About the Harpoon Block 1D

F

FIMMCH98

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
20 July 2020
Messages
9
Reaction score
4
White there is information about the missile itself:


www.docdroid.com

AGM-84 Harpoon Missile Block 1D Brochure.pdf

View and download AGM-84 Harpoon Missile Block 1D Brochure.pdf on DocDroid
www.docdroid.com www.docdroid.com

There are mentions that, one of the reason it wasn't produced, was that the missiles were too big for many platforms.

Naturally, submarines and non-harpoon-only missile launchers wouldn't fit the longer missile.

But outside of aircraft not having problems, there is no information about what type of canister it needed for ships. Most likely the Mk 141 wasn't long enough for the Block 1D, but considering it could take slightly longer Type 90 missiles...

In overall, is there any info about the ship-based launchers for Harpoon Block 1D?
 

Attachments

  • Harpoon1D-1.jpg
    Harpoon1D-1.jpg
    410.7 KB · Views: 34
  • Harpoon1D-2.jpg
    Harpoon1D-2.jpg
    365.9 KB · Views: 48
  • Harpoon1D-3.jpg
    Harpoon1D-3.jpg
    802 KB · Views: 51
  • Harpoon1D-4.jpg
    Harpoon1D-4.jpg
    442 KB · Views: 45
  • Harpoon1D-5.jpg
    Harpoon1D-5.jpg
    234.8 KB · Views: 36
I've never heard that the size was the main reason Block 1D wasn't bought in quantity. I thought it was mainly the difficulty in using the extra range and reattack capability in a post-Cold War environment where you had way too much chance of accidentally hitting neautral shipping.

I'm pretty sure it would have fit any ship with the standard Mk 141 launcher frames. It was probably too heavy for the lightweight launcher on the PHMs, though.
 
TomS said:
I've never heard that the size was the main reason Block 1D wasn't bought in quantity. I thought it was mainly the difficulty in using the extra range and reattack capability in a post-Cold War environment where you had way too much chance of accidentally hitting neautral shipping.

I'm pretty sure it would have fit any ship with the standard Mk 141 launcher frames. It was probably too heavy for the lightweight launcher on the PHMs, though.
Click to expand...
"The next version of the Harpoon anti-ship missile was the Block 1D, designated AGM-84F and RGM-84F. The Block 1D missile was longer and heavier for a significant increase in fuel load and flight duration. Because the increased length prevented the use from submarines, there was no "UGM-84F". The longer duration not only increased the missile's range, but also allowed the integration of a re-attack capability. When the radar seeker could not acquire a target after being switched on, the xGM-84F would fly a cloverleaf-shaped search pattern trying to detect the target until fuel exhaustion. Development of the Block 1D started in 1989, and the first missile flew in September 1991. Although it was planned to convert many Block 1C missiles to Block 1D standard, the program was cancelled in 1993."

Looks like it was supposed to be about the same length as Harpoon SLAM (not SLAM-ER).

 
sferrin said:
as Harpoon SLAM (not SLAM-ER).

Boeing AGM/RGM/UGM-84 Harpoon
Click to expand...

Yep, read it.

I have my doubts about the Block 1D being too long for submarines. Even with the extra ~2 feet added, it's still a couple of feet shorter than a Mk 48 ADCAP. And note that the McDD brochure includes subs in their list of potential platforms. I suspect the problem was the RoE and targeting challenge. Plus, subs already had too many demands for space in the torpedo room.

The major platform missing from the brochure is the FFG-7, because the Mark 13 launcher has a hard limit on missile length at 186 inches and Block 1D is 206 inches with booster.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
as Harpoon SLAM (not SLAM-ER).

Boeing AGM/RGM/UGM-84 Harpoon
Click to expand...

Yep, read it.

I have my doubts about the Block 1D being too long for submarines. Even with the extra ~2 feet added, it's still a couple of feet shorter than a Mk 48 ADCAP. And note that the McDD brochure includes subs in their list of potential platforms. I suspect the problem was the RoE and targeting challenge. Plus, subs already had too many demands for space in the torpedo room.

The major platform missing from the brochure is the FFG-7, because the Mark 13 launcher has a hard limit on missile length at 186 inches and Block 1D is 206 inches with booster.
Click to expand...
Remember, the Sub-Harpoon is contained in a canister that carries it through the water. They'd need longer canisters for the longer missile and do we know how much longer the canister already is than the missile?

msl_ssm_harpoon_v3.jpg
 
sferrin said:
Remember, the Sub-Harpoon is contained in a canister that carries it through the water. They'd need longer canisters for the longer missile and do we know how much longer the canister already is than the missile?
Click to expand...

True. I was thinking about that. I suspect it would be close -- the canister clearly adds a couple of feet, and 1D would need a bit more buoyancy than earlier versions. OTOH, the stated length of Mk 48 omits the wire spool. So, it's certainly possible it would not fit.

But also, is there a great advantage to Block 1D in subs compared to TASM? And both disappeared about the same time.
 
I've been trying to find information about the RGM-84's launch booster but I haven't had much luck, does anyone know what its designation is, what its weight, thrust and burn time are?
 
kqcke for you said:
Just thinking about an Block 1D with Block 2+ Tech.
Click to expand...

I think that's literally what Boeing was planning to offer for the OTH contest that NSM eventually won (Boeing no-bid it in the end).
 
If i remember right the block II+ er was with newer engine and smaller warhead which got it the range. With the longer tank it could have gone further or or the same range with a larger warhead.
 
There is not many information on the Block II+ ER out there .... I vaguely recall a report n Aviation Week that said there was a failed flight test, a few years ago ....
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom