Military Review

Sir, we would like to get back our "Harpoons"

74
Sir, we would like to get back our "Harpoons"



In the naval forces of the United States of America, there have long been disputes between aviators (serving on aircraft carriers), submariners and sailors (serving on surface ships). The reason for one of them is the best way to destroy enemy ships. As far back as the 1990s, there was a kind of agreement between nuclear submarines and carrier-based carrier aircraft, on which US warships no longer needed long-range anti-ship (over-horizon) missiles. Thus, in the late 1990s, the United States stopped building warships capable of firing Harpoon American long-range anti-ship missiles and even seized the Harpoons that were already deployed on some ships. To a large extent, the reason for this was that so many equipment was installed on the new ships that two launchers with Harpoons (each with four missiles) could simply be dismantled to avoid weight problems. Every year, as old ships are decommissioned in the American navy there are fewer ships capable of sinking an enemy ship at a great distance. By the beginning of the 2030s, there would be no such thing at all.



At the same time, more and more Chinese, North Korean, Russian and Iranian warships are adopting long-range missiles. More and more American naval officers want to have an encapsulated version of the “Harpoon” missile launched from a vertical launcher, unified for all missiles on American warships. The one that already exists and is successfully exported.

However, at the moment, the naval authorities do not consider this situation as a problem and notes that it is working on the creation of a new long-range anti-ship missile for surface ships, which should be ready in 10-15 years. Meanwhile, the ships are armed with some anti-aircraft missiles capable of hitting enemy ships, but only those that can be detected using radar (up to about 28 kilometers). This is sufficient for coastal operations and in the event of a threat of a big war (for example, with China), some American ships may be equipped with encapsulated "Harpoons" for several months.



The Harpoon anti-ship missile weighs 546 kg (including the 222 kg warhead) and has a launch range of 220 kilometers. She flies to her target at low altitude at a speed of about 860 kilometers per hour. The GPS guidance system leads the missile to the target, and then the radar identifies the target, and the missile hits it. "Harpoon" has a successful combat experience in the past two decades. It can be launched from surface ships, aircraft, submarines and ground launchers.
Originator:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20130401.aspx
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kostyan77708
    kostyan77708 April 4 2013 09: 17
    21
    our PCRs will be steeper however)))
    1. Samuray
      Samuray April 4 2013 11: 00
      12 th
      Yes you are right! Everything Russian is cool and the rest is so rubbish laughing
      1. Dinver
        Dinver April 4 2013 12: 26
        +8
        For rocket technology, we have left the United States for 30 years in advance, and even the Americans themselves admit it.
        1. Sirocco
          Sirocco April 4 2013 13: 27
          +3
          In addition, it is the USSR that is the founder of cruise missiles. The USA is, as always, outsiders in this, nervously smoking on the sidelines. But you should not underestimate them, so that there would be no surprises in the future. Here is an interesting link about the defeat of our "Monsoon" by our own training missile http://topwar.ru/18636-divizion-plohoy-pogody-raketnye-korvety-vmf-ssssr.html
          1. Professor
            April 4 2013 13: 42
            -9
            In addition, the USSR is the founder of cruise missiles.

            Dear, learn the materiel.
            1. Sirocco
              Sirocco April 4 2013 14: 17
              +3
              Quote: Professor
              Dear, learn the materiel.

              Oh yes, I forgot, This prerogative belongs to Israel laughing Type in a search engine (Cruise missiles - Russia's national weapon) read, and study this topic in more detail hi
              1. Professor
                April 4 2013 14: 25
                +6
                In addition, the USSR is the founder of cruise missiles.

                Once again, learn about Lawrence Sperry and Sergey Korolev and V-1.


                PS
                Do not cope on your own - I'll arrange an educational program. wink
                1. Alexander Romanov
                  Alexander Romanov April 4 2013 14: 36
                  +6
                  Quote: Professor
                  Do not cope on your own - I'll arrange an educational program

                  Professor SHALOM hi
                  Spent half a day thinking about you, looking for a replacement for your Avatar in a more modern manner. Put a photo and do not think about good, your rating on the site will skyrocket wink
                  1. Professor
                    April 4 2013 14: 42
                    -1
                    good
                    Not a single rating ...




                    1. I think so
                      I think so April 4 2013 15: 16
                      +6
                      What are the cartoons about this Jew doing physics for a hundred years at a standstill?
                      1. Professor
                        April 4 2013 15: 21
                        +2
                        Annoy the ignorant. wassat
                2. Sirocco
                  Sirocco April 4 2013 14: 42
                  +3
                  We are apparently talking about different things. I’m talking about post-war rocket science. And by the way, you understand ours, that is, ours))) At about the same time, we began to deal with this topic with the Germans. And how the development of this direction appeared Katyusha. it can be called a missile, a missile projectile, and so on as you wish.But once again I emphasize that in the post-war period, it was the USSR that was the parent of cruise missiles, namely it began from the sea direction. So get yourself an educational program. hi
                  1. Professor
                    April 4 2013 15: 01
                    -3
                    And how the development of this direction appeared Katyusha.

                    Is Katyusha a cruise missile? laughing

                    But once again I emphasize that in the post-war period, it was the USSR that was the parent of cruise missiles, namely it began from the sea direction.

                    Want to post-war? You are welcome.
                    WINGED ROCKETS: HISTORY OF LEADERSHIP: RUSSIA'S ARMS
                    Regulus (Mace / Matador), Northrop SM-62 Snark, Tomahawk, Boeing AGM-86 CALCM, AGM-158 JASSM

                    You would immediately mention ATGM and then no problems would arise. wink
                    1. 11Goor11
                      11Goor11 April 4 2013 18: 15
                      +3
                      Professor
                      You would immediately mention ATGM and then no problems would arise.

                      Not only anti-tank systems,
                      On October 21, 1967, the Israeli destroyer Eilat, with a displacement of 1710 tons, was hit by P-15 missiles fired from the Egyptian Komar-class missile boats docked in Port Said. This was the first time anti-ship missiles were used in combat, although the sides' versions differed.

                      http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/p15/p15.shtml

                      Of course it was an "Egyptian" rocket.
                      Irony of fate: after all, your parents were then Soviet citizens, and it was quite likely that they could at least somehow be connected with the production of these missiles?
                      1. Professor
                        April 4 2013 19: 35
                        +4
                        This was the first combat use of anti-ship missiles, although the versions of the parties were different.

                        You are not much late, I have already explained this case below. By the way, the versions as far as I know did not differ much. The Egyptians fucked the cruiser, the Israelites overslept. Talking about this incident, the USSR military academy claimed that the Israelis even tried to bring down a missile from an artillery mount, and then told tales of how the Tsakhal helicopters imitated warships and confused Arab Navy.

                        PS
                        My parents faithfully served in the armed forces of the USSR. soldier
                      2. vanya
                        vanya April 4 2013 20: 58
                        -1
                        you dishonored your parents
                      3. Professor
                        April 4 2013 21: 02
                        +3
                        It’s not up to you to judge this young man.
                        I also served there in the army without swinging. That would be so.
                      4. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 April 5 2013 04: 34
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        It’s not up to you to judge this young man.
                        I also served there in the army without swinging. That would be so.

                        Professor hi It is unlikely that you and your parents, even after serving, have left your homeland at the peak of its power and economic well-being. What? the call of blood woke up when the sausage smelled which then in the USSR was not? Well, and how does it smell in the 30 degree heat?
                      5. Professor
                        April 5 2013 10: 26
                        +7
                        My parents are still there, so take it easy and don't get into your own business. Each free person decides where and how to live.

                        Themselves in which regiment served? wink
        2. dmitrich
          dmitrich April 5 2013 07: 00
          0
          Sperry's Flying Bomb (also known as the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Aircraft) is an unmanned aerial projectile designed by order of the US Navy during the First World War. Intended for launching from warships on areal coastal facilities (ports and coastal cities) at a distance of up to 80 km. From 1917 to 1922 a series of tests were carried out, but due to numerous failures the program was closed. This does not mean that they were the founders.
        3. klop_mutant
          klop_mutant April 5 2013 22: 47
          0
          For some reason, the world's first cruise missile is called the German V-1, flying in 1942, while the Soviet 212 cruise missile flew in 1939. Miracles ...
          1. Professor
            April 5 2013 22: 54
            0
            For some reason, the world's first cruise missile is called the German V-1, flying in 1942, while the Soviet 212 cruise missile flew in 1939. Miracles ...

            First in the world combat cruise missile ...
        4. alex86
          alex86 April 7 2013 22: 26
          +1
          Professor, and you took pictures of V-1 yourself - I have it from the same point (well, a little higher, you can’t see the stairs outside the window), and there V-2 stands - a floor below ...
          And, by the way, according to the V-1 scheme, we still make targets in Kazan, including with PuVRD - and nothing - fly ...
          1. Professor
            April 7 2013 22: 39
            +1
            This is not, but exactly the same is mine. There he also made a bunch of pictures at the exhibition, special tools in the square in front of the museum.
            1. alex86
              alex86 April 7 2013 22: 50
              +1
              I have the same heap, but more and more inside - at that time there was nothing outside ... Thanks for the translations.
      2. Waterfall
        Waterfall April 4 2013 14: 31
        -2
        Read about "Regulus" better.
    2. dmitrich
      dmitrich April 5 2013 06: 33
      0
      Flight design tests of the Storm rocket began at the end of July 1957 at the Air Force training ground - Vladimirovka, and already on September 1 of the same year, the first Storm missile launcher left the launch line.
    3. dmitrich
      dmitrich April 5 2013 06: 52
      0
      and you pay close attention to her mind that she’s a short-range Sperry bomb (also known as Sperry “Flying Bomb” - also known as the “Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Aircraft”) - an unmanned projectile designed by order of the US Navy during the First World War. Intended for launching from warships on areal coastal facilities (ports and coastal cities) at a distance of up to 80 km. From 1917 to 1922 a number of tests were carried out, but due to numerous failures the program was closed, this does not mean that they were the founders.
      1. Professor
        April 5 2013 10: 28
        +4
        Firstly, we did not switch to "you",
        Secondly, your materiel in the field of winged missiles is not good.
  2. Ascetic
    Ascetic April 4 2013 21: 50
    +6
    In general, historically, this topic was initially dealt with by Chelomey on the basis of the FAU-1 and Bereznyak from the KS (cruise missile) and on the FAU-2 rocket. OKB = 2, although initially it was engaged in the "486" fighter-interceptor, then they were transferred from Dubna to Novosibirsk. Dubna is creating branch of Mikoyanovsky OKB-155, who is entrusted with the refinement and further modernization of the cruise missile CS. Since that time, under the leadership of Bereznyak, the energetic development of a completely new direction in aviation technology has begun - rocket science. It was the work on the creation of the KS, KSS, KS-7 cruise missiles that brought the first fame in the aviation world to Alexander Bereznyak and his team. OKB-52 Chelomeya later became NPO Mashinostroeniya, and OKB-155 in April 1966 received the name Machine-Building Design Bureau Raduga. By the way, it was the Bereznyak OKB-155 that created the P-15 SLCM, known from the history of its use on October 21, 1967.
    About Chelomei and V-1 it is written even in Pedevikiya. but there is not a word about Bereznyak, although all of his developments are awarded with state prizes.
    The pace of work was amazing for today:
    1967 transfer to serial production of Kh-22MP missiles;
    1968 transfer to serial production of X-22M missiles. Start of development of the X-58E supersonic anti-radar missile, currently in service
    1969 transfer to serial production of KSR-5 missiles;
    1970 transfer to serial production of P-15M and P-15MT missiles;
    1971 transfer to serial production of the Kh-22MA, Kh-28, K-10SDV missiles, the Metel complex. The beginning of the development of the KSR-5NM complex;
    1973 the beginning of the development of the Gadfly missile weapon system. Transfer to serial production of KSR-5P missiles. The beginning of the development of the Moskit complex;
    1974 the beginning of the development of X-15 missiles of several modifications at once and the Rastrub complex.
    This is how the guys from "Rainbow" worked, they baked KR like pies good
  • Good Ukraine
    Good Ukraine April 4 2013 19: 53
    +7
    laughing
    Quote: Samuray
    Yes you are right! Everything Russian is cool and the rest is so rubbish

    Of course not.
    There is the best American F-117 in the world, which was invisible to the Americans, although it was shot down by the old Soviet air defense system, and now it is the most invisible because it is not flying at all.
    There is also the F-35, which can be proudly called "the most expensive flightless aircraft."
    But then all the little things - tanks, helicopters, assault rifles.
    Yes - the most cowardly American dogs - oh soldiers. laughing
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 April 5 2013 04: 41
      +5
      Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
      Yes - the most cowardly American dogs - oh soldiers.

      You would be careful! I myself hate that America that exists now, but throw a stone at the guys who volunteered to join the army to crush Nazism and die in Europe so that it never happens again I won’t raise a hand request Not everything is how it looks! keep that in mind hi
      1. Good Ukraine
        Good Ukraine April 5 2013 15: 54
        +5
        hi
        Quote: Ruslan67
        throw a stone at the guys who volunteered to join the army to crush Nazism and die in Europe so that it never happens again I won’t raise a hand


        I meant those who, under cover of the night, bombed the civilian population of Iraq and Serbia on "nividimkas". Those who bombarded various countries with "Tamaghawks" from a distance inaccessible for a retaliatory strike.

        And those who defended the world from fascism, then bow low to them. Be it Russians, Ukrainians, Jews, Americans, or even Germans themselves.

        Just for some reason, recently, many young people (even in Russia) believe that it was the American brave Gais who brought the world to the Second World War. And my grandfather turns out to be somewhere and died somewhere else.
  • Old_kapitan
    Old_kapitan April 4 2013 09: 19
    +3
    and long-range aircraft of American aircraft carriers,

    Tse sho for nonsense? request What is the long-range aviation on aircraft carriers? : fool
    1. Professor
      April 4 2013 09: 27
      19
      Long-range aviation in your concept is Tu-160, and in their F-18. Tu-160 they have strategic aviation.
      long range aircraft of american carriers
  • Stiletto
    Stiletto April 4 2013 09: 21
    20
    "Sir, we would like to have our Harpoons back.


    ... You will definitely get it. True, they will be called "Onyxes", but will it really matter to you at the moment when they come back to you ?! ))))
  • FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX April 4 2013 09: 30
    11
    Sir, we would like to get back our "Harpoons"
    Okay, dictate the coordinates, launch in a minute, in place will be in three.
  • avt
    avt April 4 2013 09: 31
    +9
    Quote: Stiletto
    Be sure to get it. True, they will be called "Onyxes", but will it really matter to you at the moment when they come back to you ?! ))))

    good laughing Sorry mister, there are no harpoons, catch Caliber and Onyx in addition laughing
    1. T-130
      T-130 April 4 2013 14: 19
      +2
      It seems to me that they will catch Chinese missiles!
    2. nakaz
      nakaz April 4 2013 14: 20
      +1
      There are no harpoons, only Basalt. Catch, sir.
  • omsbon
    omsbon April 4 2013 10: 32
    +4
    An increasing number of US naval officers are seeking an encapsulated version of the Harpoon missile launched from a vertical launcher that carries all the missiles on US warships. One that already exists and is successfully exported.

    I want to give advice to American officers, "do not go to sea, it’s dangerous there!"
  • GELEZNII_KAPUT
    GELEZNII_KAPUT April 4 2013 10: 54
    +2
    And if GPS is cut off? belay
    1. rolik
      rolik April 4 2013 11: 53
      0
      [quote = GELEZNII_KAPUT] And if GPS is cut off? [/ qu
      One expression that is familiar to everyone can be brought to this.
      - And your America will soon kirdyk
      So for mattresses, kirdyk will be in every sense
  • Vrungel78
    Vrungel78 April 4 2013 11: 01
    0
    Sir, we would like to get back our "Harpoons"
    Do not be discouraged, imperialist citizens. We have good analogues, catch. What are you silent? Caught what? laughing
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 4 2013 11: 45
    +2
    In general, Americans are certainly right. Having anti-ship weapons on escort ships is a must. For all the power of carrier-based aviation, there are situations where the use of light anti-ship missiles, such as harpoon, is much more appropriate than the lifting of decks
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe April 4 2013 11: 57
    +2
    In the United States Navy, disputes have long been raging between aviators (serving on aircraft carriers), submariners and sailors (serving on surface ships). The reason for one of them is the best way to destroy enemy ships.

    First place - nuclear submarine
    Second place - basic aviation


    Argentine cruiser General Belgrano sunk by British nuclear submarine Conquerror (May 1, 1982)



    The frigate HMS Antilope, destroyed by bombs of the Argentine attack aircraft A-4 "Skyhawk" from the Rio Grande airbase, is sinking



    The destroyer HMS Sheffield is on fire; destroyed anti-ship missiles "Exocet", released by "Super-Etandar" of the Argentine Air Force


    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 4 2013 16: 48
      0
      There is no DECK aviation on your list, which should come first ... but knowing your contempt for it, I understand why it is not ...
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 4 2013 20: 02
        +2
        Quote: Nayhas
        there is no DECK aviation, which should be in the first place

        should not))
        Over the past half century, carrier-based aircraft have no other victories than the Iranian corvette Sahand.

        in terms of tonnage and number of sunken ships, the basic aviation is confidently leading

        American frigate "Stark". Heavily damaged by the Iraqi Mirage F1 aircraft, the ship was hit by two Exocet anti-ship missiles, 37 dead crew members
  • USNik
    USNik April 4 2013 12: 42
    0
    In the United States Navy there has long been a debate between aviators ... submariners and sailors ... The reason for one of them is the best way to destroy enemy ships.

    The boys did everything right! RCC removed and did not buy f-35b. Well done, keep it up! laughing
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas April 4 2013 13: 30
    +2
    The author of the article is clearly disingenuous. Yes, Harpoons are either completely removed or left in place of 2x4 containers, 2x2, both on the Ticonderoga missile launcher and on the Arleigh Burke EM series 1 and 2. However, there is no complete abandonment of Harpoon, the installation of containers with missiles is not difficult, you can put, but you can remove. At Arleigh Burke 2A EM URO, there really are no Harpoons, but there are two MH-60R helicopters with a radar on board and a Penguin anti-ship missile. In principle, aviation is, of course, much more gorgeous, it has the ability to find a surface target much higher than that of a ship, so if it blows the first one, it will obviously win in this dispute.
    1. T-130
      T-130 April 4 2013 14: 25
      +2
      A missile is not needed for detection, but for destroying a target, given the development of missile defense of ships, 1-2 missiles have a minimal chance to break through and strike a ship!
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 4 2013 16: 47
        +1
        The missile is needed not for detection, but for destroying the target. Thank you CEP, enlightened ... Read carefully the article, it indicates the dispute about the priority in anti-ship capabilities between submarines, surface ships and naval aviation. I indicated that priority was given to aviation since she has more opportunity to detect BEFORE the enemy.
        PS: Of course, you are not in the know, but in order for a missile to hit a target, it must first be detected ...
  • ra1647
    ra1647 April 4 2013 14: 42
    +1
    Is it interesting that with our missiles even one ship was sunk a large ship?
    1. Professor
      April 4 2013 15: 02
      0
      Of course sank - the cruiser Eilat was the first sunken missile ship.
      1. cyberspace
        cyberspace April 4 2013 16: 55
        +1
        A destroyer of 2600 tons full displacement for you cruiser?
        1. Professor
          April 4 2013 19: 38
          +2
          Let there be a destroyer (displacement of 1710 tons), this does not change. Arabs drowned him and subsequent conflicts at sea lost in the dry.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN April 4 2013 16: 03
    +2
    A little poor article :(
  • postman
    postman April 4 2013 16: 40
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    GPS guidance system leads the missile to the target,

    ?
    block 1C (introduced in 1985) = inertial guidance system
    1G unit, with GPS positioning, not bought US Navy
    block 1J = approved for export (without GPS)
    block II = GPS and inertial guidance system
    AGM / RGM / UGM-84 Harpoon
    - RBL (Range and Bearing Launch - start on bearing and range) is used if there is information about the exact location of the target and involves the inclusion of an active radar homing head (AN / DSQ-28 J-radar) only at the final section of the flight when aiming at the target, which reduces the possibility of missile detection by air defense systems, and also reduces the risk of being deceived by enemy electronic warfare.
    - BOL (Bearing Only Launch) is used when the exact position of the target is unknown. In this method, the rocket is launched in the direction of the intended target location, and the homing head is activated at the beginning of the flight, looking at a 90-degree sector to detect the target ship; if the target is not detected, a missile self-destruction command passes.
  • sergey261180
    sergey261180 April 4 2013 18: 36
    0
    And the tomahawks, aren't RCC anymore? They will be twice as powerful as harpoons.
  • Simple
    Simple April 4 2013 19: 35
    +3
    Quote: Old_Kapitan
    and long-range aircraft of American aircraft carriers,

    Tse sho for nonsense? request What is the long-range aviation on aircraft carriers? : fool



    Not a fatoshop. smile
    1. Professor
      April 4 2013 19: 44
      +6
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 4 2013 20: 12
        +4
        Quote: Professor
        This is not a photoshop:
        C-130 Hercules Lands on USS Forrestal

        Focus with Hercules is a warm-up (he has excellent thrust-weight ratio, maneuverability, and the stall speed is lower than that of carrier-based fighters)

        even the clumsy U-66 managed to land on the deck of USS America (CV-2)!
        1. postman
          postman April 9 2013 02: 24
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          even the clumsy U-66 managed to land on the deck of USS America (CV-2)!

          By the way, who played the role of the guidance machine (Corvette on deck or front-end loader?)
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm April 4 2013 21: 07
        0
        [
        Quote: Professor

        This is not a photoshop:

        Video of this moment
  • Simple
    Simple April 4 2013 20: 01
    +3
    [quote = professor] This is not a photoshop:




  • Ilyukha
    Ilyukha April 4 2013 20: 40
    +1
    Just the same catastrophic picture was drawn by the author))
    It is not necessary to carry the most complicated equipment across the seas unnecessarily, it deteriorates from this. One "Harpoon" costs over a million dollars, so it will calmly lie in the warehouse.
    Put the installation on the deck, connect the wiring - this takes very little time, no problem.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop April 7 2013 00: 29
      +2
      Put the installation on the deck, connect the wiring - this takes very little time, no problem.
      There was such a famous ship at one time. "Gustav Vasa" was called. He looked very nice on the stocks. And then they launched him into the water ... Before you put the installation on the deck, you will have to dismantle the hell out of it (in order to avoid the same consequences)
  • Alexey M
    Alexey M April 4 2013 22: 19
    0
    We can’t but rejoice at the jambs of the probable enemy. Let the harpoons and tomahawks continue to be removed, which they still have there.
  • Veteran
    Veteran April 5 2013 01: 23
    +5
    Quote: sergey261180
    And the tomahawks, aren't RCC anymore?

    Tomahawks are strategic KR, their goals are ground targets. Their Russian counterparts are the 3M10 Grenade and the 3M-14 rocket of the Caliber complex. Ship Harpoon's analogs are the 3M-24 missiles of the Uranus complex, 3M-54 of the Caliber complex.
    1. Windbreak
      Windbreak April 5 2013 10: 39
      0
      Quote: Veteran
      Tomahawks - strategic KR
      And anti-ship RGM / UGM-109B TASM
  • Romn
    Romn April 5 2013 09: 36
    -1
    Let’s better build the Carriers further, and let them have a rocket!)
  • Veteran
    Veteran April 5 2013 22: 43
    +5
    Quote: Burel
    anti-ship RGM / UGM-109B TASM

    RGM / UGM-109B TASM - an old subsonic anti-ship missile system, primitive by today's standards, was withdrawn from service by the U.S. Navy in the early 2000's, the existing samples were converted into other modifications.
    PS Before putting a minus to the opponent, please be kind enough to read first in more detail the material of the subject conversation.
    1. Windbreak
      Windbreak April 6 2013 11: 22
      0
      Quote: Veteran
      old subsonic anti-ship missiles, by today's standards primitive
      And Harpoon, X-35 are new and not subsonic? And for some reason you are not confused by the subsonic anti-ship missile 3M-54E1
    2. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 6 2013 15: 03
      +1
      Quote: Veteran
      RGM / UGM-109B TASM - old subsonic anti-ship missile system, by today's standards primitive

      The anti-ship version of the Tomahawk was never a primitive rocket. It had a sound speed (0,8-0,9М), but there were three important advantages:

      - the ability to barrage in a given area;

      - extremely low flight altitude - unlike the Soviet "long-range" anti-ship missiles (P-500, P-700, P-1000), the Tomahawk in cruise mode flew at an altitude of only a couple of tens of meters above the water and remained undetectable until the last moment;

      - huge range at low altitude (~ 400 ... 450 km)
  • Veteran
    Veteran April 6 2013 18: 27
    +6
    Quote: Burel
    for some reason you are not confused by the subsonic anti-ship missiles 3M-54E1

    The 3M-54 rocket has a third supersonic solid propellant combat stage, which allows, after detecting and capturing a target of the GOS, to switch to a supersonic speed of up to 1000 m / s (2,9 M), approaching the target at an altitude of 20 m at this speed.
    The advantages of the X-35 missile of the Uranus complex in its small size (weight within 0.5-0,7 t) and the small size of the TPK, versatility for NKs and boats (up to 350 tons in displacement), in the ability to install the TPK on almost any warship, at low altitude flight (marching 5-10 m, in the final section 3-5 m). Tomahawk is not in this category at all, only Harpoon is a rival to Uranu.
    1. Windbreak
      Windbreak April 6 2013 18: 59
      +1
      Quote: Veteran
      3M-54 rocket has a third supersonic solid propellant combat stage
      And the 3M-54E1 anti-ship missile does not have a supersonic stage and is similar in size and weight to the Tomahawk
  • Veteran
    Veteran April 6 2013 19: 02
    +6
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The anti-ship version of the Tomahawk was never a primitive rocket.

    The Americans quite reasonably abandoned Tomahawk as RCC. The UGM-109B flew at full range for half an hour (0,5 - 0,75M speed, less than Harpoon's - 0,85M or X-35 - 0,88M), it could not overcome the group air defense, it cost $ 1,5 million, the mass of 1,5 t, was charged to the NK by mainly only in UVP Mk41, i.e. small ships could not use it. Harpoon became the best American version of RCC.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 6 2013 19: 42
      +2
      Quote: Veteran
      The Americans quite reasonably abandoned Tomahawk as RCC

      The U.S. Navy abandoned Tomahawk for a very reasonable reason: the lack of need for such a rocket.
      All her tasks are duplicated by Harpoons and HARMs. Part of the role was played by the end of the Cold War - dozens of interesting procts went into the scrap.
      Quote: Veteran
      on NK it was charged mainly only in UVP Mk41, i.e. small ships could not use it

      if necessary, they could. The ax does not have any exceptional start requirements.
      was, for example, an armored box Mk.143



      The container analogue of Klab that has been talked about so much lately

      Quote: Veteran
      Harpoon became the best American version of RCC.

      it is undeniable. - only carriers of pieces of 20 varieties

      although I respect AGM-88 HARM and Mk.48 more))))
    2. Windbreak
      Windbreak April 6 2013 23: 32
      0
      Quote: Veteran
      At full range, the UGM-109B flew for half an hour (speed 0,5 - 0,75M, less than Harpoon's - 0,85M or X-35 - 0,88M)
      If the UGM-109B will fly at full range (450 km) for half an hour, then its speed will be 900 km per hour. In general, there is information about the speed of 885 km / h at Tomahawk and 864 km / h at Harpoon
  • Veteran
    Veteran April 6 2013 19: 13
    +5
    Quote: Veteran
    The 3M-54E1 anti-ship missile does not have a supersonic stage and is similar in size and weight to the Tomahawk

    3М-54Е1 is an export version of 3М-54, for those who want to have a greater range of up to 300 km and a twice as large warhead - up to 400 kg. And in this case, she still is not inferior to Harpoon.
    But Tomahawk, I repeat, is not the class. This is a long-range strategic missile for ground targets and corresponding guidance.
    1. Windbreak
      Windbreak April 7 2013 10: 28
      0
      3M-54E1 - export version 3M-54
      Well and 3M-54E with a supersonic stage export.
      for those who want to have a large range of up to 300 km and twice as large warhead - up to 400 kg
      That's the anti-ship Tomahawk for those who wish (US Navy) to have a large range and a large warhead
  • Veteran
    Veteran April 6 2013 20: 02
    +6
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    if necessary, they could. The ax does not have any exceptional requirements for starting. For example, there was an armored box Mk.143

    The MK 143 installation was developed for the LC during their modernization in the 1980's. Subsequently, they were also installed on the RKR and EM, i.e. large ships, on 2 installations with 8 th rockets. Its disadvantage was the inability to recharge at sea. Those. it was a transitional temporary option, which was replaced by the decision to use only the UVN Mk 41 to launch the Tomahawks as providing greater compactness and flexibility of application.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 6 2013 20: 25
      +1
      Quote: Veteran
      for personal care during their modernization in the 1980's. Subsequently, they were also installed on the RKR and EM, i.e. large ships

      but were there technical reasons? or purely organizational? - The US Navy had no reason to place the Mk.143 boxes on frigates, watchdogs and old destroyers

      the box’s weight and size characteristics correspond to dual control panels for launching termites installed on 500-ton GDR corvettes

      Quote: Veteran
      a transitional temporary option, which was replaced by the decision to use only the UVP Mk 41 to launch the Tomahawks as providing greater compactness and flexibility of application.

      I agree completely
  • Veteran
    Veteran April 6 2013 21: 59
    +6
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    the box’s weight and size characteristics correspond to dual control panels for launching termites installed on 500-ton GDR corvettes

    On missile boats of 1241 ave., the location of 4's launchers with Termites (P-20M in export) was the maximum permissible for the 500-tonic, the project even had to abandon the Osa air defense system to comply with the required stability parameters of the ship, and it was greatly lost in air defense capabilities , and today these RCCs are very outdated. On modern RTOs 21631 Ave. “Buyan-M” are normally located 8 launcher UKSK Caliber-NK.
  • Veteran
    Veteran April 6 2013 23: 41
    +5
    In addition. On the same 500 tunnels - RK ave. 1241.8 - instead of 4 launchers for Termites (or Mosquitoes), 8 launchers (4x4 outboard) for RCC 3M-24 Uranus freely fit.
  • Veteran
    Veteran April 6 2013 23: 54
    +5
    Quote: Burel
    If the UGM-109B will fly a full range (450 km) for half an hour, then its speed will be 900 km per hour

    So she flew at such a speed. Marching speed at Harpoon 0,85 M is approximately 1040 km / h.
  • Veteran
    Veteran April 7 2013 13: 48
    +7
    Quote: Burel
    anti-ship Tomahawk

    RCC Tomahawk UGM-109B was created as a hybrid (saving the time required to develop a target RCC), he was moved with a “head” on a similar Harpoon, and was “taught” to walk with a snake in the final section, because the missile was very late when approaching the target. Those. figuratively and roughly speaking, the “bear” was given the function of the “wolf”. Naturally, in comparison with the purposefully developed anti-ship missiles, it looked imperfect, including was unable to carry out coordinated attack schemes. This is the first reason why it was abandoned. The second reason for abandoning it is that the Americans decided to assign all the anti-ship functions of connecting large ships to aviation - aircraft carrier and base. As a result of this, as well as trying to reduce the cost and lighten the ship, starting with the destroyers Arly Burke of the IIA series, the launch containers for Harper missiles were no longer installed on large ships.
    With the creation and mass armament of the aircrafts of MK 41 of numerous RKR and EM, the problem of standardizing the deployment and use of missiles weighing up to 1,5 tons of three target directions - shock against ground targets (Tomahawks), anti-aircraft air defense / missile defense (SM-2, SM-3, ESSM) was solved etc.) and anti-submarine (Asrok). But PKP Harpoon does not fit into this scheme, they need others — separate container installations, which they no longer put on ships under construction and dismantled at many large large NKs. But as practice shows, it is not always that RKR and EM will be able to take advantage of the instant help of aircraft against NK with RCC. So there appeared requirements of naval officers about arming ships with universal anti-ship missiles, which could be placed and used through the UVP Mk 41. The harpoon is not suitable for this, therefore, it is necessary to develop a new target RCC, which will take 10 and a lot of money.