Australia's Harpoon Upgrade Plans.

[Aussie Digger]

The Australian Defence Force will be equipped with the most effective anti-ship missiles in the world following the Government's decision to spend $30 million to acquire Harpoon Block II technology, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

Senator Hill said the current Harpoon Block I missiles would be retrofitted with state-of-the-art Harpoon Block II technology that will enhance the precision and lethality of the ADF's premier maritime strike weapon.

"The Harpoon missile is fired from Anzac, Adelaide and Collins class naval platforms, and F-111, F/A-18 and AP-3C aircraft," Senator Hill said.â€

The Harpoon capability is being introduced to the Anzac class ships (under approved Project SEA 1348).

"The improved missile will allow upgraded platforms to target ships close to shore or in congested waterways more effectively.

"The combination of state-of-the-art navigational and initialisation information technology allows the missile's active radar seeker to better discriminate the desired ship targets from islands, other obstructions or neutral ships.

"The Anzac class frigates will be the first to fully utilise this capability upgrade."

Australia will be one of the lead nations in fielding the new Harpoon Block II technology.

The ADF has fielded the Harpoon missile continuously since 1982.

The missile upgrade kits are being purchased from Boeing and will be installed by Defence personnel at the Orchard Hills facility in Sydney.

One thing that intrigues me about this. A lot of media people become hysterical when Australia has any plan to purchase stand-off land attack missiles, because this might "upset the strategic balance", god-forbid that Australia should do this... It doesn't apparently matter that countries in our region already possess such a capability, but it would be terrible if the ADF were to acquire a similar capability. However, this is exactly what the Harpoon 11 will provide us. The Harpoon missile has been upgraded with the guidance control systems from the JDAM and SLAM-ER standoff attack missile, and possesses the ability to attack "a wide variety of land targets" (direct quote from Boeings website) at ranges exceeding 67nms (ie: 124+ kilometers). No-one so far has commented on this, least of all the Defence Minister. Given that Denmark acquired 50 (publicly announced) Harpoon 11 upgrade kits for $10 Million and that Australia is planning to spend $30 Million on these kits, this should provide quite a boost to Australia's strike capabilities, allowing even our Navy to strike land targets at quite a distance inland. This should also improve the utility of our Collins Class subs too, given their ability to stealthily approach shore lines...

 

[umair]

That's the beauty of the Harpoon BlockII, it's a very versatile cruise missile.Though if the ADF really wants to go for a standoff LACM, a navalized version of the Israeli Popoye(which Aussie airforce already operates with it's Ardvarks) or the specialized land attack AGM-84H SLAM-ER+ variant of the Harpoon, in my view would be worth more bang for the buck.Just my $0.02

 

[Aussie Digger]

The ADF has actually found the AGM-142 very difficult to integrate into it's F-111 fleet and was actually seeking to offload the missile for something like the SLAM-ER a few years ago. They have decided to keep it now, but you can bet it won't be integrated on the FA-18 etc. Plus this missile is in the 80 Kilometre range They do have plans to acquire the JASSM (300 Kilometre range) standoff attack missile for the FA-18 and AP-3C Orions, though...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Further to my last, the Harpoon 2 also seems to be a very quick and efficient way to gain a standoff land/maritime attack capability which the ADF has long required.

 

[Viktor]

Mod edit: see below. AD

 

[Aussie Digger]

Harpoon is not very quick it is exstremly slow missile and most of the SAM or Ship anti-missile defences has ability to destroy it.
Moskit is a extremly fast missile - 3 times faster than Harpoon and you have yet to find Yakhont or Brahmos, and now imagine all that armed with nuclear warhead and swarms of it- LOL potential is unlimitied.

What? That is one of the most non-sensical posts I have read here. Contribute to the discussion if you want, but non-sensical rants aren't going to be tolerated.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Why did you drag up this anchient thread? I think he meant quick as in an easy and fast way to give the RAN a relitively deep land attack capibility, not quick as in the speed of the missile itself. And anyway the Harpoon's a great missle, especially the Block II as a verry precisie sea skiming ASM.

 

[fretburner]

Pardon me for resurrecting this thread. I was going to create a new one, but figured I'd do a forum search first.

What's everyone's thoughts on why the Harpoon seems to be the most commercially successful anti-ship missile? It's track record doesn't seem to speak for it too well. And though I don't want this to become a versus thread, the French Exocet seemed to have a far better combat record and their quoted performance are not too far off.

 

[kato]

why the Harpoon seems to be the most commercially successful anti-ship missile

Harpoon is only the most successful in units exported, mostly due to navies like Japan buying insane numbers, Exocet is the most successful in both number of customers and versatility available to customers. Also don't forget that when most navies started procuring AShM Exocet and Harpoon were the only available (Western) missiles. You bought - and buy - in accordance with who would sell to you and who you were most closely allied to.

Doesn't matter that much at the moment though; both missile systems currently have a whole building block widely exported slated to lose manufacturer support within the next few years, leading to everyone buying new missile systems. And both Harpoon and Exocet are losing considerable market share to competitors in this renewal.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And though I don't want this to become a versus thread, the French Exocet seemed to have a far better combat record and their quoted performance are not too far off.

its not a simple comparison though. eg look at Exocet and Styx. Both surged in sales after they were used in initial combat. In the trade its referred to as "impulse buyers" - ie the first use of the weapon triggers impulse buyers as its rergarded as proof of life of capability

the issue for sales needs to also consider the shift rate after that impulse surge of initial procurement.

the other thing to consider is that these systems are rarely sold on their own, they usually come as part of a bigger decision and accompany other solution sets. eg C2+, fire control, track management solutions etc... they're rarely bought in isolation.

eg it's far easier to integrate harpoon into your system if you have like minded US based parent child elements in your structure. its the integration that kills costs.

although manufacturers always (crap on) talk about how easy it is to integrate their (foreign) weapons solution system into a countries (foreign/other) extant structure, it is 99.9% of the time marketing hype. I have yet to work on any weapons/combat/comms system where it was as plug and play as the vendor tried to push.

thats because they make their money from the integration and systems development, plus support, rather than the actual sale of the initial weapons platform.

so a weapons solution that has volume sales invariably has an ease of integration issue that was part of the assessment - irrespective of whether the base price was lo-balled to sucker the country in

 

[fretburner]

Doesn't matter that much at the moment though; both missile systems currently have a whole building block widely exported slated to lose manufacturer support within the next few years, leading to everyone buying new missile systems. And both Harpoon and Exocet are losing considerable market share to competitors in this renewal.

Like which competitors? NSM and JSOW-ER? And isn't Boeing developing a Block 3 or something Harpoon, which is supposed to be very capable (though not stealthy)?

although manufacturers always (crap on) talk about how easy it is to integrate their (foreign) weapons solution system into a countries (foreign/other) extant structure, it is 99.9% of the time marketing hype. I have yet to work on any weapons/combat/comms system where it was as plug and play as the vendor tried to push.

I guess Australia got burned on stuffs like these a few times eh?

It makes perfect sense though. Japan buying crazy numbers with them having probably the 2nd best surface fleet in the world and being closely allied to the US. The USN alone would probably have more ships than Europe's big 3.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I guess Australia got burned on stuffs like these a few times eh?

It makes perfect sense though. Japan buying crazy numbers with them having probably the 2nd best surface fleet in the world and being closely allied to the US. The USN alone would probably have more ships than Europe's big 3.

actually - no.

australia and the UK get access above and beyond any other NATO members, hence why the relationship is so strong and why it was not difficult for POTUS to convince Congress to allow mods to ITARs handling for Aust and UK. the only country that gets deeper integration is Canada, and thats on a different level (but reducing due to risk changes)

The difficulty for any non US partner is to be able to provide the same degree of support and companion support with the solutions they offer without compromising our overall US integration. That is our priority pure and simple. non US partners don't even begin to approach the sheer volume and assistance that we receive from the US.

If anything, history is replete with examples of how we get screwed by trying to integrate non US solutions into the broader capability grid.

subs are a perfect example of this. there are other current examples but I'd get shot for discussing them in an open environment. OTOH, if anyone who is ex service or Govt and wants to comment, then they can knock their socks off telling the horror stories.

any system bought in that compromises our broader integration and interoperability requirements is going to struggle. None of the non US companies can even begin to compete against support we receive from USG, US Armed Forces (esp USN and USAF) and US companies. Although it can be a fractious relationship at times, its far easier getting US Mil and USG to fix the integration and interop problems than we could ever hope for from "other" players

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Who says Harpoon doesn’t have a successful combat record? AFAIK its very limited combat use has been highly successful. It’s just that there has been close to 300 Exocets launched in combat but only about 10-20 Harpoons that the former appears to have done better. This has a lot more to do with France’s willingness to sell weapons to almost anyone compared to the USA.

As to comparing the two missiles up until Exocet’s MM40 Block III the Harpoon was a far better missile. Because it used a turbojet engine rather than Exocet’s rocket motor. Which meant longer range, lower IR signature, lower self harm risk and being far more resistant to CIWS fires. It also meant you could store Harpoons in lightweight canisters as opposed to heavy steel “coffins” to avoid having them sink your own ship if they blow up.

 

[fretburner]

If anything, history is replete with examples of how we get screwed by trying to integrate non US solutions into the broader capability grid.

subs are a perfect example of this. there are other current examples but I'd get shot for discussing them in an open environment. OTOH, if anyone who is ex service or Govt and wants to comment, then they can knock their socks off telling the horror stories.

This was actually what I was referring to when I said you got "burned" a few times. I guess it wasn't too few?

Who says Harpoon doesn’t have a successful combat record? AFAIK its very limited combat use has been highly successful. It’s just that there has been close to 300 Exocets launched in combat but only about 10-20 Harpoons that the former appears to have done better. This has a lot more to do with France’s willingness to sell weapons to almost anyone compared to the USA.

As to comparing the two missiles up until Exocet’s MM40 Block III the Harpoon was a far better missile. Because it used a turbojet engine rather than Exocet’s rocket motor. Which meant longer range, lower IR signature, lower self harm risk and being far more resistant to CIWS fires. It also meant you could store Harpoons in lightweight canisters as opposed to heavy steel “coffins” to avoid having them sink your own ship if they blow up.

I couldn't google a lot of combat firings of Harpoons. My "best" source was those entries in Wikipedia where the Harpoons fired in combat all missed their targets, albeit, some misses were due to the ships been sunk first by SM-1s.

What's CIWS? Can't be Close-In Weapons System right?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I couldn't google a lot of combat firings of Harpoons. My "best" source was those entries in Wikipedia where the Harpoons fired in combat all missed their targets, albeit, some misses were due to the ships been sunk first by SM-1s.

Well that’s all BS then. Anyway a quick look at Wikipedia’s Harpoon entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)

Does not indicate what you appear to claim it does. And I don’t know how you got from this that it’s a worse missile than Exocet. Lots more Exocets have been decoyed away from target ships than the one Harpoon (Iranian shot against USS Wainwright).

What's CIWS? Can't be Close-In Weapons System right?

Ahh what else could it be? Corridor Integrated Weather System (CIWS)?

 

[kato]

Lots more Exocets have been decoyed away from target ships than the one Harpoon

Although of course Exocet has also been fired more in anger too. There were perhaps 20 Harpoons fired in anger, all in the 1980s, whereas the same decade saw about ten times as many Exocets fired in anger.

Successful confirmed hit rate is around one-in-three, sinking rate one-in-five. Equally for both.

 

[fretburner]

Well that’s all BS then.

I know. I don't trust Wikipedia at all. It's just that I can't find anything else googling about the Harpoon's combat record.

Anyway a quick look at Wikipedia’s Harpoon entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)

Does not indicate what you appear to claim it does. And I don’t know how you got from this that it’s a worse missile than Exocet. Lots more Exocets have been decoyed away from target ships than the one Harpoon (Iranian shot against USS Wainwright).

I was referring to these lines:

"...Two Harpoon missiles were launched from the USS Yorktown with no confirmed results ..."

"...Another was fired at the Kaman-class missile boat Joshan, but failed to strike because the fast attack craft had already been mostly sunk by RIM-66 Standard missiles..."

I made the inference that the Exocet was better because it's struck more ships and sunk at least one during the Falklands war.

Ahh what else could it be? Corridor Integrated Weather System (CIWS)?

I thought you were referring to handling the Harpoon.
I guess you were referring to an incoming Harpoon being targeted and hit by a CIWS.

Although of course Exocet has also been fired more in anger too. There were perhaps 20 Harpoons fired in anger, all in the 1980s, whereas the same decade saw about ten times as many Exocets fired in anger.

Successful confirmed hit rate is around one-in-three, sinking rate one-in-five. Equally for both.

That said, would you say then that the Harpoon is better considering it's longer range and bigger warhead?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I know. I don't trust Wikipedia at all. It's just that I can't find anything else googling about the Harpoon's combat record.

Wikipedia isn’t the problem its your interpretation of it. Please note that all the claims in the Wikipedia article in relation to Harpoon combat shots are backed by references to various reputable sources.

I was referring to these lines:

"...Two Harpoon missiles were launched from the USS Yorktown with no confirmed results ..."

"...Another was fired at the Kaman-class missile boat Joshan, but failed to strike because the fast attack craft had already been mostly sunk by RIM-66 Standard missiles..."

I made the inference that the Exocet was better because it's struck more ships and sunk at least one during the Falklands war.

And your inference is outrageous. Its basic mathematics to assess a success rate by compiling the number of events and the number of success and failures. Not just cherry picking some success or failures.

In this case you have two missiles fired without confirmed results. They could have both hit a target or not. There is no further information provided. They could have just been fired down a rough threat direction without even knowing if a target was there in which case they would have motored along until they ran out of fuel. You also have one missile fired at a target that no longer existed when it arrived at the target. How on earth you deduced from these events that Harpoon was no good is beyond me. Neither of these shots can be scored as a miss.

Then you equate the Exocet’s Falklands performance as more successful? Five air launched and two surface launched Exocets were fired in the Falklands. They scored three hits and four decoyed which resulted in one military ship and one merchant ship sunk. That’s a 43% hit rate.

I thought you were referring to handling the Harpoon.
I guess you were referring to an incoming Harpoon being targeted and hit by a CIWS.

Yes and I thought that was pretty obvious.

and being far more resistant to CIWS fires.

What I was referring to if the high resistance of a jet fuel powered Harpoon to damage from CIWS hits compared to a solid propellant rocket powered Exocet. CIWS firing APDS rounds are customised to destroy solid propellant rockets. Just one nick on the rocket fuel by an APDS round will result in an uncontrolled explosion and complete destruction of the missile. If said round nicks the motor or fuel tank of a Harpoon damage is likely to be far less and the missile can still fly towards the target.

 

[fretburner]

How on earth you deduced from these events that Harpoon was no good is beyond me. Neither of these shots can be scored as a miss.

Did I say it was no good?

What I said is that the Exocet seemed to have a better combat record and therefore a better missile.

Then you equate the Exocet’s Falklands performance as more successful? Five air launched and two surface launched Exocets were fired in the Falklands. They scored three hits and four decoyed which resulted in one military ship and one merchant ship sunk. That’s a 43% hit rate.

I couldn't get a hit rate figure for the Harpoon which was why it seemed to me that the Exocet was better.

I guess I was wrong.

Yes and I thought that was pretty obvious.

It wasn't to me, hence, the clarification.