What are HARPOON missiles good for?

[Dysta]

Either combined arms, or oversaturation, numerous solutions can be used and hardly can tell them all in few paragraphs.

Or, I am still waiting for the savefile to see the actual situation. I hope Meiktila make few more posts so he can upload it sooner.

[Meiktila]

Thanks for all your great replies - you have given me lots of ideas for future attempts at taking down a SAG.

Unfortunately I don't have a save file - I wasn't really thinking of it in that way. But it was a strong missile heavy mid 90s Soviet SAG and I was probably lucky that even one Harpoon got through (64 fired from 8 B-52s).

I really like this idea of OECM plus HARM in combo with Harpoons. Co-ordination and timing does seem to be the huge issue.

[Excroat3]

ORIGINAL: Meiktila

Thanks for all your great replies - you have given me lots of ideas for future attempts at taking down a SAG.

Unfortunately I don't have a save file - I wasn't really thinking of it in that way. But it was a strong missile heavy mid 90s Soviet SAG and I was probably lucky that even one Harpoon got through (64 fired from 8 B-52s).

I really like this idea of OECM plus HARM in combo with Harpoons. Co-ordination and timing does seem to be the huge issue.

Can you give us the scenario name? Sort of sounds like my scenario: The Seventh Battle, 1992

[Meiktila]

Ha - yes indeed it was. I thought those Harpoons were going to be my ace up the sleeve, but bombed it (pun). Great fun playing it btw, thanks.

[SheperdN7]

I've only played this game for about an hour (recently bought it off of steam) but I played the OLD Harpoon games (yes the pen and paper one's) as a kid and remember my dad always telling me that harpoons were useless against modern warships with high defence systems, incredible against older ships and merchants. Harpoons have pretty high accuracy ratings and I guess that is the trade-off for its lower damage properties. Its all about philosophy, would you rather a weapon that only hits 30% of the time but does massive damage (shipwrecks) or would you rather have a missile that hits 85% of the time but does low-medium damage (harpoons).

[StellarRat]

The rail gun is the new ASM. Cheap to use, hard to defend against, good range. Of course, it can't be carried by smaller ships or subs, but it's going to be a game changer in surface warfare.

[SheperdN7]

The rail gun is the new ASM. Cheap to use, hard to defend against, good range. Of course, it can't be carried by smaller ships or subs, but it's going to be a game changer in surface warfare.

+1

[Rory Noonan]

Getting a bit OT but what kind of range would we expect a rail gun to engage at?

[StellarRat]

ORIGINAL: apache85

Getting a bit OT but what kind of range would we expect a rail gun to engage at?

I've read up to 100 miles. They will have seeker rounds, but are such high velocity that no explosive is used. Additionally, supposedly, they can target incoming missiles and AC at shorter ranges.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: StellarRat

ORIGINAL: apache85

Getting a bit OT but what kind of range would we expect a rail gun to engage at?

I've read up to 100 miles. They will have seeker rounds, but are such high velocity that no explosive is used. Additionally, supposedly, they can target incoming missiles and AC at shorter ranges.

We are looking at this soon.If you guys can find some stats somewhere we'll try and get them in there.

Mike

[DrRansom]

Off the top of my head, a principle railgun stat will be the number of shots per capacitor recharge. From what I have seen, it looks like a railgun will be able to do a burst fire-mission, before needing time to recharge capacitors.

The user will select energy per shot and that determines the number of shots per fire mission.

That would almost require modeling the generic power demand of a warship. That will be a more difficult modeling task, but probably needed for more advanced DEW modeling?

[ultradave]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: StellarRat

ORIGINAL: apache85

Getting a bit OT but what kind of range would we expect a rail gun to engage at?

I've read up to 100 miles. They will have seeker rounds, but are such high velocity that no explosive is used. Additionally, supposedly, they can target incoming missiles and AC at shorter ranges.

We are looking at this soon.If you guys can find some stats somewhere we'll try and get them in there.

Mike

Drool

Oh, uh, pardon me.

[StellarRat]

I'm afraid my knowledge is limited to what's been on the web and seems reasonable. If I knew a lot I'd probably be in trouble!

The Wikipedia has some good general information including the mathematical formulas for some of the basics (in case you want to build one in your garage.) Search for "railgun". There is a section on US Navy tests, etc..

I did read that rounds will probably achieve 8300 feet per second at the muzzle and 64 mega joules of muzzle energy (for comparison a 16" shell from old New Jersey class BB has about 360 mega joules and the Harpoon inflicts 3000 mega joules.) The rounds are only $25K vs. millions for a missile. They'll probably have a lot more ammo was well since they are tiny compared to missiles.

I'm speculating that it will obviously be VERY difficult to defend against a projectile going over 5000 mph (maybe lasers??), so even though the damage is much less, the chance to hit is going to be much higher. Probably the only thing the target can do is try to jam the guidance or target acquisition systems.

I also know from other reading that older ships don't have the power generating capacity to use these next generation weapons (railguns and lasers.) The new designs are putting massive power generation capabilities into the requirements. So, it seems we're entering the world of Star Trek, where the phase, "I canna Captain. We don't have the power!" is literally becoming a reality.

[AlphaSierra]

Agreed on Air Launched ASM's

People need to remember the Harpoon was air launched years before a surface launch happened.

Give me a slippery S3 with a couple of Harpoons and watch a Kirov go under

IMO one of the deadliest combos out there today is the P-8 with some slammers it just not fair.

[Wiz33]

Well, I always felt that the Harpoon missile have been underrated since Harpoon the game (but that's ok since you get unlimited reloads for your carrier planes). If you look at the soviet ship built toward the end of the cold war era like the Kirov, Sovremenny, Udaloy and Slava and see how many CIWS and short range SAM they carry. You'll see that they consider the Harpoon a Huge threat. The thing is, there are sea skimmers and then there are seas skimmers. Anything that flys between 5-50 meter above sea level is considered a sea skimmer and but the lower they fly the harder it is to intercept and the harpoon is probably the lowest flying of all the sea skimmers. It doesn't help that none of the Soviet heavy SAM can even engage that low (SA-N-6 have a hard low ceiling of 10 meters) SA-N-7 can probably engage but at a highly degraded hit probability. Which leave them with basically Gun or light missile based CIWS like the AK-630 and SA-N-4/9. Basically, you get under 2 minutes of reaction time from when the missile pop over the radar horizon (depending on sea state). I have a friend that used to fly B-52Gs out of Loring at the time and their estimate is that a flight of 4 Gs with 12 Harpoons each or 6 Gs with 8 each (depending on range) will achieve a mission kill on any soviet SAG including one with a Kirov with or without HARM support.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Wiz33
Well, I always felt that the Harpoon missile have been underrated since Harpoon the game (but that's ok since you get unlimited reloads for your carrier planes). If you look at the soviet ship built toward the end of the cold war era like the Kirov, Sovremenny, Udaloy and Slava and see how many CIWS and short range SAM they carry. You'll see that they consider the Harpoon a Huge threat. The thing is, there are sea skimmers and then there are seas skimmers. Anything that flys between 5-50 meter above sea level is considered a sea skimmer and but the lower they fly the harder it is to intercept and the harpoon is probably the lowest flying of all the sea skimmers. It doesn't help that none of the Soviet heavy SAM can even engage that low (SA-N-6 have a hard low ceiling of 10 meters) SA-N-7 can probably engage but at a highly degraded hit probability. Which leave them with basically Gun or light missile based CIWS like the AK-630 and SA-N-4/9. Basically, you get under 2 minutes of reaction time from when the missile pop over the radar horizon (depending on sea state). I have a friend that used to fly B-52Gs out of Loring at the time and their estimate is that a flight of 4 Gs with 12 Harpoons each or 6 Gs with 8 each (depending on range) will achieve a mission kill on any soviet SAG including one with a Kirov with or without HARM support.

If you think we are modelling anything specific wrong, show us. Thanks.

[Wiz33]

One thing that have never been validated is that HARM can be intercepted by a SAM. The thing is the size of an AMRAAM although it flys are 1/2 the speed. but just try to imagine hitting an early AIM-7 with a missile. When I asked if a HARM can be intercepted. My friends in the Air Force just laugh in my face.

[temkc5]

This happened in one of the world wars so....
it's possible but maybe we should turn up the randomness of SAM's

[Wiz33]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: Wiz33
Well, I always felt that the Harpoon missile have been underrated since Harpoon the game (but that's ok since you get unlimited reloads for your carrier planes). If you look at the soviet ship built toward the end of the cold war era like the Kirov, Sovremenny, Udaloy and Slava and see how many CIWS and short range SAM they carry. You'll see that they consider the Harpoon a Huge threat. The thing is, there are sea skimmers and then there are seas skimmers. Anything that flys between 5-50 meter above sea level is considered a sea skimmer and but the lower they fly the harder it is to intercept and the harpoon is probably the lowest flying of all the sea skimmers. It doesn't help that none of the Soviet heavy SAM can even engage that low (SA-N-6 have a hard low ceiling of 10 meters) SA-N-7 can probably engage but at a highly degraded hit probability. Which leave them with basically Gun or light missile based CIWS like the AK-630 and SA-N-4/9. Basically, you get under 2 minutes of reaction time from when the missile pop over the radar horizon (depending on sea state). I have a friend that used to fly B-52Gs out of Loring at the time and their estimate is that a flight of 4 Gs with 12 Harpoons each or 6 Gs with 8 each (depending on range) will achieve a mission kill on any soviet SAG including one with a Kirov with or without HARM support.

If you think we are modelling anything specific wrong, show us. Thanks.

While I used to have an hand in a lot of Naval sims from the 80s to 90s. SSI, EA, 360, Sim Can. I have not really been active in the community since the genre died (soon after EA dropped the the Jane's line). Although I still picked up pretty much all the modern military sims and try to at least keep an casual eye all all the new platforms since then. If the scenario that the OP was playing happens in 92 as someone thought. Then there is something wrong.

There are also quite a few things that wasn't taken into accounts in sims of that era. The main thing is the man in the loop time. Providing that the launch platform was not detected and the first sign of an attack is when the missiles pop over the radar horizon. How much time passes before the first radar contact to when the defensive fire begins. In most sims, it's almost instant but what happens in real life? Also unknown (since it's mostly classified) is the kind of terminal evasive maneuver and their effectiveness.

All I can say is that from non-classified conversation with active and retire service personnel back then. They believe that the Harpoon is highly effective in penetrating the defensive parameter of a typical Soviet SAG with the number I described. I was also told that they estimated the number of hits to achieve a mission kill is about 4 on a Kirov, Kiev, 2 on any cruiser size and 1 on any destroyer size target. The target may still be afloat but won't be combat effective until it reach port and get repaired.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Wiz33
One thing that have never been validated is that HARM can be intercepted by a SAM. The thing is the size of an AMRAAM although it flys are 1/2 the speed. but just try to imagine hitting an early AIM-7 with a missile. When I asked if a HARM can be intercepted. My friends in the Air Force just laugh in my face.

I can't speak about HARM specifically, but one of the explicit design goals of the S-300V was to intercept the SRAM missile at long range, a weapon with IIRC comparable/smaller signature than the HARM and even faster. From SA-10/11/12/15 onwards everything that the Russians (and now the Chinese too) churn out is explicitly designed to engage such targets. There is a reason everyone wants direct Prowler/Growler support on an op.