Why are we still using Harpoons? Aren't these things outdated

>>34553347

Because LRASM hasn't been adopted yet. It should be about a year.

>>34553347
>get BTFO about LCS armament
>make a separate thread complaining about Harpoons

Harpoons are old but still effective, sticking box launchers on a ship is a low cost way of adding additional firepower.

LRASM, NSM, Tomahawks and SM-2/SM-6 are also a thing.

>>34553347
Because planes and ships can shit them out in stupid quantities.

>>34553447
That was not me, and that was not my question.

Considering all modern CIWS i disagree on your ''cost effective way'' since you will most certainly need a volley of missiles to even hit a modern navy surface vessel even once.

>>34553475
>That was not me, and that was not my question.

You have impeccable timing then.

>Considering all modern CIWS i disagree on your ''cost effective way'' since you will most certainly need a volley of missiles to even hit a modern navy surface vessel even once.

You can add a box launcher of ASHM to every ship in your fleet that doesn't have them for less than the cost of a single ship that has proper VLS cells.

>>34553347
we still use them because we will never actually use them

>>34553457
I agree on the planes, but I'm not aware of any ship with more than 8 tubes, and with no VLS option that means no single ship has the ability to kill an enemy major surface combatant by itself unless it gets stupendously lucky.

>>34553509
Read the fucking question will ya? Why are we still using them?

>>34553521
You do not really start getting the missile count you need from a single ship until you pass 7000 tons.

>>34553528
Because we have them and they work. LRASM and NSM are the future for our dedicated AShM.

>>34553571
>they work
I advice you to read it's operational ''succes'' before saying it works. The last confirmed kill on a military target was in 1980 and it was a small missile boat.

>>34553594
By your logic CIWS are shit because one shot at another ship way back in the 80's.

>>34553521
>no single ship has the ability to kill an enemy major surface combatant

you do realize that SMs can be used against surface targets right?

>>34553617
You do realise those missile boats didn't have any CIWS's? Please remove yourself from the thread.

>>34553594
>The last confirmed kill on a military target was in 1980 and it was a small missile boat.

Since you are reading wikipedia I suggest you read further in that section.

>>34553594
okay dude, what was the last warship to warship kill using a missile?

>>34553639
I take it you are ESL by your horrible reading comprehension.

>>34553475
>Considering all modern CIWS i disagree on your ''cost effective way''

modern CIWS is not the be all to end all of AAW defense systems, I feel like that should be cleared up.

>since you will most certainly need a volley of missiles to even hit a modern navy surface vessel even once.

well, generally American warships have 2 slant launchers on them, so you can hypothetically get anywhere from 2 to 8 missile volleys out of them.

The USN hasn't prioritised building a dedicated heavy AShM because no plausible enemy has a surface navy requiring it. Adaptations for the SM-6 and Tomahawk to function as AShMs will be an adequate intermediate solution, and the USNs world leading SSN & supercarrier fleets are perfectly capable of taking on large warships.

>>34553519
>we still use them because we will never actually use them

This.

If we actually went to war with a major power tomorrow, we'd have prototype AShM's nobody has ever even heard of filling the missiles mounts of everything we can float across the ocean. The Harpoons are just there because they're there.

File: lrasm_test.jpg (3MB, 2700x1800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2700x1800px

>>34553728
The USN hasn't prioritized building a dedicated heavy AShM because fuckhuge gotta go fast AShM are not the best way to get through your enemies defenses.

>>34553739

Plus 500lb guided GP bombs from 35k feet do most warships pretty well

>>34553787
dang dawg.

I forgot how sexy the curves on the LRASM were.

>>34553347
Aren't we mostly fighting guys who live in caves and use 40 year old aks?