Harpoon is one of the candidates to provide OTH missile capability to the new LCS-based Frigate and could be a likely retrofit to LCS. I don't see how giving up Harpoon on a DDG frees up space for VLS though.
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
I wasn't specifically thinking about USN DDG but other international ships that have harpoon. The space/weight taken by Harpoon could be used in some cases to allow for additional VLS. Are there any plans for the USN to use space/weight taken by harpoon for another purpose (radar, CIWS, etc)?
Conversely I wonder how much weight space there is for Harpoons on the LCS and will they be installed on all of them or only some. I do think Harpoon would make a useful addition, having significant range and power and flexibility (land and sea targeting).
That presupposes that the vessels has the necessary free space below decks for the VLS which will not always be the case or will require modification. Teh above deck stow does allow the spaces below to be utilised.
For a new design maybe .... Perhaps not for existing units
Everything I've researched on OTH and LCS uses bolt on, deck mounted canisters mainly looking at the NSM and the Harpoon. I've seen zero discussion of using VLS in the new SSC(now a Frigate)
The NSM was tested successfully last summer on an independence class LCS
A thought that comes to mind is harpoon on destroyers could be replaced with a Mk-48/56 12 cell VLS in Stanflex type arrangement for ESSM but potentially also Nulka and other small VLS compatible systems, maybe ExLS or Sea Ceptor, soft launch VLS.
Look at the following for photos of the installation onboard Absalon, Murasome, Halifax etc.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Mk+48+Mod+0+Vertical+Launching+System&FORM=IDMHDL
The images of the Stanflex arrangement are interesting as you can clearly see how the VLS can replace the Harpoons Mk-141 slant launcher.
I imagine a Burke, when faced with a hostile group of small, fast surface vessels, would probably pop off Standard missile after Standard missile (and ESSM if they were close enough) until there was nothing left but oil slicks..,
Not the most efficient way of doing business, but an effective one. It's not going to take much to put a fast attack boat out of the fight and Standard's rather large warhead (for an anti-air missile) combined with any remaining rocket fuel, would make rather short work of a small missile boat. Just have to keep enough firing channels, missiles, EW/SP and whatnot available for the inevitable anti-ship missile barrage.
Last edited:
The Independence-class LCS has pàssed initial survivability tests with flying colors. Detractors have doubted the ship's ability to cope with damage, also questioning the small crew's ability to perform damage control. So far, so good. A Full Ship Shock Trial is scheduled for June.
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
Posted: February 11, 2016 4:15 PM
LCS USS Coronado Completes Survivability Test
SAN DIEGO — The littoral combat ship (LCS) USS Coronado successfully completed the Navy’s Total Ship Survivability Trial (TSST) off the coast of California Jan. 28, Naval Sea Systems Command announced in a Feb. 11 release.
During the test event, the crew handled realistic damage simulations, including fire, smoke, electrical failure, flooding, ruptured piping and structural failure. The scenarios benefitted the crew by offering realistic damage control training in preparation for Coronado’s maiden deployment later this year.
“Initial indications are that Coronado’s performance met, and in multiple cases exceeded, the survivability requirements for this small surface combatant,” said Capt. Tom Anderson, LCS program manager. “I commend the crew for their exceptional performance and dedication while conducting this important test.”
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
Posted: February 11, 2016 4:15 PM
LCS USS Coronado Completes Survivability Test
SAN DIEGO — The littoral combat ship (LCS) USS Coronado successfully completed the Navy’s Total Ship Survivability Trial (TSST) off the coast of California Jan. 28, Naval Sea Systems Command announced in a Feb. 11 release.
During the test event, the crew handled realistic damage simulations, including fire, smoke, electrical failure, flooding, ruptured piping and structural failure. The scenarios benefitted the crew by offering realistic damage control training in preparation for Coronado’s maiden deployment later this year.
“Initial indications are that Coronado’s performance met, and in multiple cases exceeded, the survivability requirements for this small surface combatant,” said Capt. Tom Anderson, LCS program manager. “I commend the crew for their exceptional performance and dedication while conducting this important test.”
DARPA releases first photos of unmanned ASW vehicle
DARPA announced late last year they would conduct initial operational tastings of its unmanned sub trailing vehicle
Here are some initial photos
DARPA Released Official Images Of Its Cutting Edge Sub Hunter Drone Ship
DARPA announced late last year they would conduct initial operational tastings of its unmanned sub trailing vehicle
Here are some initial photos
DARPA Released Official Images Of Its Cutting Edge Sub Hunter Drone Ship
"Prosecuting surface threats" does not mean they effective offensive missiles in surface mode (Sea Sparrow's successful live-fire test notwithstanding).
Although if you really want to go back to effective VLS-launched ASMs, we could probably start with TASM.
While its nice to think about getting rid of the Mk 141 launchers and adding in extra VLS slots, the amount of changes you'd have to make to get that to work means that idea will never happen. The internal re-work/re-design costs would be astounding.
How are target ships typically configured? Do they carry representative munitions and fuel loads that would result in secondary explosions? Granted there was no crew aboard for damage control but this outcome was a surprise to me.
Navy Sinks Former Frigate USS Reuben James in Test of New Supersonic Anti-Surface Missile - USNI News
Navy Sinks Former Frigate USS Reuben James in Test of New Supersonic Anti-Surface Missile
The former frigate USS Reuben James (FFG-57) was sunk in January during a test of the Navy’s new anti-surface warfare (ASuW) variant of the Raytheon Standard Missile 6 (SM-6), company officials told USNI News on Monday.
More at the jump.
Navy Sinks Former Frigate USS Reuben James in Test of New Supersonic Anti-Surface Missile - USNI News
Navy Sinks Former Frigate USS Reuben James in Test of New Supersonic Anti-Surface Missile
The former frigate USS Reuben James (FFG-57) was sunk in January during a test of the Navy’s new anti-surface warfare (ASuW) variant of the Raytheon Standard Missile 6 (SM-6), company officials told USNI News on Monday.
More at the jump.
Hard to do on existing ships, not so hard on new build new designs. A weapons deck such as the Danes like to use these days would do just fine, or even just a common foundation design with universal interfaces for different mission module types.
At main deck level you could have module bays capable of taking RHIBs, Interceptor craft, Assault Boats, USVs, or ROVs as required, maybe even ASW or even surface launched heavy weight torpedoes. Aft there could be hatches for containerised TAS, VDS, or ROVs. Around the superstructure their could be mission module bays that could accomodate 35, 57, or 76mm deck penetrating gun mounts, or palletised Mk-56 VLS or more tightly packed soft launch ExLS, Sea Sceptre, Nulka, Spike ER etc. Then you could have a weapons deck fore or aft of the bridge for your Harpoon, NSM, Mk-56 etc.
Just ensure the foundations and interfaces are compatible with LCS or similar mission modules and that they are integrated with the combat system , then you can literally plug and play.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I would say it would be the same as a controlled sinking for an artificial reef, which includes the removal of anything that would be toxic to sea life.
I don't think the SM-6 was made to sink a ship the size of the Ruben James as it is first and foremost a SAM. More for use against OCVs,small boats or causing damage to an enemy ship of that size. Although 3 or 4 SM-6 may not sink a 4000t warship they will cripple it's ability to operate. A Harpoon or two would be a Captains first choice.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Sink ex's do more than just create artificial reefs, they are used to valid the weapons systems as well as validate ship design construction and material's used , as noted by yourself they are stripped of items that can be re-used or become environmental hazards such as fuel oil.
Case in point is the USS Arizona, which on December 6 1941 had taken on 1.5 million gallons of fuel. Despite the fires and explosions it is estimated that there is still 500000 gallons of fuel still aboard and slowly leaking out 75 years after the attack on Pearl Harbour.
An advantage of the SM-6 over a harpoon with a larger round is the force. Remember HS physics, F=MA, with A-3.5 Mcah this will have a significant impact on F or IMO damage. Plus the standoff is double to triple that of existing Harpoons and it can be added to MK 41 VLS making it an easy way to distribute offensive leathality across the current platforms.
Mach 3.5 isn't an acceleration it's a velocity so at maximum speed that equation would be zero. You're after K.E = 1/2mv^2. F=ma is to do with forces acting on an object in motion rather than the force produced by an object in motion IIRC.
But you're right in principle. Look at Exocet hits in the Falklands when the warhead didn't explode.
I recall something years ago about a solid penetrator designed to be launched from a notional F-12 strike variant, the kinetic effect of the smaller, solid bomb, dropped at mach3 was expected to have been significantly greater than that of a significantly larger conventional bomb at subsonic speed.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
That makes sense as the KE is a function of the velocity squared. Even a small increase in velocity leads to a significant increase in KE. This explains the appeal of EM railguns.
Is it weird that it was sunk? Maybe it took many hours to sink. Maybe it was floating and they "took care" of it to avoid having it floating for months?
they can't do an assisted shot due to EPA laws
so when its sinks it doesn't do so under representative conditions. In real life it could go up like a candelabra, or it could burn slowly.
in real terms, due to the above, a SINKEX is really a HULKEX