Author Topic: RCN conducts first ever land attack with a Block II Harpoon missile  (Read 35677 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
W601

Why wouldn't you retain the ESSM as well?  That seems to be the preferred solution for Navies like the Aussies, Danes and Dutch.

32 Cells - 24 loaded with 24x SM-6 (ABM-SSM) and 8 loaded with 32x ESSM (for local defence) 
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 438
  • Resident George Constanza
Keep in mind that the new Joint Strike Missile can be fired out of the MK41 launcher and has a very good range, so it is also an alternative to the Harpoon. I like the thought of getting rid of those dedicated Harpoon launchers that take up space, then go from 32 cells to 48.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2328-exclusive-new-details-on-the-kongsberg-vertical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 13:09:00 by AlexanderM »

Online winnipegoo7

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 202
The op, as in me, doesn't give a crap how they work.  Not my part ship.

My bad. I meant the person who asked the question, whiskey601, not you.

Online winnipegoo7

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 202
...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...

Well, according to Wikipedia,
Quote
The U.S. Navy is adding the Global Positioning System (GPS) to the SM-6 so it has the capability to strike stationary land targets if needed, but given its higher cost than other land attack weapons like the Tomahawk cruise missile it would not likely be used as a primary option
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM

And the ESSM isn't going anywhere. They are currently working on an upgraded version.
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=916139

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 735
W601

Why wouldn't you retain the ESSM as well?  That seems to be the preferred solution for Navies like the Aussies, Danes and Dutch.

32 Cells - 24 loaded with 24x SM-6 (ABM-SSM) and 8 loaded with 32x ESSM (for local defence)
You keep both, but they don't have to be on the same ship.  They have different roles, different ranges, different seeker heads, different ways to hit the target, different speeds and different warheads.  You can put roughly 4 ESSM's in the same space as a single SM2, 3 or 6.  SM's are for long range shooting (120NM or so) and the ESSM are for much closer in (horizon type ranges). 

One of the reasons that ESSM's and other SAM's can hit ships is that they can be guided into the target by active radar.  Active radar is not as useful when trying to guide into a land based target because of as mention before backscatter etc... that's why the army prefers lasers and GPS for their guided munitions. 

The Harpoon Block II basically hits a GPS position.  This feature was added originally to allow the Harpoon to have waypoints set in its flight path so it could attack from various different directions, go around islands or obfuscate where the original ship was shooting from.  It grew into a "hit this point on the map" feature rather organically as the software got updated.  Either way one of my good friends was on the ground there doing the BDA after the fact.  He's quite excited for the new capability and it worked very well for the first time.

BZ to all.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 177,191
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,843
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Pleasing to hear.

That said, having been there the night we were shot at in 2011, we were well in range for 57mm return fire, and probably under minimum range for Harpoon...my action station was not in Ops, but I am made to understand that things were clearly visible on an IR system.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 114,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,422
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Is there a more efficient way to pack and launch missiles on a ship? while individual launchers likely mean more safety and likely a faster first volley, they seem to require a lot real estate and openings. Could you have something like the older missile systems with a twin boom launcher that could be fed a boxed missile from a magazine through a loader and the spent boxes  ejected/released onto the deck? 

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 177,191
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,843
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
The footprint of the old Mk.13 as seen on the OHP class ships was just about as large, and much more complex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MK_13_GMLS_Diagram.jpg

Not to mention the fact that there were moving parts, exposed on the upper decks, and the Rate of Fire was limited by the physical movements required of the launcher (rotate, swivel, slide missile on, rotate, elevate, fire, return to loading position etc.)  (ROF listed as :  1 Standard missile every 10 seconds; 1 Harpoon missile every 22 seconds)

With the VLS system, the rate of fire is limited by the software running the systems. 

The capacity was 40 missiles.  The smaller Mk.22 had only a 16 round capacity.

The amount of moving parts to make it all work (plus the amount of space required below-decks) are big factors in my opinion.

The simplicity of the VLS Canisters is delightful.

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,351
NavyShooter sort of beat me to it.

Whether they are in a Mk41 VLS system (which is not BTW a disposable canister system, you put the "box" in the single opening in the ship for it once, and then reload from the top as required) or in a magazine below deck, the missiles themselves occupy about the same volume. But if you put them in magazine below deck, then you also need space below deck to handle them, space for the "loader" space on deck for the launch system and space on deck around the launch system for pivoting and clear arcs of fire. Overall, the VLS systems flush-deck are not only more efficient and faster, but also permit more missiles to be carried on board.

For instance, compare the old Belknap cruisers (final configuration) with the Flight IIA Arleigh Burke.

The Belknap, at 8100 tons, 547 feet, equipped with the Mk 13 twin arm launcher and Harpoons on deck carried a total of 68 missiles. The Arleigh Burke, at 8400 tons and 509 feet with Mk 41 VLS carry a total of 104 missiles.

Moreover, the only way to reload a magazine fed missile launcher was to load it in reverse. basically, you had to use a crane to carefully slip them onto the rails, held in a vertical position and then operate the system in "store-back-the missiles-in-magazine" mode. This was impossible to do at sea. The Mk 41, with a heavy tensioned jackstay lets you slip the missile canister to on top of the Mk 41 and reload at sea. OK, its not for heavy sea states, but it can be done and extends your stay on station by that much.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 177,191
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,843
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
The USS Barry fired a big pile of Tomahawks during OP Odyssey Dawn (2011, Libya bombardment).

She came alongside for fuel and a reload of BGM-109's while we were in getting fuel at the same jetty.

In less than 4 hours, they'd swapped out more empty canisters than a CPF carries, fueled their ship, and departed.  It was quite amazing to see. 

The concurrent fueling and ammunitioning would have given some folks a heart-attack, but it was operationally necessary to get her back to sea with them.  According to open-source data, USS Barry fired 55 Tomohawk missiles in total. 

Trying to do that kind of loading while at sea would be....interesting. 

I do not think that we would be able to load or swap canisters while at sea, either for Harpoon or Sea Sparrow. 

When loading missiles, we've put them on in as little as 15 minutes each (in my experience) but since we have our loadout split across both sides of the ship, you have to flip the ship between sides, so that slows the pace down a lot. 

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 735
.... USS Barry fired 55 Tomohawk missiles in total... 

Holy crap.  Thats *does quick math, runs out of fingers and takes off shoes*  about $77 million US worth of ordinance. 

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Holy crap.  Thats *does quick math, runs out of fingers and takes off shoes*  about $77 million US worth of ordinance.

Or one F35 give or take.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 114,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,422
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
100 mil CDN $. Would not take long for a long range Excalibur type round from a ship off the coast to pay for itself. a modern version of this


Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 735
You mean just add one of these to the new CSC?  Doubtful because we've chosen a foreign build, so unless the foreign build comes with some design modifications then we are probably out of luck...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/155mm-ngs-braveheart-goes-to-sea-04476/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 114,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,422
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
For a country like Australia or Philippines some sort of shore bombardment makes sense as they have a lot of potentiel hotspots in Littoral areas. for Canada increasing to the 127mm seem to be the best of all likely worlds, perhaps a ship armed with a 57/75mm for close in defense against small vessels and a 127mm for greater reach. 

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,149
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,841
For a country like Australia or Philippines some sort of shore bombardment makes sense as they have a lot of potentiel hotspots in Littoral areas. for Canada increasing to the 127mm seem to be the best of all likely worlds, perhaps a ship armed with a 57/75mm for close in defense against small vessels and a 127mm for greater reach.

This might surprise you, but the 57mm is primarily an Anti-Aircraft gun. Yes, we use it against small vessels, and yes we can use it for Naval Gunfire Support (I even wrote the SOPs), but at it's heart, it was designed to throw a bunch of metal in the path of incoming missiles and/or fighter bombers.

For defence against small boats, you are much better off with a remote 25mm.

For NGS, please please please give me 5" or a 155mm.

For AA, you're better off adding extra soft-kill equipment (chaff, jammers, etc), because the 57mm isn't going to hit jack.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
This might surprise you, but the 57mm is primarily an Anti-Aircraft gun. Yes, we use it against small vessels, and yes we can use it for Naval Gunfire Support (I even wrote the SOPs), but at it's heart, it was designed to throw a bunch of metal in the path of incoming missiles and/or fighter bombers.

For defence against small boats, you are much better off with a remote 25mm.

For NGS, please please please give me 5" or a 155mm.

For AA, you're better off adding extra soft-kill equipment (chaff, jammers, etc), because the 57mm isn't going to hit jack.

Would this help improve the AA effectiveness?

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2612

Quote
BAE Systems at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea-Air-Space Exposition is showcasing for the first time a new 57mm guided projectile: The Ordnance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft or ORKA (technical designation: MK295 MOD 1). The new round is designed to be shot from the 57mm MK110 fitted on both types of US Navy Littoral Combat Ships.

Currently at design stage, the ORKA is BAE Systems answer to a US Navy requirement aiming at increasing the accuracy and efficiency of naval rounds. Navy Recognition learned that BAE Systems engineers applied the technology developed and mastered with the 127mm and 155mm to the much smaller 57mm.

ORKA is a "One Shot One Kill" round fitted with an imaging semi-active seeker: It can be guided through laser designation or it can hit its target autonomously by downloading image of the target prior to firing.

BAE Systems confirmed that the ORKA retains the 3P multiple fuzing modes (timed, proximity and point detonation) found on the existing 57mm round.

The Mk295 Mod 1 incorporates a reliable and affordable 4-canard actuation systems, to guide the round; a multi-mode imaging seeker and a hihgh explosive warhead to enable single shot defeat of Anti-Surface Warfare and Anti-Aircraft Warfare threats.

It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
More to cupper's last:

http://www.baesystems.com/en-sa/download-en-sa/20151124120321/1434555371520.pdf

Would it be fair to say that this would be the equivalent of a 60mm mortar with a 10 km range, firing at a rate of 220 rounds per minute and with a one-meter CEP?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,149
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,841
Would this help improve the AA effectiveness?

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2612

Well, we don't have any lazer guidance systems...

But, if it can guide iteself (i.e. make mid-course corrections) then yse I can see this improving things. The biggest issue with hitting surface contacts is that the proximity fuses have a lot of trouble distingushing surface contacts from waves.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Also, didn't they develop a bee-hive or shotgun type round for the 57mm about 10 years ago? I recall seeing video for it, and the description said it essentially threw up a wall of pellets or ball bearings.
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Does the RCN use the 3-P round for the 57mm?

http://dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/boren.pdf

And what would it take to fit the SR76 into the Halifax?  With Vulcano rounds that would result in a 30 to 40+ km range.

http://www.finmeccanica.com/documents/63265270/66959619/body_VULCANO_76_mm_REV2013.pdf
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 177,191
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,843
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
3P, yes, every one of our upgraded guns has been tested with 3P ammo during the upgrade process to confirm that it will function with our guns post-HCM. 

Lasers.  I just completed the LSO (Laser Safety Officer) course, and part of the instruction/discussion we had in addition to the DLN portion was upgrades coming to the fits on the ships, we currently have only 1 Laser system fitted, that may soon increase.

 76mm on a CPF?  Not going to happen.  The hull structure would have to be modified/strengthened considerably, the below deck arrangements and architecture would have huge changes, not to mention the magazines. 

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
3P, yes, every one of our upgraded guns has been tested with 3P ammo during the upgrade process to confirm that it will function with our guns post-HCM. 

Lasers.  I just completed the LSO (Laser Safety Officer) course, and part of the instruction/discussion we had in addition to the DLN portion was upgrades coming to the fits on the ships, we currently have only 1 Laser system fitted, that may soon increase.

 76mm on a CPF?  Not going to happen.  The hull structure would have to be modified/strengthened considerably, the below deck arrangements and architecture would have huge changes, not to mention the magazines.

Thanks.

Too bad about the 76mm. 

The Danes mount an SR76 on a 15 tonne, 3m long by 3.5m wide by 2.5m deep module.  That module fits in any of the following ships:

Iver Huitfeldt  5850 tons - up to 2x SR76 in the A & B positions
Absalon 6300 tons
Thetis 3500 tons
Rasmussen 1720 tons
Flyvefisken 450 tons

I think it would have been an interesting experiment (perhaps on Montreal) to reconfigure the 57 to fit inside a Stanflex bucket and then see if the 57 could be swapped for a 76.    If it worked then the concept could be applied to all the CSCs and AOPS vessels and for 25s, 57s and 76s.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 114,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,422
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,149
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,841
I never understood why they're able to install a 76mm (or larger) on itty-bitty little patrol boats like this:

https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/Tiger-class_fast_attack_craft

But CPF can't get 5"?

What about CSC? My vote is on rail gun.....
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!