Harpoon missile

Vanessa1402 said:
Russian ship air defense probably have no issue intercepting a subsonic non stealthy missile like Harpoon. Yes I know Moskva was sunk by similar thing but still, the sailor were probably very careless
Click to expand...

There are now only 2 Russian warships with reasonable anti air capabilities in the Black Sea Fleet, the Admiral Grigorovich Class frigates, Adm Makarov and Adm Essen. They can't be everywhere at once... and their capabilities against sea skimming missiles is very limited. They each have 2 x AK-630M CIWS which are very old, and reportedly not that great, and 24 Naval Buk missiles which will struggle (to say the least) with Harpoon at low level. The system isn't going to be sufficient to do anything other than provide medium to high level protection to groups of vessels...this isn't a T-45 or Aegis...

So I think its fair to say that the chance of a Russian amphibious landing is now close to zero.

It also makes you wonder how hard life is going to be for the Russian's on Snake Island...with the arrival of Caesar, M777 and probably soon MLRS the Ukrainian's can shell the life out of them and destroy any anti air capabilities they have managed to offload in the last 2 weeks with ease...which means a Ukrainian air strike from TB2 and fixed wing is on again....and no Russian vessels will be able to safely approach. Doubt the Russian's can provide CAP nearby either....glad its not me on that island...

The Ukrainian's have also said they've received enough Harpoon to sink the entire Black Sea Fleet...probably an exagerration but...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530553088297291777
View: https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1530553088297291777
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
... and 24 Naval Buk missiles which will struggle (to say the least) with Harpoon at low level. The system isn't going to be sufficient to do anything other than provide medium to high level protection to groups of vessels...this isn't a T-45 or Aegis...
Click to expand...

It isn't your father's Shtil system either, though:

CVO1obGUsAAB2k2.jpg

Never mind that even the original is not to be trifled with, this is basically a new system entirely. Your estimation of its capabilities is about as accurate as the assumption that Aegis (since you apparently hold it in such high regard) did not evolve at all between the Mk 26 CG-47 and the Mk 41 VLS Flt IIA Burke. You wouldn't lump MIM-104A and PAC3 MSE together in terms of capability either, would you? Or ESSM and RIM-7H?

As for Snake Island though, I suspect you're right. And bearing in mind the only possible purpose its occupation can serve is to support Russia's blockade of Ukrainian grain exports, the sooner the better!
 
Last edited:
Well if Russian deployment of A-50 AEW into Black Sea is real, then it will be of a great help to the Black Sea fleet to spot low flying Harpoons. That will give considerable warning time to the ship. Locate the launcher, and maybe do a counter-battery mission using supersonic Oniks missile.
 
Trident said:
It isn't your father's Shtil system either, though:
Click to expand...
It's not a missile or radar system with the capability to intercept a sea skimmer.

stealthflanker said:
Well if Russian deployment of A-50 AEW into Black Sea is real, then it will be of a great help to the Black Sea fleet to spot low flying Harpoons. That will give considerable warning time to the ship. Locate the launcher, and maybe do a counter-battery mission using supersonic Oniks missile.
Click to expand...

The Russian's have 7 x A-50U that 'might' have the capability to operate over the sea effectively and detect smaller targets. I'm not sure they have all of those operational either. I doubt they can do more than run occasional patrols, I doubt they're even close to 24-7 coverage for the eastern battlefront, let alone the Black Sea. But even if they could detect it, at best the ships could deploy chaff and manoeuvre and you have to wonder about the Russian's training and readiness when it comes to an AShM attack.
 
Trident said:
timmymagic said:
... and 24 Naval Buk missiles which will struggle (to say the least) with Harpoon at low level. The system isn't going to be sufficient to do anything other than provide medium to high level protection to groups of vessels...this isn't a T-45 or Aegis...
Click to expand...

It isn't your father's Shtil system either, though:

View attachment 678765

Never mind that even the original is not to be trifled with, this is basically a new system entirely. Your estimation of its capabilities is about as accurate as the assumption that Aegis (since you apparently hold it in such high regard) did not evolve at all between the Mk 26 CG-47 and the Mk 41 VLS Flt IIA Burke. You wouldn't lump MIM-104A and PAC3 MSE together in terms of capability either, would you? Or ESSM and RIM-7H?

As for Snake Island though, I suspect you're right. And bearing in mind the only possible purpose its occupation can serve is to support Russia's blockade of Ukrainian grain exports, the sooner the better!
Click to expand...
And sadly none of the the Improvements means anything if the Crew does not know how to work it. Which if the showing in Ukraine been anything to go by... They don't.

To get the best out of any system you need training. You dont do that, then the system may as well be a brick cause the crew dont know which buttons to hit to get it to do the thing.
 
timmymagic said:
It's not a missile or radar system with the capability to intercept a sea skimmer.
Click to expand...

Source? Full disclosure: I have two (both official, in Russian) which specifically mention capability against AShMs (and, assuming the list is in order of priority, it's the most important type of target), plus an engagement altitude envelope down to 5m.

Firefinder said:
And sadly none of the the Improvements means anything if the Crew does not know how to work it. Which if the showing in Ukraine been anything to go by... They don't.

To get the best out of any system you need training. You dont do that, then the system may as well be a brick cause the crew dont know which buttons to hit to get it to do the thing.
Click to expand...

Sadly? I'd be delighted if you were correct! But wishful thinking makes a poor planning baseline - how far are you willing to stick your (well, Ukraine's) neck out on that assumption?

If there is any reason to believe the Grigorovichs will not be able to provide much air defence, it's their intensive use as LACM launchers. For most of the war, they've been shuttling back and forth between launch positions and reloading in Sevastopol.
 
timmymagic said:
The Russian's have 7 x A-50U that 'might' have the capability to operate over the sea effectively and detect smaller targets. I'm not sure they have all of those operational either. I doubt they can do more than run occasional patrols, I doubt they're even close to 24-7 coverage for the eastern battlefront, let alone the Black Sea. But even if they could detect it, at best the ships could deploy chaff and manoeuvre and you have to wonder about the Russian's training and readiness when it comes to an AShM attack.
Click to expand...

and what makes them not ? Considering they maintained AEW cover over Belarus.

and what makes Shtil can't intercept Sea skimmer ? like what does it took to do so ?
 
stealthflanker said:
Well if Russian deployment of A-50 AEW into Black Sea is real, then it will be of a great help to the Black Sea fleet to spot low flying Harpoons. That will give considerable warning time to the ship. Locate the launcher, and maybe do a counter-battery mission using supersonic Oniks missile.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that the launcher will relocate as soon as the missile is fired.
 
I have to wonder how long Boeing would need to get production expanded or even back up and running.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Jimmo952 said:
I have to wonder how long Boeing would need to get production expanded or even back up and running.
Click to expand...
I'd rather they didn't. Long past time to move on to something better.
Click to expand...
This is BPC, it's for Ukraine (or Taiwan), not the US, in the short term to build their ASCM numbers fast. Faster than something better.
 
Moose said:
sferrin said:
Jimmo952 said:
I have to wonder how long Boeing would need to get production expanded or even back up and running.
Click to expand...
I'd rather they didn't. Long past time to move on to something better.
Click to expand...
This is BPC, it's for Ukraine (or Taiwan), not the US, in the short term to build their ASCM numbers fast. Faster than something better.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can help sort out something.

I've seen people on Twitter saying that BPC is specific to a group of Indo-Pacific countries and that Taiwan usually doesn't go through BPC. Would Ukraine fit under BPC? Or is this likely to be an unrelated sale?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531199023247507456
View: https://twitter.com/usuario20205/status/1531199023247507456?t=Ev38b3zeUEPBPqui4TD2XA&s=19
 
TomS said:
Moose said:
sferrin said:
Jimmo952 said:
I have to wonder how long Boeing would need to get production expanded or even back up and running.
Click to expand...
I'd rather they didn't. Long past time to move on to something better.
Click to expand...
This is BPC, it's for Ukraine (or Taiwan), not the US, in the short term to build their ASCM numbers fast. Faster than something better.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can help sort out something.

I've seen people on Twitter saying that BPC is specific to a group of Indo-Pacific countries and that Taiwan usually doesn't go through BPC. Would Ukraine fit under BPC? Or is this likely to be an unrelated sale?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531199023247507456
View: https://twitter.com/usuario20205/status/1531199023247507456?t=Ev38b3zeUEPBPqui4TD2XA&s=19
Click to expand...
BPC is broad and can cover just about any country which the Secretary can identify as a Partner Nation. Taiwain's unique status, where identifying it as a "nation" may/will create problems, can lead to unique solutions. I don't know why that twitter user is linking the MSI, which is mostly intel and training-focused, when the other Section on DSCA's Global Train and Equip page is this:

Section 333 Authority to Build Capacity​


Purpose:​

To conduct or support programs providing training and equipment to national security forces of foreign countries for the purpose of building capacity of Partner Nations to conduct one or more of the following activities:

  1. Counterterrorism operations
  2. Counter-weapons of mass destruction operations
  3. Counter-illicit drug trafficking operations
  4. Counter-transnational organized crime operations
  5. Maritime and border security operations
  6. Military intelligence operations
  7. Operations or activities that contribute to an international coalition operation that is determined by the Secretary to be in the national interest of the United States.
Click to expand...
The Harpoons are going to be provided to build Ukraine's capacity for Maritime and (sea) border security operations. Additionally, it's not hard to argue there's an international coalition operation to arm and train Ukraine, and that operation is in the national interest of the United States.
 
Now it remains to be seen whether Patriot is also provided. The harpoon coastal battery + Patriot may actually allows the Ukrainians to put severe headache to both Russian naval and AEW operations.

Particularly if Russians are keen to provide AEW supports to the now occupied Snake island against low RCS target. Had Harpoon not present the A-50U can actually patrol anywhere in the Black sea while still providing coverage against conventional (that is high RCS like maybe 2 sqm) at any altitude.

This depicts coverage of A-50U against conventional target. The green indicates coverage against target flying at 2 meters above sea level.
RadarCoverage-20220604-172437.png

Now assuming Patriot arrived and installed at Odessa along with Harpoon battery. Providing AEW coverage may require that Russian A-50's to actually enters the envelope of the Patriot. Such are risky and demands them to intensify Defense suppression effort. They may attempt to decoy the Patriot which later engaged by Kalibr or even faster Oniks launched from Crimea. The other tool might be the Kh-31PM's. If such not done then the Loss of AEW may complicate Russian naval operations which now even more vulnerable against low flying, low RCS Harpoon.

The following is the coverage of the A-50U against. what i expect 0.05 Sqm RCS for Harpoon in S-band (3GHz) vs What i assume to be delivered to Ukraine. Patriot PAC-2. This map is animated (albeit quite slow, sorry)

A-50BlackSeaOrbit.gif

PD is 90% Which should allow proper tracking and handover to ship or aircraft for interception. The False alarm probability is "textbook standard" 10^-6 which everyone can find in Skolnik or Russian export brochure for radar system. The range figure for the A-50U are compiled from some sources, like Yefim Gordon and Globalsecurity.

The baseline data
AEW-Data.png

The Calculations

A-50UEst.jpg

But we'll see.
 
Ukraine already started the war with ample S300s; I don't think MIM-104 brings any significantly new capability to the table. In any case, it would take months of training even assuming the US had any to spare, which it doesn't. Ukraine probably had several times as many S300 batteries as the US had Patriots.
 
https://news.usni.org/2022/06/15/u-...harpoon-launchers-for-ukraine-coastal-defense
The United States will be sending two vehicle-mounted anti-ship missile platforms to Ukraine as part of a new $1 billion military aid package to Kyiv.

The Harpoon systems will be vehicle-mounted, with the launchers coming from the United States and the missiles provided by allies, the official, who was joined by another senior defense official, said during the Wednesday press call.

The United States will be turning to industry in order to provide the vehicle-mounted launchers, the senior defense officials said. That came as an industry response to a query from the Department of Defense seeking systems that can help Ukraine’s defense, one of the defense officials said.
Click to expand...
 
Presumably this would come from the line that was going to supply Taiwan?
 
Have there been any attempts to develop a Harpoon-VL to be launched from the Mk-41 VLS?
 
It's been offered many times since the development of the Mk 41, but none received significant interest. Block 3 was one such offer.

The Mk 140/141 launchers are generally cheaper and lighter, and keep VLS cells free for weapons that make better use of their inherent volume.
 
totallyaverage said:
It's been offered many times since the development of the Mk 41, but none received significant interest. Block 3 was one such offer.
Click to expand...

If the offer had been accepted what launch-booster would've it used?
 
Periscope Films has just uploaded the below 1980s Harpoon film onto YT:


This film "Home of Harpoon" was presented by McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, which produced the Harpoon anti-ship missile beginning in 1977. McDonnell Douglas was a defense contractor formed by the merger of McDonnell Aircraft and Douglas Aircraft in 1967; it was later acquired by Boeing. This film was made between the late 1970’s and 1980’s.The film was made in Berkeley, Missouri. The Harpoon remains in deployment today. It is an all-weather, over-the-horizon, anti-ship missile. The AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile and later AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER are cruise missile variants. The regular Harpoon uses active radar homing and flies just above the water to evade defenses.
Click to expand...
The film opens with USS Badger (FF-1071), a Knox-class frigate, firing the Harpoon anti-ship missile at 0:35. At :55 it strikes a target vessel and its warhead detonates. The "Home of Harpoon" complex is shown at St. Charles, Missouri at 1:22. The complex cost $21 million to build, and it contains management and support personnel, section-level assembly, missile assembly, and test, depot maintenance, and storage at 1:35. The facility is enclosed within a security fence, and an inner fence surrounds the ordnance building and magazines shown at 1:50. The narrator says that the building is equipped with an intrusion detection system that senses any opening of the doors during after hours at 2:10.
Click to expand...
The film first dives into the section assembly building, where the Harpoon begins to take form at 2:21. Then, the sustainer section begins with the installation of fuel lines, associated valves, and the engine stark tank shown at 2:43. The wire bundle assemblies for interconnection between the sustainer component sections, along with the missile battery, pyrotechnics, the relay panel, and electronic control amplifier are shown at 3:05. Once the sustainer section is complete, the section undergoes an acceptance test at 3:40. The next step is to move to the fuel servicing area. A fuel similar to JP-5 is added at 3:52. Fuel loading accuracy is obtained by precision electronic load cells to weigh the sustainer shown at 3:55.
Click to expand...
Control and guidance assembly sections are shown at 4:15. The completed missile sections placed on the MSTS testing machine for go/nogo tests are shown at 4:32. The U.S. Navy Weapons Stations at Concord, California, Yorktown, Virginia, and other allied government weapon stations, are equipped with missile subsection test sets which are identical to those used in St. Charles at 5:13.
Click to expand...
After testing, the missile is transferred to the ordnance building. The building consists of an office building, Harpoon Missile-Body-building, the All-Up-Round building, and five remote storage magazines at 5:28. Office is separate from the assembly area with a long tunnel with two 90-degree turns at 6:05. The missile assembly building is equipped with pneumatically controlled tools for safety at 6:15. Within the HMB portion, the missile body is assembled and tested at 6:48. Tests are done by remote control, and monitored by closed-circuit television at 7:32. When completed, the missile is transferred to the All-Up-Round building, either as shipment as an HMB or for buildup into an AUR configuration at 8:12. Harpoons for submarines require a booster motor. The booster motor is shown being assembled at 8:24. The completed Harpoons are stored in the storage magazine before shipment at 9:03. Commercial trucks transferring missiles to naval stations at 9:15. The Douglas facility also contains a depot and repair facility at 9:42. A failure analysis is conducted here to determine which system needs replacement at 9:59. Film ends at 10:54)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Once Ukraine gets its' F-16s I wonder if the US will supply it with AGM-84s including the SLAM-ER?
 
Could they not make some slam with old anti ship Harpoon missiles? Many countries Switch away from Harpoon anyway so with this they get some Low capabilitys Low cost Cruise missiles (If its possible)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom