Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/6/2006 1:57:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 1:57:20 PM EDT by COLE-CARBINE]
Successful Test of an AIM-9X Missile by a Raytheon-Led Team Demonstrates Potential for Low Cost Solution in Littoral Joint Battlespace

TEWKSBURY, Mass., Feb. 6, 2006 /PRNewswire/ -- A Raytheon-led team
successfully launched an AIM-9X from a stationary, vertical platform last
November. The missile successfully locked on after launch and hit its target
in a test of its potential launch from a submarine. The test was conducted for
the Naval Sea Systems Command at the U.S. Army's McGregor Test Range in New
Mexico Nov. 19, 2005.
A successful test firing matures the technology that will provide the Navy
with a new capability when the Joint Battlespace is near the coast at a
fraction of the cost of developing a new weapon system. The new system is an
existing launch capability married to a proven weapon fired from a submarine
at periscope depth.
"This is very exciting," said Dan Smith, president of Raytheon Integrated
Defense Systems. "In partnering with the Navy and Northrop Grumman, our team
has been able to take an already proven off-the-shelf weapon, make software
modifications, use existing launch technology, and give the combatant
commander another option in the coastal Joint Battlespace.
"The implications of this first phase test are far-reaching. It provides
the Navy with a low-cost solution with a high-impact capability in its
approach to littoral warfare without having to go through a costly and lengthy
R&D process."
Mark Russell, vice president of Raytheon IDS engineering, said that the
recent test launch also represents a significant step toward enabling the
submarine force to strike targets with surprise from shallower coastal waters.
Now, in addition to MK-48 torpedo and the Tomahawk cruise missile, submarine
forces will have the option of another weapon system making them a more
versatile player in the integrated battlespace.
"Successfully demonstrating the AIM-9X lock-on-after-launch mode from a
vertical orientation launch is a major step toward providing our submariners
with an unprecedented offensive and defensive capability," said Brock McCaman,
vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems Air-to-Air Product Line. "It's
another example of the tactical flexibility of this proven weapon system."
"This test is the first step toward an AIM-9X missile being launched
vertically from a submarine," said John Cochran, the Raytheon IDS program
manager. "Ultimately, the missile will be encased in a launch capsule. When
the capsule broaches the surface, the missile will launch and then acquire and
engage its target."
For this test, the missile was launched from a stationary, vertically-
oriented U.S. Army XM-85 Chaparral launcher. The AIM-9X missile successfully
acquired and destroyed a slow moving helicopter drone target with a direct
hit. AIM-9X missiles are normally launched from fighter aircraft.
"This non-traditional launch of the AIM-9X provides the submarine force
with an important element toward having the capability to strike enemy patrol
aircraft, helicopters, and high speed patrol boats," said Eldon Vita, the
Missile Subsystem program manager for Raytheon Missile Systems. "It provides
combatant commanders with another option in support of interdiction, special
operations, battlespace preparation, forced entry, anti-access, and area
denial."
The test is part of a multi-year risk retirement program that may lead to
full scale development. In addition to testing upgraded missile guidance and
target acquisition software, the firing demonstrated the potential for
underwater vertical launch from a capsule and the missile's ability to quickly
reach stable flight when starting from a stationary platform.

Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:07:04 PM EDT
I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull.

It's nice to see that someone is still thinking about how to expand a submarines capabilities.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:09:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull.


Maybe size and weight have something to do with it.


It's nice to see that someone is still thinking about how to expand a submarines capabilities.


Someone is always thinking about expanding sub capabilities.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:13:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull.

It's nice to see that someone is still thinking about how to expand a submarines capabilities.



The only problem with using AIM-120's is they need an active radar source for acquisition. If you radiate someone else can pick that up. The AIM-9’s are entirely passive, no radiated emissions.

Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:14:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull.

It's nice to see that someone is still thinking about how to expand a submarines capabilities.



AIM 120's would require a radar that would be too bulky to house in the fairwater. The radar would also give away the sub's position when radiating. It would be almost perfect if a sidewinder could be fired while the sub was still underwater. A slow moving aircraft like a Bear or May, and helicopters would probably not see it in time to outmaneuver or spoof it.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:16:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull



AIM-120s have a much longer range than AIM-9Xs. The 120s are radar-guided, as opposed to the 9X which is heat-seeking.

When we fly against other services, they usually stipulate that we (USAF) can't use 120s in the exercise, because the F-15's radar package combined with the threat posed by an AIM-120 often proves too much to overcome.

I've also seen pics of AIM-9s mounted on a humvee launcher, but I've never heard of them being operational.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:18:14 PM EDT
Theoretically, I'd bet you could program a Slammer to go active once it clears, and it could use its active radar for aquisition just as the Sidewinder uses its IR seeker. The problem, I'll bet, is you get a wider FOV with the IR seeker than you could with a radar primarily designed for firecontrol.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:19:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull.

It's nice to see that someone is still thinking about how to expand a submarines capabilities.



The AIM-9X has substantial improvements in guidance and tracking capabilities over the AIM-9M and previous iterations of the Sidewinder. From what I understand from a Raytheon engineer on that project, the effective range and accuracy of the AIM-9X would make it an excellent defensive missile. Also, since it's passive, it really capitalizes on the stealthy nature of submarines.

Think about it, having submarines providing perimeter air defense for other ships. Aircraft flies over, picked up by surface ship radar (maybe AEGIS?), targeting information is relayed to submarine, missile is launched up the aircraft's ass with little to no warning at a distance before the aircraft can release its payload.. Just thinking out loud.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:22:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
Theoretically, I'd bet you could program a Slammer to go active once it clears, and it could use its active radar for aquisition just as the Sidewinder uses its IR seeker. The problem, I'll bet, is you get a wider FOV with the IR seeker than you could with a radar primarily designed for firecontrol.



I'll bet it would be possible. But I still like the idea of a short-medium range passive IR missile.

I REALLY like the idea of the combination of the F/A-22 and the AIM-9X, but that's a topic for another thread.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:32:50 PM EDT
Wow, you guys are behind the times... The article is a cover-story. It was actually the first underwater weapons test of the FA-18E Super Hornet.
Matt
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:33:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:
Wow, you guys are behind the times... The article is a cover-story. It was actually the first underwater weapons test of the FA-18E Super Hornet.
Matt



It really CAN do EVERYTHING!
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:44:33 PM EDT
It's perfect to shoot down low-flying ASW helicopters and planes. "Keptin, ze submarine is firing! Break from torpedo run!"

Who knows, maybe the sub can use it to shoot little patrol boats. You launched it vertically, it flies a pattern, and Ka-Boom!
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:45:21 PM EDT
My only worry was that the strike range of the AIM-9X would be inside the range of air dropped torps.


The idea being that a threat is detected and the missle readied. Then if the threat becomes active you could take it out before its in range.

Though I don't know if its possible for the airborn threat or the sub to detect eachother at the ranges the AIM-120 is used at. Atleast without active radar giving away the sub, or the aircraft already having buoys in the water(even then they may be out of range of the buoys signal).

Since playing Dangerous Waters, I have a hard time seeing an aircraft threat detecting and dropping torps before a sub gets wind and decides not to wait and see if they are found if anti-air missles get added to the arsenal.

What is the range of a the AIM-9X(surface launched)? Old Chaparrel specs say 10nm, with the 9X increasing it to 11-13 maybe?
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:47:13 PM EDT
SUBMARINE LUANCHED



Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:50:47 PM EDT
Sub anti-aircraft missile passed test
BOSTON, Feb. 6 (UPI) -- Last autumn's test of AIM-9X missile showed the weapon holds promise as an anti-aircraft component of the arsenal carried by U.S. submarines.

Raytheon said Monday that the AIM-9X launched at the McGregor range in New Mexico last November successfully locked onto and destroyed a drone helicopter, raising the possibility that submerged subs could someday shoot down enemy aircraft.

"The implications of this first phase test are far-reaching," said Raytheon's Dan Smith. "It provides the Navy with a low-cost solution ... in its approach to littoral (coastal) warfare without having to go through a costly and lengthy research and development process."

The AIM missile is currently launched from fighter planes; however the Navy is eyeing it as part of its Joint Battlespace strategy for future operations in shallow coastal waters. Littoral warfare is seen as a likely scenario for the Navy in the 21st Century as opposed to the "blue-water" battles in the open seas that were envisioned during the Cold War.

Raytheon said the AIM would be added to the torpedoes and cruise missiles currently carried aboard submarines and would "enable the submarine force to strike targets with surprise from shallower coastal waters."

**The metamorphosis from air-launched to underwater will involve developing the ability to place the AIM into a waterproof vertical-launch capsule that will get the missile above the surface where its motor will switch on and its guidance system will locate the target.**

The recent testing showed that the missile can promptly acquire the target and get itself into a stable flight path toward the unsuspecting aircraft or surface ship victim, Raytheon said.

The launch was carried out from a Chaparral missile launcher against a slow-moving drone. The goal was primarily to observe the capabilities of the upgraded guidance system and target-acquisition software.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060206-115918-3750r
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:57:56 PM EDT
A James Bond movie had a sub launched heat seeker many years ago. Might have inspired this. (I know we talked about it at my litle nook of Raytheon.)

They are kind of a catch 22. My sources have told me that a sub in the right conditions can track a low flying helo. But lowflying helos usually need to be using in water sensors to find submerged subs. sono-bouys, dipping sonars, vectored attacks from a surface unit. Mad Gear is marginal. But if it stops over the sub, the sub might as well fire the IR missile, it would undoubtedly cause the helo jock to lose concentration. But the noise generated would likely allow other units some pretty good noise to localize the sub.

Subs really like to stay passive and quiet. Coming up to launch depth is asking to get detected.

Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:59:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B: The recent testing showed that the missile can promptly acquire the target and get itself into a stable flight path toward the unsuspecting aircraft or surface ship victim, Raytheon said.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 3:00:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
A James Bond movie had a sub launched heat seeker many years ago. Might have inspired this. (I know we talked about it at my litle nook of Raytheon.)


I would hope the Soviet SA-N-8 had more to do with it than Ian Fleming.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 3:00:49 PM EDT
Is this about AOL Instant Messenger?
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 3:03:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
A James Bond movie had a sub launched heat seeker many years ago. Might have inspired this. (I know we talked about it at my litle nook of Raytheon.)

They are kind of a catch 22. My sources have told me that a sub in the right conditions can track a low flying helo. But lowflying helos usually need to be using in water sensors to find submerged subs. sono-bouys, dipping sonars, vectored attacks from a surface unit. Mad Gear is marginal. But if it stops over the sub, the sub might as well fire the IR missile, it would undoubtedly cause the helo jock to lose concentration. But the noise generated would likely allow other units some pretty good noise to localize the sub.

Subs really like to stay passive and quiet. Coming up to launch depth is asking to get detected.




There was this "device" powered thing on a Navy H-3 that used liquid nitrogen and it detected submarines pretty darn good.......Wonder what ever happened to it?
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 3:09:44 PM EDT
Russian Kilo class boats have been said to have mast-mounted IR SAMs for some time. Something to keep P-3s and SH-60s honest.

I believe AMRAAM can be launched in an immediately-active mode, but the range becomes vastly reduced as there is no mid-course guidance. I could be wrong on this, however.

NTM
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 3:11:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
It's perfect to shoot down low-flying ASW helicopters and planes. "Keptin, ze submarine is firing! Break from torpedo run!"



As long as there is just one. Missile launches tend to draw attention to your position.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 3:19:18 PM EDT
I think it would be used more in a last ditch desperation move. After the Helo or P-8 had aquired the sub and was ready to drop a warshot. At this point the sub doesn't have much to lose.

And the countermeasures are already coming out:

January 2006
Undersized Drone Promises Extended Maritime Surveillance
By Michael Peck
It looks like a cross between an airplane and an artillery shell, but a 12-pound unmanned aircraft named Coyote may prove to be a potent tool for maritime surveillance.
Coyote, five feet long and with a wingspan of 30 inches, is designed to be dropped from sonobuoy launchers on the Navy's P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft. Using a single rear-mounted propeller powered by an electric motor, the aircraft has an endurance of about 90 minutes at a cruise speed of about 52 knots and a range of about a hundred miles.
With the folding wings extended, the craft is roughly H-shaped. Coyote carries an electro-optical or infrared camera in its nose. Maximum payload is 5 pounds, though a typical load would be 2.5 pounds. A P-3 can carry 48 external and 36 internal sonobuoys. Modified Coyotes can be launched from external racks, but the Navy hasn't yet asked the manufacturer to add the capability.
Coyote is designed to provide a standoff surveillance capability for aircraft, according to Lars Studley, lead design engineer for the vehicle's manufacturer, Advanced Ceramics Research of Tucson, Ariz. The GPS guidance allows the operator to just “load up a mission, choose the area they want to look at, and then hit the fire button,” said Studley. “It flies itself to that location, and they're able to use the camera to decide what they want to look at.”
Like standoff weapons on strike aircraft, a standoff surveillance unmanned air vehicle, or UAV, protects valuable manned aircraft and crews. Instead of having to descend to visually check out a target, the launch aircraft can remain at a distance. “If P-3 receives radar or sonar data of vessel, rather than have P-3 fly potentially into harm's way, they can launch the UAV, which collects and sends imagery back to the P-3, and allows it to remain at high altitude” Studley said.
But therein lies the design challenge. For this concept to work, the UAV has to be small enough to fit in a narrow sonobuoy tube that's less than 3 feet long and 4.5 inches wide. Yet the vehicle must be strong enough to withstand the stresses of high-speed, high-altitude launch. UAVs have previously been launched from transport aircraft, but they were larger vehicles operating under less severe launch conditions, Studley said
Coyote solves the size problem by fitting the vehicle inside a canister. The launch procedure begins with the flight crew inserting the canister inside a sonobuoy tube. When it is fired out of the tube, a parachute deploys, the canister's outer sleeve is discarded, the UAV's control surfaces pop out, and the autopilot begins a pull-up maneuver. All of these steps are completed in less than 20 seconds. Coyote can be launched from up to 30,000 feet, though Studley expects 20,000 feet to be a more typical launch altitude.
While Coyote can do freefall drops, it is “designed for ejection at high speeds and high altitude,” Studley said. “It has a 100-G launch tolerance. We took the parameters of a standard sonobuoy launch and designed the plane to meet those requirements.”
Despite the canister, the small size of the vehicle did impose restrictions. “We were limited by the size of the tube to electric power. The endurance of the UAV is pretty much limited to the batteries you can pack in there, and battery technology,” said Larry Branthoover, Coyote project lead for Naval Air Systems Command.
Coyote is not equipped with landing gear — though it can belly land — so the UAV is expendable. That puts a premium on price. The Navy wants the vehicle to cost less than the fuel that would be expended by a P-3 that would otherwise have to descend to low altitude to observe a target and then climb back up. Branthoover estimated the cost of the Coyote prototype at $15,000 per unit. Advanced Ceramics Research would only estimate the cost of a single Coyote at less than $10,000.
Coyote is not designed to carry weapons, but Studley said that the vehicle can be constructed out of explosive materials similar to reactive armor, which in effect would transform it into a flying bomb.
Branthoover said the idea of an offboard sensor for the P-3 has been around for years. “Initially, they were looking at putting wings on sonobuoys and calling them glide buoys. The way we drop them now, they're just dropped and you fly back over to mark the exact location.” However, an unpowered sonobuoy would lack standoff range.
Branthoover foresees an antisubmarine version of Coyote as a possibility, but this would require miniaturized detection gear such as magnetic sensors. The Navy currently has no plans to arm the vehicle.
Branthoover said Coyote is scheduled for a test launch from a Navy C-12 aircraft next spring, followed by a launch from a P-3 in the summer. However, one advantage of using a canister-launch system is that Coyote can be launched from any platform equipped with a sonobuoy tube, including helicopters. “Anything that can launch a sonobuoy can launch this vehicle,” said Studley.

Fritz

Link Posted: 2/6/2006 3:46:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Beltfedleadhead:

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull



I've also seen pics of AIM-9s mounted on a humvee launcher, but I've never heard of them being operational.



That sounds like a version of Chaparral. The idea is to use a Sidewinder as a point defence missile. If I remember correctly the USAF used them in Europe as a point defence system for airbases.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 4:55:44 PM EDT
At one time they were talking about mounting a 30mm chain gun on a sub's mast to engage helicopters and boats IIRC.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 4:59:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
A James Bond movie had a sub launched heat seeker many years ago. Might have inspired this. (I know we talked about it at my litle nook of Raytheon.)

They are kind of a catch 22. My sources have told me that a sub in the right conditions can track a low flying helo. But lowflying helos usually need to be using in water sensors to find submerged subs. sono-bouys, dipping sonars, vectored attacks from a surface unit. Mad Gear is marginal. But if it stops over the sub, the sub might as well fire the IR missile, it would undoubtedly cause the helo jock to lose concentration. But the noise generated would likely allow other units some pretty good noise to localize the sub.

Subs really like to stay passive and quiet. Coming up to launch depth is asking to get detected.




Would they have to come up to close to the surface? With this encapsulated system they might be able to "float" it up after the sub has moved? I'm guessing it would get targeting info from a AEGIS system but I'm not even sure what depth they have to be at to get that info. Just some speculation from a landlubber.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:04:42 PM EDT
An AMRAAM would be a waste. The sub would only be concerned about ASW aircraft and helos that were close enought to be a threat. A ground/sea launched AIM-9X should still have a range of a few miles...more than enough.

Manic_Moran, youre right, various Russian subs have had SAMs mounted for a number of years now
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:09:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bytor94:

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull.

It's nice to see that someone is still thinking about how to expand a submarines capabilities.



The only problem with using AIM-120's is they need an active radar source for acquisition. If you radiate someone else can pick that up. The AIM-9’s are entirely passive, no radiated emissions.




Not true. AIM-120's can be fired without radar and lock on with their own radar after launch.

The Norwegan Army uses AIM-120s in place of HAWK missiles now.

Its the basis of how the GLAMMRAM/HUMRAAM system works.

SOMETHING needs to pass on position data to program the Inertial platform and give the missile a rough idea (within 30 deg) of where to face, but after that it needs no off board help. Sonar can provide the rough data for that, so could the mast mounted radar- or the IIR/laser rangefinder that subs now carry on their perriscope.

Since Raytheon makes BOTH missiles I dont fully understand their prefrence for the Sidewinder over AMRAAM in this case. Perhaps its because Sidewinder has thrust vectoring and can make a sharper turn?

Thing is they have been trying to get the AF to approve and buy a thrust vectoring engine for AIM-120...
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:11:45 PM EDT
How about a pssive device like a mine? Hear an a/c pass overhead, missile away. IFF would be a problem, though. Jeebus, a sub could probably carry shitload of Sidewinders.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:13:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 5:16:25 PM EDT by TRW]
Nothing new. The Army had a ground launched version of an AIM-9 called a Chapparal.

Just hope the Navy doesn't try bump firing them underwater...

Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:14:46 PM EDT
The AIM-9X does not need a radar to point its seeker. It can run a search pattern to find a target in its FOV
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:16:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Since Raytheon makes BOTH missiles I dont fully understand their prefrence for the Sidewinder over AMRAAM in this case. Perhaps its because Sidewinder has thrust vectoring and can make a sharper turn?


Thrust vectoring, range required (AMRAAM is a waste of rocket fuel), weight, size, IR missiles don't emit EM radiation that might give away a position to a unit not equipt with SONAR but equipt with passive EM detection.

There is one other basic reason I can think of given its intended targets. I'll bet LWilde or v21 comes up with it. To be honest I'd post it, but I'm not sure if that type of info is classified off hand.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:17:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TRW:
Nothing new. The Army had a ground launched version of an AIM-9 called a Chapparal.


Chapparal didn't shoot straight up. The Navy has had bad experiences converting point-n-shoot missiles to VL missiles. Tomahawk comes immediately to mind, if the sea stories are to be believed.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:20:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 5:20:37 PM EDT by Tromatic]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Since Raytheon makes BOTH missiles I dont fully understand their prefrence for the Sidewinder over AMRAAM in this case. Perhaps its because Sidewinder has thrust vectoring and can make a sharper turn?


Thrust vectoring, range required (AMRAAM is a waste of rocket fuel), weight, size, IR missiles don't emit EM radiation that might give away a position to a unit not equipt with SONAR but equipt with passive EM detection.

There is one other basic reason I can think of given its intended targets. I'll bet LWilde or v21 comes up with it. To be honest I'd post it, but I'm not sure if that type of info is classified off hand.



I don't see how you can get a sub to the Mexican/American border, though.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:20:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcantu:
The AIM-9X does not need a radar to point its seeker. It can run a search pattern to find a target in its FOV



Can it scan the full hemisphere?

When cued by the HMS it can lock on to a target 90deg off borsight, but can it scan by itself that full hemisphere? That is a LOT of seeker movement, or does it use some kind of multi-plane fixed array under that nose cone?

Within the limits of its seeker movement AMRAAM searches automatically, but it only sees in a 30 deg cone. It can be told to turn itself to face where the target should be to get it in that cone, and it has a data link that can up date that solution, but the cone is smaller, also it doesnt turn as well as Sidewinder.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:21:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
Successful Test of an AIM-9X Missile by a Raytheon-Led Team Demonstrates Potential for Low Cost Solution in Littoral Joint Battlespace

TEWKSBURY, Mass., Feb. 6, 2006 /PRNewswire/ -- A Raytheon-led team
successfully launched an AIM-9X from a stationary, vertical platform last
November. The missile successfully locked on after launch and hit its target
in a test of its potential launch from a submarine. The test was conducted for
the Naval Sea Systems Command at the U.S. Army's McGregor Test Range in New
Mexico Nov. 19, 2005.
A successful test firing matures the technology that will provide the Navy
with a new capability when the Joint Battlespace is near the coast at a
fraction of the cost of developing a new weapon system. The new system is an
existing launch capability married to a proven weapon fired from a submarine
at periscope depth.
"This is very exciting," said Dan Smith, president of Raytheon Integrated
Defense Systems. "In partnering with the Navy and Northrop Grumman, our team
has been able to take an already proven off-the-shelf weapon, make software
modifications, use existing launch technology, and give the combatant
commander another option in the coastal Joint Battlespace.
"The implications of this first phase test are far-reaching. It provides
the Navy with a low-cost solution with a high-impact capability in its
approach to littoral warfare without having to go through a costly and lengthy
R&D process."
Mark Russell, vice president of Raytheon IDS engineering, said that the
recent test launch also represents a significant step toward enabling the
submarine force to strike targets with surprise from shallower coastal waters.
Now, in addition to MK-48 torpedo and the Tomahawk cruise missile, submarine
forces will have the option of another weapon system making them a more
versatile player in the integrated battlespace.
"Successfully demonstrating the AIM-9X lock-on-after-launch mode from a
vertical orientation launch is a major step toward providing our submariners
with an unprecedented offensive and defensive capability," said Brock McCaman,
vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems Air-to-Air Product Line. "It's
another example of the tactical flexibility of this proven weapon system."
"This test is the first step toward an AIM-9X missile being launched
vertically from a submarine," said John Cochran, the Raytheon IDS program
manager. "Ultimately, the missile will be encased in a launch capsule. When
the capsule broaches the surface, the missile will launch and then acquire and
engage its target."
For this test, the missile was launched from a stationary, vertically-
oriented U.S. Army XM-85 Chaparral launcher. The AIM-9X missile successfully
acquired and destroyed a slow moving helicopter drone target with a direct
hit. AIM-9X missiles are normally launched from fighter aircraft.
"This non-traditional launch of the AIM-9X provides the submarine force
with an important element toward having the capability to strike enemy patrol
aircraft, helicopters, and high speed patrol boats," said Eldon Vita, the
Missile Subsystem program manager for Raytheon Missile Systems. "It provides
combatant commanders with another option in support of interdiction, special
operations, battlespace preparation, forced entry, anti-access, and area
denial."
The test is part of a multi-year risk retirement program that may lead to
full scale development. In addition to testing upgraded missile guidance and
target acquisition software, the firing demonstrated the potential for
underwater vertical launch from a capsule and the missile's ability to quickly
reach stable flight when starting from a stationary platform.




If you figure they're gonna be spending more time delivering, managing and receving amphibious forces, they are gonna be open to real low tech low budget air threats...... Time to pop the 3in. guns back on!

Russians had manpads on theirs too, so why not one up them....

Though I would think a RAM system would be better suited to a sub in litorral waters.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:27:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 5:32:18 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
Successful Test of an AIM-9X Missile by a Raytheon-Led Team Demonstrates Potential for Low Cost Solution in Littoral Joint Battlespace

TEWKSBURY, Mass., Feb. 6, 2006 /PRNewswire/ -- A Raytheon-led team
successfully launched an AIM-9X from a stationary, vertical platform last
November. The missile successfully locked on after launch and hit its target
in a test of its potential launch from a submarine. The test was conducted for
the Naval Sea Systems Command at the U.S. Army's McGregor Test Range in New
Mexico Nov. 19, 2005.
A successful test firing matures the technology that will provide the Navy
with a new capability when the Joint Battlespace is near the coast at a
fraction of the cost of developing a new weapon system. The new system is an
existing launch capability married to a proven weapon fired from a submarine
at periscope depth.
"This is very exciting," said Dan Smith, president of Raytheon Integrated
Defense Systems. "In partnering with the Navy and Northrop Grumman, our team
has been able to take an already proven off-the-shelf weapon, make software
modifications, use existing launch technology, and give the combatant
commander another option in the coastal Joint Battlespace.
"The implications of this first phase test are far-reaching. It provides
the Navy with a low-cost solution with a high-impact capability in its
approach to littoral warfare without having to go through a costly and lengthy
R&D process."
Mark Russell, vice president of Raytheon IDS engineering, said that the
recent test launch also represents a significant step toward enabling the
submarine force to strike targets with surprise from shallower coastal waters.
Now, in addition to MK-48 torpedo and the Tomahawk cruise missile, submarine
forces will have the option of another weapon system making them a more
versatile player in the integrated battlespace.
"Successfully demonstrating the AIM-9X lock-on-after-launch mode from a
vertical orientation launch is a major step toward providing our submariners
with an unprecedented offensive and defensive capability," said Brock McCaman,
vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems Air-to-Air Product Line. "It's
another example of the tactical flexibility of this proven weapon system."
"This test is the first step toward an AIM-9X missile being launched
vertically from a submarine," said John Cochran, the Raytheon IDS program
manager. "Ultimately, the missile will be encased in a launch capsule. When
the capsule broaches the surface, the missile will launch and then acquire and
engage its target."
For this test, the missile was launched from a stationary, vertically-
oriented U.S. Army XM-85 Chaparral launcher. The AIM-9X missile successfully
acquired and destroyed a slow moving helicopter drone target with a direct
hit. AIM-9X missiles are normally launched from fighter aircraft.
"This non-traditional launch of the AIM-9X provides the submarine force
with an important element toward having the capability to strike enemy patrol
aircraft, helicopters, and high speed patrol boats," said Eldon Vita, the
Missile Subsystem program manager for Raytheon Missile Systems. "It provides
combatant commanders with another option in support of interdiction, special
operations, battlespace preparation, forced entry, anti-access, and area
denial."
The test is part of a multi-year risk retirement program that may lead to
full scale development. In addition to testing upgraded missile guidance and
target acquisition software, the firing demonstrated the potential for
underwater vertical launch from a capsule and the missile's ability to quickly
reach stable flight when starting from a stationary platform.




If you figure they're gonna be spending more time delivering, managing and receving amphibious forces, they are gonna be open to real low tech low budget air threats...... Time to pop the 3in. guns back on!

Russians had manpads on theirs too, so why not one up them....

Though I would think a RAM system would be better suited to a sub in litorral waters.



The only one I can confirm is that IDF's German diesel boats had a triple Blowpipe/Javeln launcher on their tower to protect them while snorkling.

We also did tests back in the 80's with sub to air missiles, not sure what the parent missile was but we shot down a couple DASH drones off of Pt. Mugu with missiles launched from under a barge (or so says my 1988 edition of Polmars Ships and Aircraft of the US Navy

People have clamed that Russian diesel boats have tried SAMS as well, however the Russians say that they have lots of capabilities that they either DONT really have or DONT actualy work.

A RAM system isnt VL and you got that big box that you would have to turn. That is not very hydrodynamic. Thats why the search for a VL solution.

As to guns, well that is going to get intersting, because EM guns, either coilguns or railguns, will fire under water. No barrel pressure, if the barrel is vented so the water can get out of the way, it will work, though with reduced velocity from water drag (that can in turn be reduced with a supercavitating projectile).

Blue-Green lasers will work under or through water too... or so I have read.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:28:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GarethB:

Originally Posted By Beltfedleadhead:

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull



I've also seen pics of AIM-9s mounted on a humvee launcher, but I've never heard of them being operational.



That sounds like a version of Chaparral. The idea is to use a Sidewinder as a point defence missile. If I remember correctly the USAF used them in Europe as a point defence system for airbases.



No, that was the British Rapier.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:38:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 5:50:08 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By bmick325:

Originally Posted By GarethB:

Originally Posted By Beltfedleadhead:

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull



I've also seen pics of AIM-9s mounted on a humvee launcher, but I've never heard of them being operational.



That sounds like a version of Chaparral. The idea is to use a Sidewinder as a point defence missile. If I remember correctly the USAF used them in Europe as a point defence system for airbases.



No, that was the British Rapier.



Chaparral was the standard ARMY low level AD missile till after Gulf War 1. They were pared with the SP Vulcan 20mms.

One of the reasons they were pared with the Vulcan guns was that for many years (Chaparral entered service in 1969) they were REAR ASPECT ONLY. I THINK they did become all aspect homing before they were retired, but the Army rounds didn't get new seeker heads till a number of years after the AIM-9L introduced the all aspect seeker.
Chaparrel was only entended to be a stop gap measure. It and the Vulcan/M113 were rushed into servcie after the Vigilante SPAAG (with a 6bb 37mm Gatling, it would of been OUR Shlika/ZSU-23-4 which was developed at the EXACT same time) and Mauler SAM were sacrificed to finance the Vietnam War and the Apollo Program (plus Mauler had techical problems-as in not being able to hit anything).
It was intended to replace Chaparral with Sgt York and Roland, but a vicious media campaign, and some bad managment on the part of contractors got those projects cancelled.

The Army finally got rid of Chaparrel because of its age and also they came to beleve that Stinger was all they would ever need to handle helicopters and what few fixed wing threats might get past the USAF and the Patriot batteries. I think the IDF still has theirs though.

That was before terrorists started crashing jetliners into things. A jetliner on a kamakaze course could soak up twenty Stingers and not be diverted, so they had to go back and get a medium weight missile that could cause even a airliner to break up with one or two hits.

Now they are acqiring HUMRAAM units- AIM-120's mounted in racks on the back of a Humvee.

www.raytheon.com/newsroom/photogal/photos/humraam_h.jpg
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:40:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
Successful Test of an AIM-9X Missile by a Raytheon-Led Team Demonstrates Potential for Low Cost Solution in Littoral Joint Battlespace

TEWKSBURY, Mass., Feb. 6, 2006 /PRNewswire/ -- A Raytheon-led team
successfully launched an AIM-9X from a stationary, vertical platform last
November. The missile successfully locked on after launch and hit its target
in a test of its potential launch from a submarine. The test was conducted for
the Naval Sea Systems Command at the U.S. Army's McGregor Test Range in New
Mexico Nov. 19, 2005.
A successful test firing matures the technology that will provide the Navy
with a new capability when the Joint Battlespace is near the coast at a
fraction of the cost of developing a new weapon system. The new system is an
existing launch capability married to a proven weapon fired from a submarine
at periscope depth.
"This is very exciting," said Dan Smith, president of Raytheon Integrated
Defense Systems. "In partnering with the Navy and Northrop Grumman, our team
has been able to take an already proven off-the-shelf weapon, make software
modifications, use existing launch technology, and give the combatant
commander another option in the coastal Joint Battlespace.
"The implications of this first phase test are far-reaching. It provides
the Navy with a low-cost solution with a high-impact capability in its
approach to littoral warfare without having to go through a costly and lengthy
R&D process."
Mark Russell, vice president of Raytheon IDS engineering, said that the
recent test launch also represents a significant step toward enabling the
submarine force to strike targets with surprise from shallower coastal waters.
Now, in addition to MK-48 torpedo and the Tomahawk cruise missile, submarine
forces will have the option of another weapon system making them a more
versatile player in the integrated battlespace.
"Successfully demonstrating the AIM-9X lock-on-after-launch mode from a
vertical orientation launch is a major step toward providing our submariners
with an unprecedented offensive and defensive capability," said Brock McCaman,
vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems Air-to-Air Product Line. "It's
another example of the tactical flexibility of this proven weapon system."
"This test is the first step toward an AIM-9X missile being launched
vertically from a submarine," said John Cochran, the Raytheon IDS program
manager. "Ultimately, the missile will be encased in a launch capsule. When
the capsule broaches the surface, the missile will launch and then acquire and
engage its target."
For this test, the missile was launched from a stationary, vertically-
oriented U.S. Army XM-85 Chaparral launcher. The AIM-9X missile successfully
acquired and destroyed a slow moving helicopter drone target with a direct
hit. AIM-9X missiles are normally launched from fighter aircraft.
"This non-traditional launch of the AIM-9X provides the submarine force
with an important element toward having the capability to strike enemy patrol
aircraft, helicopters, and high speed patrol boats," said Eldon Vita, the
Missile Subsystem program manager for Raytheon Missile Systems. "It provides
combatant commanders with another option in support of interdiction, special
operations, battlespace preparation, forced entry, anti-access, and area
denial."
The test is part of a multi-year risk retirement program that may lead to
full scale development. In addition to testing upgraded missile guidance and
target acquisition software, the firing demonstrated the potential for
underwater vertical launch from a capsule and the missile's ability to quickly
reach stable flight when starting from a stationary platform.




If you figure they're gonna be spending more time delivering, managing and receving amphibious forces, they are gonna be open to real low tech low budget air threats...... Time to pop the 3in. guns back on!

Russians had manpads on theirs too, so why not one up them....

Though I would think a RAM system would be better suited to a sub in litorral waters.



The only one I can confirm is that IDF's German diesel boats had a triple Blowpipe/Javeln launcher on their tower to protect them while snorkling.

We also did tests back in the 80's with sub to air missiles, not sure what the parent missile was but we shot down a couple DASH drones off of Pt. Mugu with missiles launched from under a barge (or so says my 1988 edition of Polmars Ships and Aircraft of the US Navy

People have clamed that Russian diesel boats have tried SAMS as well, however the Russians say that they have lots of capabilities that they either DONT really have or DONT actualy work.

A RAM system isnt VL and you got that big box that you would have to turn. That is not very hydrodynamic. Thats why the search for a VL solution.

As to guns, well that is going to get intersting, because EM guns, either coilguns or railguns, will fire under water. No barrel pressure, if the barrel is vented so the water can get out of the way, it will work, though with reduced velocity from water drag (that can in turn be reduced with a supercavitating projectile).

Blue-Green lasers will work under or through water too... or so I have read.



Russians boasted SA2 out of the Typhoon, but prolly just had grails like all other russian subs. In regards to the RAM sam, I was referring to teh capabiltiy, nto the actual box. shorter range, more rounds.... but it would be hard to get that box over the waterline while the sub is going bye bye. MAybe on an inflatable platofrm, one time use RAM SAM box? with self destruct? And sharks? with laser beams?
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:53:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:54:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 5:56:02 PM EDT by dport]

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
That's forward thinking. Submarines that can employ anti-aircraft weaponry.

It's about time. We've been using aircraft in anti-submarine roles forever.

That makes me wonder...do we have any torpedos in the inventory that are capable of being
delivered by any aircraft in the active inventory? Torpedo bombers are old stuff, but do we have any now?


CJ


Mk46, Mk50 are both aircraft deliverable, P-3, SH-60, etc.

ETA: IIRC the B-52s and probably other bombers can deploy CAPTOR mines, which are torpedoes that can be pre-programmed.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 6:09:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 6:12:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
That's forward thinking. Submarines that can employ anti-aircraft weaponry.

It's about time. We've been using aircraft in anti-submarine roles forever.

That makes me wonder...do we have any torpedos in the inventory that are capable of being
delivered by any aircraft in the active inventory? Torpedo bombers are old stuff, but do we have any now?


CJ


Mk46, Mk50 are both aircraft deliverable, P-3, SH-60, etc.

ETA: IIRC the B-52s and probably other bombers can deploy CAPTOR mines, which are torpedoes that can be pre-programmed.



You have to think though that it is kind of a CYA thing, just putting one more layer of risk reduction in before risking a billon dollar SSN or SSGN.

Because one thing we have been finding out latey in our tests with the Dutch and Swedish SSKs over the last 7-8 years is that the P-3's and SH-60s have a really REALLY hard time finding ANYTHING. The concepts developed back during WWII for escorting fleets and convoys dont seem to work real well anymore. The only thing that really gives a sub pause now is another submarine. The Dutch were even able to "kill" a couple of our SSNs with their SSKs though eventually their SSKs did succumb to the more numerous SSNs

Russian and Chinese ASW aircraft are even less likey to find anything with their old tech.

Just wanting to cover that one in million chance of a overflight while at periscope depth offloading SEALS I suppose.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 6:19:01 PM EDT
Sounds like purely a defensive measure. I believe the idea is to fire at low flying fixed and rotory wing anti submarine aircraft probing the water. It would be pointless to try and pick off an enemy aircraft unless it was looking for you, when your mission is stealth and all.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 6:24:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
That's forward thinking. Submarines that can employ anti-aircraft weaponry.

It's about time. We've been using aircraft in anti-submarine roles forever.

That makes me wonder...do we have any torpedos in the inventory that are capable of being
delivered by any aircraft in the active inventory? Torpedo bombers are old stuff, but do we have any now?


CJ



I'm actually reading about the first ones in my technology and warfare course. Very interesting. The first ones air-droppable were actually JDAM like strap on kits (just gyroscopes really) for existin torpedoes.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 6:39:40 PM EDT
Can it be long before there are sub-and-HMMWV launched Super Hornets?
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 7:08:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By bmick325:

Originally Posted By GarethB:

Originally Posted By Beltfedleadhead:

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull



I've also seen pics of AIM-9s mounted on a humvee launcher, but I've never heard of them being operational.



That sounds like a version of Chaparral. The idea is to use a Sidewinder as a point defence missile. If I remember correctly the USAF used them in Europe as a point defence system for airbases.



No, that was the British Rapier.



Chaparral was the standard ARMY low level AD missile till after Gulf War 1. They were pared with the SP Vulcan 20mms.

One of the reasons they were pared with the Vulcan guns was that for many years (Chaparral entered service in 1969) they were REAR ASPECT ONLY. I THINK they did become all aspect homing before they were retired, but the Army rounds didn't get new seeker heads till a number of years after the AIM-9L introduced the all aspect seeker.
Chaparrel was only entended to be a stop gap measure. It and the Vulcan/M113 were rushed into servcie after the Vigilante SPAAG (with a 6bb 37mm Gatling, it would of been OUR Shlika/ZSU-23-4 which was developed at the EXACT same time) and Mauler SAM were sacrificed to finance the Vietnam War and the Apollo Program (plus Mauler had techical problems-as in not being able to hit anything).
It was intended to replace Chaparral with Sgt York and Roland, but a vicious media campaign, and some bad managment on the part of contractors got those projects cancelled.

The Army finally got rid of Chaparrel because of its age and also they came to beleve that Stinger was all they would ever need to handle helicopters and what few fixed wing threats might get past the USAF and the Patriot batteries. I think the IDF still has theirs though.

That was before terrorists started crashing jetliners into things. A jetliner on a kamakaze course could soak up twenty Stingers and not be diverted, so they had to go back and get a medium weight missile that could cause even a airliner to break up with one or two hits.

Now they are acqiring HUMRAAM units- AIM-120's mounted in racks on the back of a Humvee.

www.raytheon.com/newsroom/photogal/photos/humraam_h.jpg



Thanks for the info, but I was just pointing out to GarethB that the USAF used Rapier in Europe.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 7:11:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
That's forward thinking. Submarines that can employ anti-aircraft weaponry.

It's about time. We've been using aircraft in anti-submarine roles forever.

That makes me wonder...do we have any torpedos in the inventory that are capable of being
delivered by any aircraft in the active inventory? Torpedo bombers are old stuff, but do we have any now?


CJ



I'm actually reading about the first ones in my technology and warfare course. Very interesting. The first ones air-droppable were actually JDAM like strap on kits (just gyroscopes really) for existin torpedoes.



The Mk24/27 "Fido" was a whole new torpedo.
Its 19" diameter was a all new size for the USN.

Its original 10ft length was also new. And it had the first accoustic homing system, it was also the first electric-powered US torpedo, which limited its speed to 12 knots, though at the time it appeared in August 1943 that was twice the speed of any German or Japanese sub. They were carried by Avengers and Liberator/Privateers, and from early 1944 on were paired with the "Jezebel" the first sonoboy, eight of which were carried by a Avenger under wing on racks usually used for 5" rockets.

Fido was, in fact, the worlds first autonomous homing projectile- the German guided missiles of WWII were all either radio command guided or wire guided. None were self homing, and the wake homing version of the G7 torpedo appeared only in 1944- after Fido.

Fido was actually issued at the time under the cover name "Anti-Submarine MINE Mk 24" and its existance was not widely known untill the 1990's as it was listed Top Secret.

Its not like airmen who had dropped them stayed quiet for 50 years, but since it never appeared in official histories, there was no primary source record for historians, so it was just rumor. "Old war stories" and such.

In the spring of 1944 the Mk27 'Fido' appeared, it was lengthened by 2 feet to house a larger battery and its speed was increased to 14knots, with a reduction in range. It then became standard equpment in the stern tubes of US fleet subs. Most subs had only room for one reload of the standard 21"/21' size for each stern tube, but TWO Mk27's could be carried instead.

Their purpose was to be shot at Japanese DD's and other ASW escorts.

Since the standard ASW weapon of the time was the depth charge, ASW vessels had to pass over (or very nearly so even with K-guns) a sub. They would literally impale themselves on the Mk27s fired out the rear tubes as they charged down on the sub to drop its pattern The Mk 27, which could "swim out" due to its undersized diameter without the need for compressed air ejection and had a very silent electric motor could not be heard by the DD/DDE as it was launched AND could be discharged all the way down to the subs maximum operating depth, which the heavyweight torpedos could not be due to the amount of air needed to overcome the water pressure. Although it still had only the small 100pound TORPEX warhead of the Mk24, and usually could not sink a DD, it would usually give them something more important to think about than completing a depth charge attack.

Mk27's with retuned seekers later became the USNs first sub to sub ASW torpedo, though their effectivness was limited against the new Russian subs based on the German Type XXI design, which could out run them by six to eight knots. When the first purpose built ASW torpedo was brought out in the 1950s, the Mk 37, it kept the Mk27's undersized dimensions.

Link Posted: 2/6/2006 8:23:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcantu:
An AMRAAM would be a waste. The sub would only be concerned about ASW aircraft and helos that were close enought to be a threat. A ground/sea launched AIM-9X should still have a range of a few miles...more than enough.

Manic_Moran, youre right, various Russian subs have had SAMs mounted for a number of years now



+1

Poppin' a May or some similar AC doing a mad run is about all that's required. It's not like the subs gonna come up trying to knock down vampires headed for the carrier or anything...
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 9:13:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Imagine a B-1, 2, or 52 deploying a FLOCK of Mk. 48 ADCAPs (modified for aerial drop and autonomous operation) at an enemy shipping convoy.

It'd be noteworthy.

CJ



Slight problem #1. Unless the ships are lightly defended, an aircraft carrying a heavy torp like a Mk 48 would have to get will inside SAM range in order for the torp to reach the ship.

Slight problem #2. Mk 48's are big buggers, 19 feet long, over 3600 lb in weight. Putting one into the water in a way that it won't break apart when it hits the water isn't going to be so simple (have a look at Barnes Wallis and the problems he faced developing his bouncing "dam buster" bombs in WW2). As a comparison, a Mk 46 is just over 8 feet long and 570 lbs, a Mk 50 is 9'4" long and 750 lbs.

Pushing a Mk 48 out of a torpedo tube at a few dozen knots is not the same as dropping one into the water from a plane doing a couple of hundred knots. I suppose it could be done if you strengthened the casings to withstand the impact forces, but you'd have to give up something else to keep it the same size (eg fuel space inside the torp, which means less range, which means you have to get closer to drop it), or make it bigger, and heavier, which complicates the issue of casing strength vs water entry impact. The release altitude is going to be very critical as well.

If a ship is undefended enough that an aircraft big enough to carry a Mk-48 can get close enough to it is feasible, then there are already other weapons already in service that could be used instead.

Ob-trivia: The Harpoon anti-ship missile was originally developed as an anti-submarine missile. The short version is that early Soviet missile subs had to surface and prepare their missiles before they could actually be fired. This preperation could take up to 15 minutes. A patrolling anti-sub aircraft could catch a surfaced sub part way through prepping the missiles for launch, but there was no guarrantee that a light airdropped anti-sub torp of that time would successfully lock onto a surfaced sub, so a missile was developed that could lock onto a surfaced sub. If it could lock onto a surfaced sub, it could also lock onto a ship. We now call that missile "Harpoon".
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top