Home » Aviation » Boeing Will Offer Modified Harpoon Missile for Littoral Combat Ships


Boeing Will Offer Modified Harpoon Missile for Littoral Combat Ships

An artist's representation of a Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile. Boeing Image

An artist’s representation of a Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile. Boeing Image

Hoping to build off of the Navy’s extensive inventory of existing anti-surface missiles, Boeing plans to compete a modified version of the Harpoon RGM-84 anti-ship missile (ASM) for the over the horizon ASM capability for the Littoral Combat Ship and the modified LCS Frigate program, the company announced on Tuesday during the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Exposition 2015.

Boeing’s bid would add a new warhead and a reconstituted engine for a range of more than 130 nautical miles — up from the about 70 nautical mile range of the current Block II weapons — in a Harpoon Next Generation scheme that would create new missiles and offer kits to upgrade the existing inventory.

The company is focusing on the upcoming LCS over-the-horizon ASM and the existing fleet of Harpoon users as a cost effective option for the Navy. Boeing did not release pricing information.

The modified Harpoon will not be Boeing’s offering for the separate Next Generation Strike program which recently paired the Navy’s Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment II and Next Generation Land Attack Weapon into a single program, USNI News understands.

The service has mounted a renewed interest in anti-surface weapons for the surface fleet after almost two decades of focus on land strike and ballistic missile defense (BMD).

The Next Generation Strike program will follow Raytheon’s Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) and Lockheed Martin’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) — currently under development.

The LCS missile will eventually be included as part of the modular Surface Warfare (SuW) package and be native to the modified LCS frigate class, according to the most recent information for the Navy.

Last week, Raytheon and Kongsberg announced they would team to offer the Norwegian Naval Strike Missile for LCS.

  • Jim DiGiacomo

    The Russians are selling supersonic ASM and will soon field and sell hypersonic models and we are still trying to make the 70’s Harpoon viable.

    • James B.

      We should definitely be developing the next generation of ASM, but if we can inexpensively double the punch of our Harpoons, we should do it. We still have plenty of low-end foes to point Harpoons at.

      • @NotRizzo

        Also, quantity is it’s own quality. Russian & PLAN surface ships SAMs have a max range of ~80nm. Which means even with existing Harpoons a CVW alpha strike can in one attack fire more Harpoons than the defending battlegroup has SAMs and get do it with near impunity unless that battlegroup has land based air cover.
        If we’re expecting LCS/FFEs to go toe-to-toe with PLAN or Russian DDGs then naturally the poor tin can sailors are screwed, but that scenario certainly isn’t the one our battlefleet is designed to fight.

        • Jon

          Then buy 2x far more capable Naval Strike Missile for the cost of 1x new purchase updated Harpoon. The Harpoon upgrade kit alone costs as much as a complete NSM. Why double down on outdated tech?

          If the LCS/FFE has a range advantage, faster, and is armed with modern missiles…hopefully they’ll never have to go toe-to-toe with PLAN/Russian DDGs…

          • @NotRizzo

            NSM’s range is 100nm, so the ER Harpoon would actually outrange it. I’m also curious where you get the info that a NSM would cost half of what each harpoon upgrade is since they didn’t release pricing info on the Harpoon upgrades and I’ve never seen a cost estimate for the US licensed NSM.

          • Jon

            Follow the links on the LCS upgrades/missiles. There’s actually an article (somewhere) giving approx. costs. of both from reps. Surprisingly enough.
            If I can find it again, I’ll post it, was some other interesting tidbits in it. First time I’d seen a NSM cost estimate as well, and it’s been impossible to separate out of the orders placed for complete systems.
            ER Harpoon is less capable in all respects but range…if the pricing quoted is ballpark, would you rather fire off 2x NSM or 1x Harpoon?

          • @NotRizzo

            I don’t accept your pricing quote without backup.
            The most interesting thing about the NSM is that it’s entirely passive, makinng ESM detection impossible. It’s odd so many people advocating for ASCM systems never take into account how the missile aquires it’s target. For instance a sea-skimmer depends on very exact targetting or mid-course guidance b/c it’s radar or IR seeker head is limited by the range available at such minimal altitude. A big supersonic monster like a Russia (and now India) produce are great at getting to the target fast, but the size and flight trajectory makes them easier to detect & engage (not to mention making the launch platform highly vulnerable to intercept before launch if you have air cover).

          • Jon

            Can’t find it again, but I’ll keep looking. Should have bookmarked it. It broke down the cost of the Harpoon upgrade vs. a full up new production missile, and quoted a price on the NSM.
            IIRC, the NSM cost quoted was comparable to the Harpoon upgrade, with new production ER Harpoon roughly double the NSM cost.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            To date, the Norwegian NSM project cost is ~$261-Million USD. The 1991 price for the Missile/Unit cost was ~$915-Thousand USD. If you factor in for inflation $1.00 (1991) Dollar equals ~$1.74 (2015) Dollar’s. Which give the NSM missile/unit cost of ~$1.5921-Million USD. per copy…

          • Jon

            NSM wasn’t in existence in 1991, even as a concept. Development didn’t begin till 1996, with production starting in ’07/08.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            My Bad. Study for replacement of Penguin started in 1991 and ended in April 1996. Production was suppose to start in 2001 with entry into Norwegian Navy in 2003. System was put on hold, for lack of funding. Unit start-up in 2006. Introduction of NSM, was 2011. The 1991 price was the projected cost per unit in 1991-1996 study, in 1991 prices…

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            The 1991 project unit cost stands. I can’t find anything on cost for the missile in 2015 actual prices. Price is set in Lot’s of 10, the more Lot’s you by the cheaper it gets. the “Low Ball” US. Navy estimate is ~ 40 Lots or 400 Missiles. Unfortunately, that figure is NOT set in stone. It’s a US. Navy Guesstimate for Minimal Requirements, and that’s for both versions.

            The other problem is, The Cheaper we sell the JSF to Norway. The Cheaper Norway sell the NSM, too US…

          • Jon

            Danged if I can find the article again, but here’s one from Jane’s…

            Doesn’t want to let the link through…search “extended range Harpoon”, go to the current Janes article…

            “According to USN data, the unit cost for a Harpoon Block II is USD1.2 million”

            “A new Next Gen would be approximately the same [cost] as for one of our Harpoons,” said Brooks. “A retrofit would be half the cost of a new missile.”

            $600k for a kit to upgrade existing Block II Harpoons. $1.8 million for a complete Block II Harpoon with the extended range kit. Over $2 million for an updated Block III Harpoon with extended range I’d suspect, that would still be inferior in performance to the NSM.

            “The kit is expected to be ready in 2018, officials said, and the team is working towards a possible demonstration of the improved missile in 2016 for the USN.”

            Buy NSM now…or wait till 2018 to get an updated Harpoon into production.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            It took most of the night, but. Wiki Modern Day Military Pricing List: 2009, 402-pages. with inflation calculator adjustment:

            1) ASM, 2009 price ~$4.5-Million USD. per unit @ 2015 price ~$4,952,691.14 USD. per unit.
            2) NSM, 2009 price ~$5-Million USD. per unit @ 2015 price ~$5,502,990.16 USD. per unit.

          • @NotRizzo

            I can’t imagine that a harpoon upgrade costs twice what a whole All Up Round NSM. But if that’s true and you can get them inservice as fast as you could upgrade Harpoons then it’s a no-brainer, but I’m guessing both those assumptions are incorrect.

        • PB

          What would be important is an assessment of the effectiveness
          of the various ant-ship missiles. Would LRASM-A or NSM have a technological edge over harpoon or the modified tomahawk ?

          .

          • Secundius

            @ PB.

            You can also supplement missiles with LRLAP Naval Artillery too. Traveling at Mach 5 or 6, just makes it harder to evade…

          • PB

            The key for missiles or LRLAP would be long range targeting.
            In the case of the improved tomahawk trial it was an air asset that helped guide the missile to the terminal phase.

          • Secundius

            @ PB.

            There are plans to integrate the AESA Phased-Array Radar System, into the F/A-35 Airframes and Pod Mount them onto other Naval Aircraft and Naval Ship’s. This would not only be a Quantum Boost to AEW&C Radar Systems, but can aid in Terminal Vectoring/Giudance to other systems…

      • Jon

        Check the quoted prices of the NSM, the Harpoon upgrade kit, and a complete updated Harpoon, and their performance. Looks to me like the NSM is hands down cheaper and more effective.

    • Secundius

      @ Jim DiGiacomo.

      ArcLight, is a Hypersonic HSSM/ASM to replace the TLAM and Harpoon systems…

      • Jon

        Cancelled, years ago.

        • Secundius

          Jon.

          Somewhat, is got morphed into the CPGS (Conventional Prompt Global Strike) and LRMD (Long-Range Missile Defense) systems. Which is as of February 2015, still active…

          • Jon

            AFAIK, you’re talking about honking big systems launched via ICBMs…not a missile system comparable to the Harpoon or NSM. Starlight was LRASM-B, which was cancelled in order to concentrate on rapidly developing LRASM-A.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            Then there’s WaveRider, to go into production and enter service in 2020. Although design for the Air Force as a High-Speed Stand-Off Missile, I’m pretty sure it can be “Navalized”. If it can fit into a F/A-35A’s weapons bay, it will also fit into a F/A-35C’s weapons bay or VLS.

          • Jon

            Nope. AFAIK there is no hypersonic missile slated to go into production/enter service. IIRC, Waverider/X-51 had exactly 1 successful test at hypersonic speeds prior to turning into a rain of confetti.
            There’s a concept program (Boeing?) for a high speed strike missile whatzit. Whether it’s more than a concept, or whether it’s gotten any funding, I don’t recall. But it’s not more than a concept or a black program at best.
            I’d love to be proven wrong…our missile systems are a huge, gaping, self-inflicted wound. At this point, we’d be better off sucking up to the Taiwanese or Indians and buying/licensing their hypersonic tech.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            It may have had only one successful test, so far. But as far as I know the Program hasn’t been KILLED…

          • Jon

            He’s dead, Jim…

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            Well, Bones. I think you Medical Tricorder is giving you Faulty Readings…

          • Jon

            From DARPA website:

            “Designs for LRASM-B focused on operating at the other end of the spectrum for precision strike weapons—high-altitude and supersonic speed over stealthy penetration.

            Working in close collaboration with the Navy to provide warfighters a capability that can make a difference at sea in the near term, DARPA decided in January 2012 to focus solely on technology development for LRASM-A, ceasing development of LRASM-B. By consolidating investments to focus solely on advancing LRASM-A technologies, DARPA aims to reduce risk and expedite delivery of cutting-edge capability to the fleet.”

            Is there still a hypersonic missile being developed? I’d have to say almost definitely, it’s a huge capability gap. Like I said, I think Boeing has a concept missile. How much work’s being done, how much money is being spent, I have no idea.

            But LRASM-B/Waverider/X-51 is dead as a dodo. No doubt the tech and knowledge has been transferred to whatever new program is being worked. There is no hypersonic missile in development with a scheduled delivery date in 2020. We’ll be lucky to see LRASM-A in production by 2020.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            The Tomahawk TLAM was recently used as an ASM on a moving target at Sea. A missile is basically a Artillery Round with a Propulsion Unit. That being the case, I propose using LRLAP into a LRSAP or even a LRAAP system as well. If you can us a Naval Guided Munitions Artillery Round on a Land Target. You can do the same with a Sea Target or even an Airborne Target…

          • Jon

            TLAM test was Kabuki Theatre of the North Korean kind. On par with parking an NSM container on the helo deck of an LCS, firing it off with a laptop, and calling it a “successful test of fielding the NSM on the LCS”. The Navy, has suddenly woken up, and realized their surface ships have minimal ASuW capability that doesn’t derive from a carrier’s air wing, and that all their missiles are obsolete crap in comparison to what peer navies are fielding.

            TLAM is old, obsolete tech against any modern air defense system. Using it against naval targets is a capability they had in the 80s IIRC, that the Navy never followed up on. It’s big, it’s slow, not stealthy and isn’t going to survive against anyone that isn’t deaf, dumb, and blind. Regaining that capability is an important step forward, and it’s a situationally useful capability…but it doesn’t change the facts.

            “Naval Guided Munitions Artillery Rounds”…check out the Italian Vulcano rounds and their capabilities in a 76mm mount. Then note that no one is apparently talking about mounting a 76mm as part of the LCS FF variant. Which would vastly increase its capabilities in ASuW, air/point defense.

            Recall our discussion on pre-WW2 AAA armament, or lack thereof…then look at the LCS with a 11 round point defense system. Look at the rest of the non-AEGIS/BMD Navy. Networking, and “every deck for offense/defense” is another important step forward, if they follow up on the rhetoric with network links and gun/missile mounts.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            For your edification Sir, a 1.1 IS NOT Triple A. It’s Double A, to qualify for Triple A status. The Bore Diameter has to exceed 2-1/2-inches in diameter. Just because a 76x636mmR/62-caliber Oto Melara II Auto Cannon is mounted on a LCS, doesn’t mean, is not going be mounted…

          • Jon

            I stand corrected.
            Do you see any discussion of a 76mm option in the projected specs? I don’t. The issue is that the LCS is badly overweight, even “vanilla” without a mission module loaded. It’ll be interesting to see if they ultimately decide to re-engine them/reduce speed, to save weight for weapons systems. My bet is, no.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            Sir, the LCS is a WIP. Normally a weapons system take 10 to 20-years to work out the BUG’s before going into production. We don’t have 20-hears to wait. In WW2, the Fletcher’s, B-29’s P-51’s, and so on, were all WIP’s. Some systems Fail and some Didn’t, We have a choice do it NOW while we have Technical Advantage. Or, wait for the next War and see if it works. Your Choice, I’d prefer the SAFE Charted Course. But event’s in the World has rapidly changed and we simply can’t wait. And if that mean Bleeding to Learn, well you get my point…

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            According to Next Navy, Hulls 33-52 are to be given a Flight 0+ upgrade. A “0+” is a Niche, an Either, Or phrasing. 5-inch gun definitely Out of the Question, 30mm Bushmaster II replaced with 25mm Bushmaster, Longbow’s installed and an VLS installed. The rest “A Big Fat IF, and/or MAYBE”…

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            About as obsolete as the AGM-123 Skipper II, an 1,000-pound Mk. 83 Dumb Iron Bomb w/a Paveway seeker head and dual Mk. 78 Rocket Motors. Giving it a speed of 680mph and a range of ~15.5smi. That OBSOLETE, Right…

          • Jon

            As opposed to a honking huge, slow missile, based on 60’s/70’s tech, that has zero stealth capabilities, flying over flat open ocean, targeting warships that have at least relatively modern air and point defense systems? Yup, obsolete. Desperately so.

            Look at what peer or near peer navies are fielding for long range ASuW missiles, and the air defense systems it’s supposed to defeat, and it’s pathetic.

            It’s a capability you trumpet when you wake up one morning and realize you’ve let your ASuW capabilities atrophy to near non-existence…and this is the best you can roll out on short notice.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            As I’ve mentioned before, “There’s no such thing as a Obsolete Weapon, Archaic YES. Obsolete, NO…

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            A two-thousand years old Ballista Talent I with ~57-pound Bolt will still Kill a Modern Soldier at 500-meters, NO matter how much Body Armor he’s/she’s wearing. Or a Ballista Talent III with ~172-pound Bolt will Take-Out a Modern Truck or Low-Flying Helicopter at 1,100-meters…

          • Jon

            Sure, lets send our Navy off to war with peer/near-peer threats armed with heavy hypersonic ASuW missiles, and modern, stealthy ASuW missiles with passive targeting, terminal attack options with missiles that are virtually useless against peer/near-peer threats with modern air/point defense and sensors…because you never know, they might get lucky and get their missiles off before dying. With a double throw of the dice, some of the missiles might actually get through and hit something. You know, that ballista thing…

            It’s Kabuki Theatre, to deflect from the fact our Naval leadership has let our ASuW capabilities atrophy down to almost nothing, to the point we’re going to war with 20-30 year old ineffective missiles. Because that’s the best we’ve got. While they’ve sat on their heinies gutting the Navy with political correctness, building $14 billion dollar carriers and LCSs, while letting the basic building blocks of a modern navy crumble.

            Taiwan, with 24 million people has better weapons than we have, to include hypersonic missiles. We’re talking about buying missiles from Norway, with a population of less than 6 million, because they’re light years more advanced than what we have. Both countries, spend a fraction of what we do on defense/R&D…yet somehow, it’s not even vaguely a priority for our own navy. But hey, in 5-10 years…we might actually be able to field missile systems that only suck a little in comparison. Maybe.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            Another difference is, that European and Asian CEO’s get a “Fixed-Salary” cap on there allowable incomes. No Such Restrictions exist in the United States. Where just signing a Defense Contract, can get you an automatic $10-Million Bonus. Europe, has strict regulations guard against such practices. I think the same practice should be applied hear in the United States, too. But, I doubt that Congress will go alone with the Idea. With the the ~12,000 plus “Lobbying Consortium’s” in WDC. alone…

          • Jon

            You can’t blame industry. The blame is solely on our naval leadership. They’ve been so busy with gold plated ships, BMD, lasers, and railguns et al., they’ve failed to keep the Navy equipped and ready to fight wars today and tomorrow.

          • Secundius

            @ Jon.

            There’s enough blame to go everywhere, the problem is what’s the solution and what do we need to do too correct the problem…

          • old guy

            Did you know that the Tomahawk has the BULLPUP warhead?

          • Secundius

            @ old guy.

            Yes, but you told me that ones before. About a year ago. I don’t recall to Topic of the website, but do remember you mentioning it…

          • old guy

            Well, at least I’m consistent.

          • old guy

            Believe it or not, Supersonic, flat-flying, missiles (unless stealthy) are relatively easy to defeat with any of several Wall of Water(WOW) techniques, such as line charges or shotgun wave raisers. Dahlgren tested some in the ’70s.

    • Marjus Plaku

      Targeting is still the most important aspect of any engagement. Speed and range are not. A few Russian bombers lobbing huge missiles from a distant prayer box and sprinting back to mother Russia and hoping for the best is not going to cut it against the US. Basic information about an operating area is not the same as real time tracking of all players everywhere.

    • Secundius

      @ Jim DiGiacomo.

      Any country DUMB ENOUGH to by merchandise from a county that Virtually Non-Existent Quality Control. Deserves to be SCREWED…

    • KazuakiShimazaki

      To be fair, it does have to be said that the Harpoon is small and those Russian ASMs are large.

  • ShootingtheBreeze

    I’m afraid the Navy might actually go for this. Why would they possibly choose the non-low-observable, possibly more expensive option instead of the NSM. Those three little words: Not Made Here.
    (Yes, I know that most of the missile actually probably *would* be made here in the United States, under the auspices of Raytheon as the US partner. But the weapon is still of Norwegian provenance. And the U.S. military almost always turns down foreign-origin systems, even where they have a big capability, cost, and/or time lead. [Brimstone vs. Hellfire/JAGM, German PzH 2000 vs. the Paladin A7 upgrade, a considerable number of foreign-derived alternatives vs. the LCS, and so on.])
    Maybe this time will be the time the Pentagon swallows its pride and makes the smart, pretty obviously-correct choice. But I won’t be holding my breath.

  • old guy

    Low Class Stupidity

    • Sandy

      now that’s funny!

      • old guy

        HEY,
        Maybe I can resurrect a few of my old TM-76, MACE birds and give them a nuclear cruise missile capability. 1500 mile range, 50 megaton warhead. WOW.

        • Secundius

          @ old guy.

          Don’t you mean Matador? TM-76 was Mace.

          I got a better Idea, put one on a Solar Impulse One. And let it “Putter” around in the sky at 100,000-feet or so. It could conceivably stay up there for years, until the Solar Electrical System starts to fail…

          • old guy

            BOY, What a stickler. Of course you are CORRECT. I was Experimental Aero on TM-61, MATADOR and P.M. on MACE, which wasTM-76, WHICH IS IN MY COMMENT (NOW THAT I HAVE EDITED IT). We had them at Kadena, Okinawa and Bitburg and Zembach, Germany.

          • Secundius

            @ old guy.

            Ahhh Well, Politics…

          • old guy

            None of those ultra-high aspect ratio birds are very good for station keeping.

  • Sandy

    100,000 dollar missile vs. guided 5 inch round and/or 16 inch round….hmmmmm

    • Rob C.

      Sandy, you can’t fit a 5 inch gun on a LCS. That’s the point of this modified LCS.

      • Sandy

        Rob…copy all….my point is the LCS being that close-in to shore should have NGFS capability. 54mm is nice against boat swarms, but the mindset of the military has become “point” targeting rather than anything that gives area suppression and destruction. A five in can do both at a much reduced cost and more rounds for sustainment. Case in point, we wasted millions of dollars during the opening salvos in Bosnia in hitting outhouses that were fitted with fake radar dishes – could have taken them out with a GPS 5 inch round for most of them. While we need missiles that can do the things they do, the costs of hitting the targets, especially low value and troop concentrations, are not worth the cost such as, say, a C/C radar control site. See my point?

      • Secundius

        @ Rob C.

        Why Not? I haven’t found any literature so far, that specifically say’s that a 5-inch can’t be mounted. If a 5-inch modular package fit’s, IT WORK’s. to playjerise a fellow Colleague’s work. “PLUG & PLAY”…

        • Jon

          The hulls aren’t designed to support a 5″. There’s already an identified issue with targeting the 57mm due to hull flexing at higher speeds. Could it be re-designed? Probably…but that would add weight.

          The real issues with upgrading the LCS revolves around weight and available electrical power, not cubes…it’s a 3000t ship that was launched without any margins for future growth in order to attain high speeds. Even the hardware for the current mission packages is requiring re-designs to reduce weight.

          • Rob C.

            That’s what i was actually referencing, thanks for clearing things up Jon.

  • Rob C.

    Too little too late, unless they posed to use this upgrade on the LCS. The missile too big for the LCS. There better with the NSN even if it’s messes up the ship’s low-radar profile. Hellfire missiles there going include are too short range to be effective at longer ranges.

    • Secundius

      @ Rob. C.

      The only way for the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missile to be effective, is to include the AN/APG-78 Longbrow Fire Control Radar. Without the Radar, a you STUCK with is a Hellfire missile that’s Longbow capable. Either the AGM-169 Joint Common Missile or the British Brimstone would be far more effective with Double and Triple the ranges…

      • Rob C.

        I do apologize for having a short incomplete remark. I didn’t mean give the impression about lack of space on both designs. Reports i’ve been reading (not political ones) that had suggested the space was very tight on both hulls.

        I knew about the SD Mk41 style launchers. I wasn’t saying anything in the way that both classes could handle it.

        I wasn’t aware that Tactical types VLS being able fit into both hullsl. I was given the impression from other reports that LCS-1 and LCS-2 weren’t deep enough handle bigger VLS packages. I can’t imagine that Independence Class was able fit many weapons into the modular launch. 8-Tubes unless there going expand that space bit.

        Frigate refit should fix things as far guidance system, if there enough room.

        • Jon

          x

    • Secundius

      @ Rob C.

      The 17-foot “SD” Mk. 41 VLS can easily be mounted into the hull of the LCS-1 class and the 22-foot “Tactical” MK. 41 VLS, too. If you mounted like an 86-deg angle Mortar Tube Launcher. The LCS-2 class can mount both the Standard “SD” and Tactical VLS and mount the Strike version too, if you Angle Mounted the system. Near Vertical is Better than NOTHING…

      • old guy

        A little chest pounding time. 40 years ago, in 1975, we made the FIRST vertical launch off of a moving Navy surface ship and hit the surface target (a barge), Made the cover of Aviation Week. Check it out
        Ship – SES-B
        Missile – SM-2
        Maximum altitude – 19,000 Ft.
        Ship speed – 60 KTS

        • Secundius

          @ old guy.

          I have to look elsewhere, AW&ST only goes back as far as September 2000…

          • old guy

            No way. I’ll look in my stuff to see if I can find it and post it. Meantime, check JANE’s FIGHTING SHIPS’ and Jane’s HOVERCRAFT for more on “World’s Fastest Warship”

          • Secundius

            @ old guy.

            It’s OK, I already found a S#$tload of material. I also forgot that there was a Hull Number to the program. Once I put in the Hull Number, information Started Flowing Out of the Tap. I must spent 4-hours or more, trying to Google the information without the Hull Number. You’d think that SES or Surface Effect Ship, would mean something to Google. Apparently NOT. And Wikipedia , without the Hull Number at least acknowledges there was a program. But, that as far as it goes. You’d think the easier the Information Technology got, the DUMBER the Infrastructure Surrounding the Information Technology GOT…

          • old guy

            If you are interested, you might join the International Hydrofoil Society, which has absorbed the Hovercraft gang. If you’re in the area, we meet, every couple of months, at the Army-Navy Club in Arlington, Va. for, dinner, fun and updates.

  • Pingback: Harpoon Block II RGM-84. - SENZANUBI()