Posted on 12/19/2018 6:52:58 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Sailors load a Harpoon anti-ship missile aboard the USS Olympia.
WASHINGTON: With an eye on China, the Navy will begin arming its attack submarines with ship-killer missiles for the first time in decades. The weapon of choice: an updated model of the decades-old Harpoon.
In a little-noticed announcement posted earlier this month on a government contracting site, the Navy said it was entering into negotiations with Boeing to refurbish and recertify Harpoon anti-ship missiles for Los Angeles-class subs. It’s a major shift after decades in which submarines focused on projecting power ashore — stealthily collecting intelligence or launching Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles (TLAMs) — with their only anti-ship weapons being their rarely-used torpedoes. Driving the change: increasing American anxiety about China’s rapidly growing military presence in the Pacific and Indian oceans.
The move comes months after a Harpoon was successfully launched from the USS Olympia submarine during the biannual RIMPAC naval exercise off the coast of Hawaii. It was the first time the missile had been fired from an American submarine since the sub-launched version of Harpoon was retired in 1997.
The test was part of a broader effort across the Navy to rebuild its surface-to- surface warfare prowess at a time when the Chinese Navy has made huge strides to modernize and expand its fleet, and Russia — to a lesser degree — is also modernizing its naval capabilities.
The effort to bring a modernized Harpoon back to the submarine fleet coincides with the delivery of the first Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM) to operational Air Force units, a delivery announced Dec. 18. The precision-guided missile is designed to detect and destroy specific targets operating within groups of ships by identifying the target using links to drones or aircraft. An air-launched variant has been successfully tested aboard the Air Force’s B-1 bomber on a number of occasions, and it’s on schedule to achieve early operational capability on the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet in 2019. Contractor Lockheed Martin has also test-fired LRASM from the same Vertical Launch System tubes used on Navy cruisers and destroyers.
Over the last handful of years, the Pentagon has made a concerted effort to get its ship-killing ability back, first under Obama’s last Defense Secretary Ash Carter and his deputy Bob Work — part of what they called the Third Offset Strategy — and under Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, whose focus on “lethality” picked up the offset effort under a new tagline.
That work is seen in the award this past May by the Navy for its next over-the-horizon ship killer to the team of Raytheon and Norway-based Kongsberg for the Naval Strike Missile program. The weapon, with a range of about 100 miles (roughly comparable to Harpoon), is destined for the Littoral Combat Ship and the future FFG(X) frigate. Initially worth $14.8 million, the contract could eventually grow to $850 million if options are exercised.
The Naval Strike Missile was also fired during RIMPAC, but not by the Navy. The Army launched NSM from the back of a truck parked at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii, an experiment in providing land-based anti-ship firepower to support the Navy in future multi-domain operations.
There’s also an effort underway to refit surface ships with anti-ship Tomahawk missiles by 2022, some 40 years after a Tomahawk first sunk a ship in testing.
In the South China Sea, American military leadership has been particularly concerned about what the four-star commander in the Pacific called the “great wall of SAMs.” China has built in the critical waterway, having the effect of pushing Chinese offensive capabilities well out past the mainland and China’s territorial waters. The militarization of small reefs has had the practical effect of putting commercial shipping and US Navy ships in the region under threat, with the American military scrambling to come up with a response.
That response was dramatically on show during the massive RIMPAC exercise in July, during which the submarine Olympia teamed with allied forces to sink the former Newport-class amphibious ship USS Racine, which went to the bottom after absorbing an international barrage of missiles from planes, subs, ships, and even trucks.
Six Harpoons were fired from U.S. and Australian P-8 Poseidon aircraft, the Singaporean frigate RSS Tenacious, and the Olympia. The exercise was the first time Australia has fired a Harpoon from a P-8. Japan also hit the ship with truck-mounted Type 12 anti-ship missiles, while the Army hit it with its truck-mounted High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). Olympia delivered the coup de grace with a Mark 48 heavy torpedo.
The plan is for UGM-84 Harpoon program is to make a contract award to Boeing in 2019, with the Navy describing the work as “the refurbishment, repair, recertification, upgrade, and reissue of capsules and Encapsulated (ENCAP) Harpoon Block IC (HIC) All Up Rounds (AURs) to HIC, HIG, HII, or HII+ configurations for USN SSN-688 class submarines.”
Neither the Navy or Boeing responded to queries about the program by publication time.
I’m surprised to learn that they removed these in the first place.
Exactly...this is like seeing a news article that says, “Army to Begin Equipping Its Forces with Lethal Weapons.”
I am impressed that a 5000 ton LST took a significant amount of munitions to sink.
Over the last handful of years, the Pentagon has made a concerted effort to get its ship-killing ability back, first under Obama’s last Defense Secretary Ash Carter and his deputy Bob Work — part of what they called the Third Offset Strategy — and under Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, whose focus on “lethality” picked up the offset effort under a new tagline.
I am impressed that a 5000 ton LST took a significant amount of munitions to sink.
That’s with no crew doing damage control, every water tight door open and dead in the water.
WTH?
The missile hits ended its fighting capacity.
The torpedo ended its ability to float.
The missile hits would have had more secondary explosions from munitions and/or fuel on an active man-o-war.
The US Navy is big on damage control training. How are the Chinese on DC?
One hit, no. It would definitely be up for weeks of repairs. But Navy ships are designed to be damaged and repaired. The assumption is that it will take hits.
Torpedoes are another matter. If a ship survives a torpedo hit ( 50-50 chance ) and can make it back to port it will need a dry dock. Sometimes it's just not worth it.
It’s the below the waterline hits that count the most. Most of the ASM’s probably didn’t cause much (any) flooding.
Kind of like Billy Mitchell’s tests on the Ostfriesland. All the little bombs didn’t do a whole lot, it took a huge bomb to bring her down.
Tirpitz too.
Any info on the destructive power difference between a Harpoon and a tomahawk with conventional warheads?
Tomahawk has a 1,000 lb warhead, Harpoon 500 lb.
I guess the Harpoon has a delivery advantage over the tomahawk?
Harpoon is an unimpressive weapon and long in the tooth.
I hope it is significantly upgraded, counter countermeasured, and at least 4 times faster than the original.
An LST is a ship made for amphibious landings. One prerequisite of an amphibious landing is air superiority; meaning NO cruise missile threat. So the LST type ships are at no risk from missile strikes. The biggest threat to amphibious ships are mines, which can be devastating.
I am not familiar with the tactical use of tomahawks but very familiar with harpoons. Harpoons are usually, but not always, fired in salvos.
Price.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.