Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best western anti -ship missile?
BLUIE006    8/14/2007 8:31:40 AM
what do you consider the best western antiship missile
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
YelliChink       8/21/2007 2:44:11 PM
BTW, is there anyone who is also confused by whereabout of the air intake on the harpoon?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/21/2007 3:04:05 PM



I thought that ramjets eat some kind of gel fuel and requires preheat to liquidfy it.

 

Aren't other jet-powered AShM all use "liquid" fuel?

the critical issue is viscosity.

 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       8/21/2007 3:26:05 PM
Rule of thumb for ASMs seems to be,
if it's using a turbine engine, it's using liquid fuel (kerosene, etc).
A majority of turbine-powered ASMs come as a factory-sealed unit, which means complete with an obviously shelf-stable fuel supply (assuming certain temperature and humidity conditions are maintained, some of them may sit sealed in their launch containers for several years).
 
As for Harpoon's intake,
I've been trying to find the missile schematic I've seen before: it intakes on the underside, just about where the main wings are. I can't remember if it's just in front of it, just aft of it, or right between them (might be a good RCS reducer if the wings shield the turbine intake). But it's just a semi-flush intake, more like a notch in the missile fuselage rather than an extendable scoop like the Tomahawk or ALCM uses.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/21/2007 3:54:25 PM
For surface to surface missiles, exocet block 3 and harpoons are similar but we can assume that latest version of exocet as a lower RCS since it has been designed much more recently.
Autodirector performance are unknows since secret on ECCM.Version of autodirector matters of course and the most recent version has advantage.
On air to surface, AM39 is probably the best as SM39 for submarine to surface since exocet version with the powder propulsion is faster and MORE IMPORTANT, flight much closer to surface making it very difficult to detect and intercept.
Indeed, thank to having powder propulsion, Exocet can flight without concern of engine water ingestion.Moreover having not air intakes, its RCS is much smaller.An harpoon is compelled to fly few meter above surface while Exocet can stay less than a meter above waves and so radars have enormous difficulties to detect it in sea clutter.
Submarine launched SM39 has also advantage to not climb high when booster start just after surface reducing probability of detection by a surface ship.It has lower range than US Harpoon but it is not important has a submarine can not detect that far without external help.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/21/2007 4:30:43 PM

For surface to surface missiles, exocet block 3 and harpoons are similar but we can assume that latest version of exocet as a lower RCS since it has been designed much more recently.

Autodirector performance are unknows since secret on ECCM.Version of autodirector matters of course and the most recent version has advantage.

On air to surface, AM39 is probably the best as SM39 for submarine to surface since exocet version with the powder propulsion is faster and MORE IMPORTANT, flight much closer to surface making it very difficult to detect and intercept.

Indeed, thank to having powder propulsion, Exocet can flight without concern of engine water ingestion.Moreover having not air intakes, its RCS is much smaller.An harpoon is compelled to fly few meter above surface while Exocet can stay less than a meter above waves and so radars have enormous difficulties to detect it in sea clutter.

Submarine launched SM39 has also advantage to not climb high when booster start just after surface reducing probability of detection by a surface ship.It has lower range than US Harpoon but it is not important has a submarine can not detect that far without external help.

 



Welcome back, poseur 1.
 
The Exocet hasn't seen recent use has it? We'll see if your assertions hold up when it is used in PROOF..
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/21/2007 4:35:09 PM
The Exocet hasn't seen recent use has it? We'll see if your assertions hold up when it is used in PROOF..
Only facts.
Now Harpoon have not been used in combat agaisnt a decent adversary.
Until now older Exocets versions has managed to hit US or UK ships.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       8/21/2007 5:09:46 PM




The Exocet hasn't seen recent use has it? We'll see if your assertions hold up when it is used in PROOF..



Only facts.

Now Harpoon have not been used in combat agaisnt a decent adversary.

Until now older Exocets versions has managed to hit US or UK ships.


Ouch! That hurts.......
But you are wrong. At least one Harpoon has been fired by a Iranian gunboat against USN CG-28 in late 1980s. The missile didn't hit.
 
Instead of one, jet powered MM40 has 3 air intakes.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       8/22/2007 1:02:30 AM
Solid propellant can be kept in a sealed unit ready to fire up at a touch.

I do understand that turbo jet engine missiles would require keroscene or jet fuel.

What about the Bramos? It was mentioned as rocket fuel, I take that as the liquid equivalent of solid rocket fuel. As such those liquid rocket fuel is usually only fueled up in a rocket prior to launch. Meaning those launching would have to refuel the rockets.

Oh could the new liquid fuel for the rocket be in a sealed unit and ready to fire up at a touch as well.

Despite it being dangerous, many or all navies would still deploy them in times of conflict.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    FS question   8/22/2007 1:43:52 AM
FS, which GPS system is used in the Exocet?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Exocet doesn't compare to Harpoon   8/22/2007 12:28:53 PM
FS,
nothing personal, but...
Exocet (M38, 39, or 40) aren't "in the same ballpark" as Harpoon.
Checking here at DesignationSystems.Net http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html  ,
the Harpoon models all retain a 343mm (13.5inch) base body diameter, in both the antiship model and the SLAM variant.
The antiship variants feature a 220kg warhead, with the SLAM series hauling a 360kg warhead.
Your touted Exocets are a tad bigger in diameter, at 348mm (13.7inch), but pack a noticeably smaller warhead at roughly 165kg.
 
Range and RCS mean little if you aren't bringing a big enough warhead to the fight (IIRC, USS Stark didn't sink, and how long did HMS Sheffield remain afloat?).
 I'll wager a bigger warhead, even if "merely" a third larger- 165kg vs 220kg- will cause more ouch on target (55 extra kilos means a lot when we're talking of military grade explosives).
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics