F/A-18C Anti-shipping

[Fishwelding]

I think the conventional anti-shipping load-out for F/A-18c was or is two AGM-84 Harpoon missiles. With the move to asymmetrical load-outs, is it possible the Navy might swap one of the Harpoons for something else? If this were so, it seems to me the logical alternative would be a HARM; among other reasons, in comparison to the Harpoon's range, anything free-fall or even Mavericks strike me as the anti-shipping equivalent of a bayonet. Then again, I don't know how the HARM's range compares to the Harpoon!

Additionally, with Harpoons could or would the airplane conventionally carry one, two, or three gas tanks?

[graves_09]

From my experiences as a sim jet pilot and educated guesses, a HARM would not do much against a ship. You could knock out a radar to reduce its defenses but the warhead of the HARM is pretty small compared to a Harpoon. The Harpoon might be used against the biggest air defense assets in the fleet and then follow up with LGBs or iron bombs on remaining ships. Also JSOW might also be effective and give some stand off range. According to the Obprey book they used a maverick against saddam's yacht during OIF but needed a follow up strike with Mk82's

Again, my source is Janes F/A-18, sim game (but i have read is pretty realistic). Someone with more real life knowledge might know more, but I don't know if they can share it.

[Spongebob]

Harpoon depends on your time frame...they are pretty much all SLAM-ER's now; SLAM-ER is very appropriate for the SUW mission. Harm would be totally appropriate as would heavy LGB, Rockeye, Maverick are all options...pretty much depends on how big, how well equipped the target ship is and how much of that equipment is still functional.

HTH

Spongebob

[Collin]

I think the conventional anti-shipping load-out for F/A-18c was or is two AGM-84 Harpoon missiles. With the move to asymmetrical load-outs, is it possible the Navy might swap one of the Harpoons for something else? If this were so, it seems to me the logical alternative would be a HARM; among other reasons, in comparison to the Harpoon's range, anything free-fall or even Mavericks strike me as the anti-shipping equivalent of a bayonet. Then again, I don't know how the HARM's range compares to the Harpoon!

Additionally, with Harpoons could or would the airplane conventionally carry one, two, or three gas tanks?

In my CVW Strike Lead days we loaded out Hornets with 1 x Harpoon and 1 x IR Maverick (mid to late 90's timeframe). Afforded me some standoff and flexibility of engagement. Our alert SUCAP loadouts were pretty much GBU-12 and IR Maverick. Two drop tanks almost all the time.

Cold War days... the mix of Harpoon and HARM was very appropriate.

If you are building a 90's Hornet the above info is realitively accruate. Today the SLAM-ER has become the "long stick" for ASuW.

Cheers

ATIS

[Fishwelding]

Thanks, guys! That was exactly what I was looking for.

Collin, I'm guessing from near-total ignorance, but it sounds as if by the 1990s you were expecting to encounter smaller surface adversaries. My impression was that if somehow things went bad during the Cold War, and aircraft had to attack Soviet surface combatants, standoff and perhaps HARM would be the name of the game due to the target's multi-layered air-defense strength. Years ago I was amazed and amused to learn here that F-111s had a free-fall bomb option for anti-shipping. Even with the Argentine's experience in the Falklands (or perhaps because of it), I had trouble seeing tactical airpower attempting a bomb attack on one of those big Soviet missile cruisers, or worse, several of the latter acting in a mutually defensive team. Like attempting to brush the teeth of an alert and irritable Bengal Tiger. But maybe there's more to it than that.

[Dave Williams]

Marineflieger Tornados were commonly armed with HARMs for anti-shipping missions.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Dave Williams

[GreyGhost]

So, when HARM is used in the anti-shipping role, that's for when you don't want to sink their 'Battleship', just neutralize it ?

Gregg

[Fishwelding]

So, when HARM is used in the anti-shipping role, that's for when you don't want to sink their 'Battleship', just neutralize it ?

Gregg

Or perhaps dull it's air defenses so that attacks with heavier ordinance can succeed?

I don't know what the success rate would be for a subsonic anti-shipping missile, even a "sea-skimming" variety, versus an alert, well-armed warship. Stark, I thought, was a victim of that Exocet attack back in the 1980s because the ship was not expecting attack from an Iraqi fighter plane.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Fishwelding

[11bee]

Or perhaps dull it's air defenses so that attacks with heavier ordinance can succeed?

Correct... If the radars are down, you can get it closer and finish the job with shorter range weapons. Back in the 80's, rockeyes used to be a popular anti-ship weapon. It wouldn't sink anything short of a patrol boat but it would tear up all those softly protected antennas and weapons housings (and people) topside. This would leave the target with little or no offensive and defensive capability (mission kill).

I don't know what the success rate would be for a subsonic anti-shipping missile, even a "sea-skimming" variety, versus an alert, well-armed warship. Stark, I thought, was a victim of that Exocet attack back in the 1980s because the ship was not expecting attack from an Iraqi fighter plane.

In theory the success rate would be low but seeing as how a warship's close in defense system has never been tested for real, who knows. I think the key to success is saturation and jamming. The Soviets (back in the day) planned to send entire regiments of badgers / backfires against a USN carrier. Everyone launches their missiles at once and they also assigned a squadron of dedicated jammers to follow the missiles in to provide electronic cover. I don't think that many of the attacking aircraft were expected to return but what the loss of 30-40 badgers if you can sink a CVN?

The Stark was a fiasco. They received radar warning indications that they were being briefly targeted by a hostile radar but did nothing to prepare their defenses (not sure if an FFG-7 class had jammers, I think they just had chaff rockets and the phalanx). Both the chaff and phalanx have a mode where they can activate automatically, in mili-seconds. The bridge crew still trying to figure out what was going on when the first Exocet hit.

I find the whole concept of modern warship vrs modern airpower to be fascinating. It is the one scenario that has never be tested for real (thank goodness). At least as far as the coldwar stuff goes, I would have given my nod to the Soviets. Numbers (used in conjunction with smart tactics and training) will overcome quality any day of the year.

John

[Hajo L.]

Anyone of you who have ever played the naval warfare simulation Harpoon?

http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=363

It´s a very interesting simulation.

HAJO

[a4s4eva]

So, when HARM is used in the anti-shipping role, that's for when you don't want to sink their 'Battleship', just neutralize it ? :huh:

Gregg

Harm would be part of the mix. Some aircraft would have HARM's to try and neutralise or redice the effective of the ships radars . other aircraft would have Harpoons (or as posted above the aircraft mave have a mix of the above.

A single harpoon will struggle to sink anything bigger than a Frigate but it will certainily reduce the effectiveness of the target.

[bdt13]

I have some good photos in a book of A model hornets in the 80's with one HARM and a Harpoon (it said for balance) or two Harpoons. Unfortunately I am on vacation and can't get to it right now to get you the details. IIRC the asym load was on a leatherneck bird while the 2x AGM-86 was on a Navy one.

Best of luck - I look forward to seeing posts once this is done!

Edited August 16, 2009 by bdt13

[DutyCat]

Personally, I don't think a surface combatant on its own has a chance of standing up to properly employed, sustained air power. The planes just pop up over the horizon, shoot the missiles, duck back down and turn away. Once some confirmed hits are scored and the air defense systems are not functioning any more, high altitude bombing with LGB's sinks the vessel.

But, I am just "figuring" based upon limited knowledge. No ASUW expert or anything.

[Collin]

Thanks, guys! That was exactly what I was looking for.

Collin, I'm guessing from near-total ignorance, but it sounds as if by the 1990s you were expecting to encounter smaller surface adversaries. My impression was that if somehow things went bad during the Cold War, and aircraft had to attack Soviet surface combatants, standoff and perhaps HARM would be the name of the game due to the target's multi-layered air-defense strength. Years ago I was amazed and amused to learn here that F-111s had a free-fall bomb option for anti-shipping. Even with the Argentine's experience in the Falklands (or perhaps because of it), I had trouble seeing tactical airpower attempting a bomb attack on one of those big Soviet missile cruisers, or worse, several of the latter acting in a mutually defensive team. Like attempting to brush the teeth of an alert and irritable Bengal Tiger. But maybe there's more to it than that.

Back in the day if the Cold War ever got hot....do what hockey players do when they get in a fight... pull the jersey over their opponents head...blinds them and limits their maneauverability. Poke someones eyes out and they can't see what is coming next. Make enemy shipping deaf and blind...they turn into a dumb bomb/LGB or missile sump.

Modeling wise on a Hornet... you would see 1 x Harpoon with dual tanks. Drag count on Harpoon is very high. They would shoot and run for the tanker.

Cheers

ATIS

[Fishwelding]

Hmm...this is getting to be an interesting model possibility. I think the challenge is to get decals for a plane in the time frame during which Harpoons were carried, that is, prior to their being essentially replaced by SLAM-ER as the weapon of choice. Also, I like the Harpoon/Maverick option you indicated above, so that hones the selection down, perhaps to after some point in the 1990s. For the pendantic accuracy-hound, Monogram's old Desert Shield markings might be too early for an asymmetrical load?

Mind you, this all started with my consideration of converting Hasagawa's old SLAMs (Set D) for this, just for an interesting anti-ship display. But we probably should have a separate thread, if one doesn't yet exist, entitled "What to do with Hasagawa's pre-ER SLAMs," too.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Fishwelding

[Collin]

"What to do with Hasagawa's pre-ER SLAMs," too.

Put them on a late A-6E SWIP aircraft (around DS I period) or early F-18.

Cheers

ATIS

[parche]

The whole US weapon selection is based on the idea of neutralize (mission-kill) vs the soviet idea of sink it (hard-kill). We use smaller weapons and are happy to knock the ship out of the fight without sinking it therefore the small Harpoons and HARMs would be very appropriate...a ship with no radar to target its weapons can't fight very well. Similarly, I always get asked how many torpedoes would be need to sink a carrier...I don't care...I hit it with one that affects a single shaft and it probably can't get going fast enough to launch aircraft and therefore it is a useless piece of junk. The soviets countered with huge missiles and wanted to put our stuff on the bottom...no chance to rejoin the fight.

I intend to use a set of SS decals for VFA-113 in Christmas Grinch markings to make a SUW load of dual harpoons...

Cheers,

Dave

[Fishwelding]

Now, armed with Harpoon or HARM, will the F/A-18C require targeting or data pods of some sort? Or may I keep the Sparrow rails free for, well, Sparrows?

And I get it from the internet that the F/A-18A was not initially shipped capable of carrying Harpoon or HARM. Has this since changed? Have these older airplanes undergone upgrades for those weapons?

Maybe it's time I get a good paper reference on the Hornet, too!

Edited August 20, 2009 by Fishwelding

[graves_09]

Now, armed with Harpoon or HARM, will the F/A-18C require targeting or data pods of some sort? Or may I keep the Sparrow rails free for, well, Sparrows?

And I get it from the internet that the F/A-18A was not initially shipped capable of carrying Harpoon or HARM. Has this since changed? Have these older airplanes undergone upgrades for those weapons?

Maybe it's time I get a good paper reference on the Hornet, too! :huh:

The Harm and Harpoon can be targeted using the aircraft's on board sensors and radar thus targeting pods not necessary. The Harpoon has its own radar and is active guided so no data pod is necessary.

Edited August 20, 2009 by graves_09

[Dave Williams]

Harpoon and HARM have their own seeker heads and don't require the use of targeting pods.

[GreyGhost]

Now, armed with Harpoon or HARM, will the F/A-18C require targeting or data pods of some sort? Or may I keep the Sparrow rails free for, well, Sparrows?

And I get it from the internet that the F/A-18A was not initially shipped capable of carrying Harpoon or HARM. Has this since changed? Have these older airplanes undergone upgrades for those weapons?

Maybe it's time I get a good paper reference on the Hornet, too! :)

VMFA-314, -323 and VFA-131 and -132 all had Alphas during their strikes against Libya in 1986 and they all employed HARMS ...

HTH ...

Gregg

[Sluggo357]

I think the conventional anti-shipping load-out for F/A-18c was or is two AGM-84 Harpoon missiles. With the move to asymmetrical load-outs, is it possible the Navy might swap one of the Harpoons for something else? If this were so, it seems to me the logical alternative would be a HARM; among other reasons, in comparison to the Harpoon's range, anything free-fall or even Mavericks strike me as the anti-shipping equivalent of a bayonet. Then again, I don't know how the HARM's range compares to the Harpoon!

Additionally, with Harpoons could or would the airplane conventionally carry one, two, or three gas tanks?

All,

Depends on what type of ships you are going after. What effects are you looking for? A big destroyer with modern SAMs will take a different load than a group of suicide fishing dhows in the NAG. There are NO Harpoons in carrier bomb lockers any more... all gone for a couple of years. So now you are talking history too. What time frame are you trying to depict? A loadout for the Northern Arabian Gulf would look some thing like 2 x GBU-12 and AGM-65 Maverick with Goofy Gas, one on the centerline and one on an inboard. Gun would be full (using 20mm like crazy over there) and an A/A mix of 1 x AIM-120 AMRAAM and 2 x AIM-9X. Nighthawk/ATFLIR would be standard for all Surface Combat Air Patrols (SUCAP) loads. If you are building a legacy Hornet this would be a potential load. Super Hornet would be very similar.

If you were up against a peer competitor, this load would be different. Hornets might be Harpoon shooters in a potential Pacific environment back a number of years ago but off the coast of Libyia the Intruders carried Harpoons and GBUs in the 1980s. The Hornets were carrying HARM, LMAV, and Mk 20 ROCKEYEs in the Gulf of Sidre during ops off the coast of Libyia. They also carried AIM-7F/Ms and AIM-9Ms for A/A loads. Hornets shot HARM at shore based radars during that time... especially at the SA-5 site near Sirt. Hornet driver said you could see the GAMMON come off the rails from 40+ miles away! They could also take out the eyes of Libyian patrol craft with a HARM. You are never goign to fire a HARM to take out or sink a ship. Not what it is for... it is for kinetic kill of a radar some where.

Again, your load will depend on time periods and/or what the threat(s) you are facing during that time period. There are so many swing loads you could put on a legacy or Super Hornet for a SUCAP mission which will demonstrate the versatility of the F-18. Hope this helps.