range could potentially be greater than 250 nautical miles.

Because the E-2D has the capability to track air and surface targets, the SM-6 would effectively allow U.S. warships to engage enemy surface combatants over-the-horizon with a Mach 3.5+ missile. While the SM-6’s warhead was designed to kill aircraft—and as such is relatively tiny—the fact that it also has ballistic missile defense capability suggests it has a hit-to-kill capability.

Given that modern warships are not the armored battlewagons from the battleship era, it is relatively easy to achieve a “mission kill” on a current-generation surface combatant. That means even with its small warhead, the SM-6 should be more than effective against, for example, a Russian Kirov-class battlecruiser or the Chinese Type 52D destroyer due to the warhead's speed. The kinetic energy from a very fast missile can do enormous damage by itself—as the recent test [4] against USS Reuben James (FFG 57) amply demonstrated.

Thus far, Raytheon has delivered more than 250 SM-6 missiles, which became operational in 2013. Production will continue for the foreseeable future as the Navy begins to replace its older Standard missiles with the new weapon.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar."

Ok, so that's the SM6 missile. Maybe that should be our next missile for the CSC, if there ever is a CSC. I am sure it will not be a big leap before the software on the SM6 is further modified for a land attack capability. Too bad for the ESSM though...